In article <36364960.85168152 at netnews.worldnet.att.net>, johnburgin at worldnet.att.net writes:
> 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?"
>>
They might well be nonneutralizing in both cases. In any event, before you
and your pathologist/biologist friends laugh too hard you might first consider
that while immunization with Hepaititis B surface antigen fragments produce
antibodies and immunity to infection, the ability to produce such antibodies
does not ensure recovery from natural infection, which is what is being
asserted. If you think that hepatitis antibody does enusure recovery then you
might try explaing how chronic hepatitis B occurs.
