On 4 Nov 1998 20:55:01 GMT, carlton at walleye.ccbr.umn.edu (Carlton
Hogan) wrote:
>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.
It's one thing to "agree" amongst yourselves, it's quite another to
make the offer in front of the scientific community. You guys(except
George) are pathetic.jb
>>Carlton
