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
