On 30 Oct 98 07:58:42 EDT, holzmr01 at mcrcr6.med.nyu.edu (ROBERT S.
HOLZMAN) wrote:
>In article <363928d8.273477005 at netnews.worldnet.att.net>, johnburgin at worldnet.att.net writes:
>>>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.
>>We? What you mean we, dental person
you see, just as I was telling Wally boy, you DO have quite a nasty
habit of using ad hominem attacks, you're also much more vulgar which
translates into a startling revelation of your vocabulary.
? So far as I can see the only reason you
>depend on a theory of antibody-based immunity is that you don't know any
>better. The rest of us have considerably more sophisticated understanding of
>the system.
Oh, I see, so, who else has the wisdom of OZ, that is besides "us".
The system? You mean, molecular biology, biochemistry, immunology.
Just who is the "rest of us"?
>>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
>>>>>They are seropositive for the antigens in the vaccine and seronegative for the
>antigens not in the vaccine.
You know, if I close my eyes and read that sentence back really slow
it starts to sound like a backyard bully taunting someone with yan-ya,
yan-ya
In case you didn't know there are several
>thousand
Now, we're back to an old issue, statistical relevance. Are these
people relevant, or are you simply being cute again? the folks at
Reappraising AIDS have been saying over and over that plenty of people
exist who are presenting AIDS symptoms and are HIV negative. This is,
excuse me, what you are speaking of, isn't it?
such people around so that it is not necessary to guess about this.
>For some formulations
Give me a break!
there is also data that the antibodies are not
>protective (similar rates of infection among vaccinees and nonvaccinees).
Please be advised that all of this is being stored away for future
discreditation of future hypocrisy from you cretins. jb
>
