In article <363f98b9.88372784 at netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
<johnburgin at worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>On 2 Nov 1998 19:37:52 GMT, carlton at walleye.ccbr.umn.edu (Carlton
>Hogan) wrote:
>>>In article <36367faa.99068159 at netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
>> <johnburgin at worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>>On Tue, 27 Oct 1998 17:11:36 -0700, marnix at u.washington.edu (Marnix L.
>>>Bosch) wrote:
>>>>>>>In article <36364960.85168152 at netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
>>>>johnburgin at worldnet.att.net wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 27 Oct 1998 17:49:13 GMT, carlton at walleye.ccbr.umn.edu (Carlton
>>>>> Hogan) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>> >You are a silly and amazingly ignorant man. In the below you state:
>>>>> >
>>>>> >">If, assuming that you are correct, which I don't believe, that
>>>>> >>antibodies do "not" always mean that you have conquered infection, as
>>>>> >>I stated before, how can you arbitrarily recommend using them to
>>>>> >>signify protection one time(as with prophylactic vaccination against
>>>>> >>Hepatitis B and not with HIV? What, please tell me, would an
>>>>> >>individual "vaccinated" against HIV present as proof of immunization?
>>>>> >>He would be HIV + of course! Again, are these "non-neutralizing"
>>>>> >>antibodies in the latter case or neutralizing antibodies in the first
>>>>> >>case?"
>>>>> >
>>>>> >Your stupidity is amazing. I never have said that I "reccomend using them
>>>>> >to signify protection".
>>>>> I never said that YOU did. You don't treat patients, remember?
>>>>> Not only are you a pompous ass, you're a defensive pompous ass. Talk
>>>>> to me, us, about "enhancing" antibodies. A few of my other ignorant
>>>>> medical colleagues, including 2 board certified medical pathologist
>>>>> and a molecular biologist are laughing their asses off at your
>>>>> bullshit. Do you really believe that because you say something in
>>>>> scientific jargon that people believe it? If they can't understand
>>>>> what you are saying, and they don't know who you are, why should they
>>>>> believe you? Come on, talk to us all, o.k., just me about "enhancing"
>>>>> antibodies. Make your case. No references to medline searches. They
>>>>> don't bring up the term.
>>>>>>>>PubMed search: enhancing antibodies: 421 hits; enhancing antibodies AND
>>>>HIV: 43 hits.
>>>>>>>>> MY stupidity is amazing?
>>>>>>>>Indeed
>>>Give us a few sites to get started, big boy. jb
>>>>Can't you just be a man, and admit you are wrong? Such realistic humility
>>is the first step to learning.
>Can't you just agree to a one on one debate with someone like Rasnick
>or Duesberg that will cut your balls off?jb
Steve Harris, Bob Holzman, George Carter and I have all agreed to debate
Duesberg, making the offers over a five-six year period. Nobody
has shown up.
Carlton
