In article <3638fa0f.261497980 at netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
johnburgin at worldnet.att.net wrote:
> On 28 Oct 98 19:22:36 EDT, holzmr01 at mcrcr6.med.nyu.edu (ROBERT S.
> HOLZMAN) wrote:
>> >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.
> >
> My point was and still is, you can't pick and choose when you want
> anitbodies to be preventative and when they are not. There's lots of
> things I can't explain, maybe you can't explain a few either. jb
The point you were trying to make was that presence of antibodies
signified protection. You were shown to be wrong. Anything else you can't
explain ?
Marnix Bosch
