On Thu, 29 Oct 1998 16:46:20 -0700, marnix at u.washington.edu (Marnix L.
Bosch) wrote:
>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, Marnix, Marnix. What have I been shown wrong for? You still,
after all this time haven't explained why we, the medical
profession(physicians, dentists, nurses, PA's, laboratory technicians,
etc-except you, knothead) depend upon an explanation for immunity upon
antibody formation, in general if that makes you feel any better, and
HIV does not produce an effective antigen that results in the body
producing an effective antibody complex to respond to the alien
entity. The only excuse you and your asshole buddies keep using is
mutation. I'll tell you what's mutating, your explanation. Keep it
up, it gets better and better. Enhancing antibodies, enchanting
antibodies, exquisite antibodies, call them what you will, it's still
b.s. Please answer at least one of my questions without a sarcastic
nihilistic comment, what will the antibody status be for an individual
"immunized" against the HIV retrovirus? End of story. I'm sure you
recommend cocktail therapy for even those people. You're sick.jb
>>Marnix Bosch
