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". That is YOUR claim. In fact, a healthy CTL
response is probably necessary to counter HIV. Antibodies are clearly
not protective (with the possible exception of anti-p24), as one of
the hallmarks of HIV infection is hypergammaglobulinemia.
Once again: antibodies, especially in the case of viruses DO NOT mean
you have conquered infection. Several conditions spring immediately to
mind: herpes viruses, hepatitis, syphilis.
I no longer have time for your inane ignorance. I will correct you on
misstatements of fact, but in consideration for others trying to use
Usenet in a productive way so I will not keep this mind-bendingly dumb
threads going.
Carlton
In article <3634fdab.238354 at netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
<johnburgin at worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>On 26 Oct 1998 16:50:50 GMT, carlton at walleye.ccbr.umn.edu (Carlton
>Hogan) wrote:
>>>In article <362faf53.1398597755 at netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
>> <johnburgin at worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>>On 22 Oct 1998 18:29:23 GMT, carlton at walleye.ccbr.umn.edu (Carlton
>>>Hogan) wrote:
>>>>>>>In article <362f74e4.1383636237 at netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
>>>> <johnburgin at worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>>>>On 22 Oct 1998 16:29:02 GMT, carlton at walleye.ccbr.umn.edu (Carlton
>>>>>Hogan) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>In article <362e66ea.1314511186 at netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
>>>>>> <johnburgin at worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>On 21 Oct 1998 16:41:33 GMT, carlton at walleye.ccbr.umn.edu (Carlton
>>>>>>>Hogan) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In article <362dd6f4.1277652441 at netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
>>>>>>>> <johnburgin at worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>On 16 Oct 1998 17:27:18 GMT, carlton at walleye.ccbr.umn.edu (Carlton
>>>>>>>>>Hogan) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In article <3623d68e.622091374 at netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
>>>>>>>>>> <johnburgin at worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>was so poisonous, or caused AIDS, how could pairing the same dose
>>>>>>>>>>>>with another nuke *improve* clinical outcome?
>>>>>>>>>>>Beats me, maybe some kind of reductionist synergism, like mixing two
>>>>>>>>>>>highly toxic poisons, sodium with Chlorine, to make table salt.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You have aspired to your loftiest apex of genius yet. Please provide
>>>>>>>>>>any plausible chemical reaction through which this could occur.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>2Na + Cl2 > 2 NaCl , um, that was what you wanted, wasn't it? jb
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You are either the one of the stupidest persons extant, or the most
>>>>>>>>disingenuous.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Neither, apparently you don't have a sense of humor....it was a joke.
>>>>>>>Anyway, humor is lost on even morons(or is that especially?)jb
>>>>>>>>>>>>You may call it humor: I call it misdirection. You claimed
>>>>>No, I didn't claim anything of the sort, you said that I did. I was
>>>>>merely making a bit of highly sarcastic humor that apparently went
>>>>>several miles above your puny but thick skull. No. I don't have the
>>>>>foggiest idea why what you claim is happening, but, why don't you
>>>>>recommend this thought, just for the hell of it, to your think tank.
>>>>>It couldn't hurt, they thrown everything into this equation but El
>>>>>Nino.
>>>>>>>>OK so you are now sliming your way away from your claim that the
>>>>increase in survival seen in combination therapy
>>>I simply have tried to make a point, which is apparently too obvious
>>>for you to comprehend, that is, there is no logical explanation why
>>>mixing two poisons together would produce a result that treats a
>>>disease favorably,
>>>>If the two compounds are just toxins, and have no therapeutic benefit,
>>the above would hold. Thank you. You just reinforced my implict
>>statement: that the only way to reconcile the data is if antiretrovirals
>>do have benefit. You do a lot of blowing smoke, but you have not
>>responded to my request, of at least a month back, to explain the
>>ispecific flaws in the randomized clinical trial of antiretrovirals.
>>the simple fact that you don't like the results is not adequate.
>>If you think all antiretroviral trials are somehow fatally flawed,
>>explain their limitations.
>>>>And do have some backbone. At least support the statements you make
>>in the last week or so, rather than going off on wild tangents, trying
>>to misdirect attention from the fact you have made outrageous, scientifically
>>non-justified claims.
