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
>>Marnix Bosch
