On 29 Oct 1998 03:48:12 GMT, flefever at ix.netcom.com(F. Frank LeFever)
wrote:
>>>I've tried to clear away some of the clutter. "John Burgin" ridiculed
>the terrm "enhancing antibodies" as unheard of, claimed it could not be
>found in a Medline search. Bosch easily found it (400 or so articles
>used it in title or abstract, and about 10% of these did so in the
>context of AIDS).
>>Whereupon "John Burgin" challenges him ("big boy") to show him some
>"sites". Is it just a matter of mis-spelling, or is he really so naive
>as to think one goes to Medline to find websites? If he means "cites"
>(as a vulgar abbreviation for "citations"), why doesn't he ask how to
>do the Medline search properly and read a few of the articles cited?
F., I'm not naive enough to waste my time searching through a mountain
of b.s. for "enhancing" antibodies when medical pathologists who have
just finished their board exams(successfully I might add) don't recall
even a question on their exam or reference to such terms. Can't be
very important now can it? Ever read the book by Stephen Hawking, "A
Brief History of Time". Make any sense to you, big boy? Understand
String Theory, smart guy? Or, is it more likely that you spend your
entire life smelling like the lab you grow old in and don't have a
clue about anything outside of your lab coat. Page 10, first
paragraph. jb
>>F. LeFever
>>(v. infra)
>>In <36367faa.99068159 at netnews.worldnet.att.net>
>johnburgin at worldnet.att.net writes:
>>> - - - - - - - - - -(snip) - - - - - - - -
>>>>> 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
>>>>>>
