On 14 Oct 1998 02:24:34 GMT, flefever at ix.netcom.com(F. Frank LeFever)
wrote:
>In <362177ef.466773006 at netnews.worldnet.att.net>
>johnburgin at worldnet.att.net writes:
>>>>On Fri, 25 Sep 1998 11:27:34 +1000, Leonard Pattenden
>><ddlpatte at mailbox.uq.edu.au> wrote:
>>>>>On 24 Sep 1998 johnburgin at worldnet.att.net wrote:
>>> clinicians who can't
>>>> understand why an HIV positive test shouldn't confer immunity like
>>>> every other disease
>>>>I'm sorry, I don't have the patience to trace out the long, twisting
>lines of authorship in this embarassing thread (much more heat than
>light, much ad hominem, rare citations), but this statement caught my
>eye. I asked my gastroenterologist if my having antibodies to
>helicobacter pylori was a source of hope. I don't know if he
>understands why, but he knows it does not mean immunity from gastric
>ulcers. I woonder if there are not a few other diseases for which a
>positive test does not "confer" (imply??) immunity?
think about what you are implying. If we cannot confer immunity from
a positive antibody test, then we cannot confer that serological
confirmation of protection from Hepatitis B is evidenced by a positive
status. Catch 22. I asked the question, gosh it seems like years ago
now, in this newsgroup about "non-neutralizing" antibodies. Maybe you
could ask your G.E. about them. The first step for him would be to
"understand" before he "knows". Of course we could completely
dessicrate this entire HIV testing myth by breaking the tests(ELISA or
Western Blot) into "exactly what they are assaying. The target is not
HIV but protein bands, which, coincidentally(?) are found in a number
of things in life.
As far as "a few other diseases for which a positive test does not
"confer" immunity, might I suggest that we simply seem to pick and
choose whatever fits our disease model. How scientific! jb
>>F. LeFever
