On 2 Nov 1998 20:36:17 GMT, carlton at walleye.ccbr.umn.edu (Carlton
Hogan) wrote:
>In article <363a015d.328914173 at netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
> <johnburgin at worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>On Fri, 30 Oct 1998 09:58:55 -0700, marnix at u.washington.edu (Marnix L.
>>Bosch) wrote:
>>>>>In article <363928d8.273477005 at netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
>>>johnburgin at worldnet.att.net wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 29 Oct 1998 16:46:20 -0700, marnix at u.washington.edu (Marnix L.
>>>> Bosch) wrote:
>>>>>>> >The point you were trying to make was that presence of antibodies
>>>> >signified protection. You were shown to be wrong. Anything else you can't
>>>> >explain ?
>>>>>>>> Marnix, Marnix, Marnix. What have I been shown wrong for?
>>>>>>see above
>>I repeat, where have I been wrong? I said that you can't have it both
>>ways. You can't use the immunity defense when things work and forget
>>about it when things don't. I repeat, what will the HIV serologic
>>status be for a person "immunized" against "a" strain of HIV?
>>I really don't have the time for this crap anymore
Then quit.. I just keep
>correcting you so that, god forbid, some vulnerable, just-tested-
>positive person doesn't stumble in to this group and hear all these
>lies unanswered.
Now, that's exactly the same reason I stay on, to protect them from
you.
>>I will make this brief:
>1.Antibodies are to antigen, not to whole microorganisms. There is not
>"a" HIVantibody, but rather Abs to gp120, gp41, p24, p17 etc. etc.
>>2. Abs are not the be-all and end-all of the immune system - in the case
>of HIV (and most other obligate intercellulars) cell mediated
>immunity is much more critical.
>>3. Nobody has ever been immunized with "a" strain of HIV. Vaccines
>use recombinantly created antigen, or stripped down denatured HIV,
>both with a variety of adjuvants. Nobody has ever been inoculated
>with whole HIV (living or dead) as the risk is simply too high.
That wasn't what I call "brief". Just "uncle" would have sufficed.
>>Take your meds.
Not me, no sir. jb
>>Carlton