>>>>i>a disease which is found 90% of the time in a
>>>"subset" of mostly men(young gay males between the ages of 18 and 44)
>>>and IV Drug users. The other 10% are the poor unfortunates that have
>>>been labeled with the HIV+ tag and are sentenced to death, a premature
>>>death, by taking drugs that are unnecessary.
>>>>And the data supporting this is ...where?
>Read Inventing the AIDS Virus, Peter Duesberg, PhD, Regnery Press.
>>>>> When you can tell me why
>>>HIV+ individuals without the use of your drugs are living well past
>>>the ever extending latent phase of the HIV to AIDS timetable,
>>>>Distribution? Standard deviation? ANY DATA AT ALL? I thought not.
>Would a thousand people be considered signifigant to you? Two
>thousand? http://www.heal-la.org/>>>>> I will
>>>tell you what the answer is to your question concerning the
>>>combination effect being "successful" in your opinion. Same argument
>>>as before, talk to me about "non-neutralizing" antibodies. Come on,
>>>I'm listening.
>>>>You are avoiding the point again. _YOU_CLAIMED_THAT_ANTIBODIES_MEAN_
>>YOU_HAVE_CONQUERED_INFECTION. I never made the syntacticly garbled,
>>nonsensical statement about "neutralizing" antibodies you are asking me
>>to defend. do you, or do you not believe that presence of antibodies
>>mean you have necessarily conquered infection? I have asked this
>>question a dozen times of you. The more you delay and blow smoke,
>>the more obvious it is to everybody you have no idea what you are talking
>>about.
>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?
>>>>> is due to some
>>>>"chemical reaction" that causes two drugs which have toxicities
>>>>separately to be less toxic together. Well then, if these drugs
>>>>do not attack HIV, how can you explain the reduction in deaths
>>>>>Do you remember spontaneous generation?
>>>>What does this babble mean?
>Obviously you don't. And you thus don't have a clue as to why the
>scientific method with critical peer review was established in the
>first place.
>>>>>Your logic in the previous
>>>sentence is empirical at best,
>>>>Thank you. I like being grounded in empirical fact.
>Empirical fact, like global warming caused by cfc's being released
>into the atmosphere causing global catastrophic atmospheric changes?
>Like the hole in the ozone layer causing all of the new skin cancers
>being detected? Junk science.
>>>>>and at worst life threatening. Give
>>>all of the options to the poor schmucks diving into the cesspool of
>>>drugs.
>>>>Does this mean anything? I don't prescribe drugs to anyone. I am a researcher.
>of what, new ways to rip off the government of my money?
>>try and keep up.
>>>?
>>>>>>>>BTW: I don't work for a "think tank". Perhaps my citations of the
>>>>literature confuse you.
>>>>>Perhaps, and then I could cut and paste things that might, might I
>>>say, impress you also. I don't even believe you're who YOU say you
>>>are.
>>>>That's a laugh, from an anonymous troll. My life is an open book. I use
>>my real name, and real affiliation. And you are..?
>Guess?
>>>>> It's relatively common, both in academia
>>>>and medicine. If you had a glancing awareness of either field, perhaps
>>>>you might know this. The inanity of your statements (like that
>>>>antibodies mean you have necessarily countered an infection)
>>>>convince me that it is *highly* unlikely that you are a dentist,
>>>>as you claim. Perhaps a dental hygienist?
>>>>>Perhaps, or a garbage collector or a nuclear physicist....
>>>>Does this babble have any relevance? Are you now backing from from your claim
>>that you are a dentist?
>I might be, does that make the dental profession sound a little more
>scientific?
>>>>>>>>I also have no idea what you mean by "they thrown everything into this
>>>>equation but El Nino."
>>>Figure of speech
>>>>Meaning what?
>El Nino is being blamed for everything, why not AIDS.
>>>>> Besides the grammatical lapse, I have absolutely
>>>>no clue as to what you are babbling about. We do clinical trials.
>I don't prescribe drugs to anyone. I am a researcher(you said that
>earlier, now you're a hyprocrit again)
>>>>>Does that include placebo trials, are do you simply try to see which
>>>drug incapacitates the patient the quickest.'
>>>>A quick review of the literature can give you information on the research we
>>have done. You do know how to use MEDLINE?
>I don't prescribe drugs to anyone. I am a researcher(ibid) jb
>>>>Carlton
>
