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
Marnix Bosch
