On Thu, 29 Oct 1998 23:37:14 -0800, "Charles P. McCarthy, P.M.D.
(Hon)" <Pandoc at jps.net> wrote:
>johnburgin at worldnet.att.net wrote:
>>> 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.
>>Actually John,
>>It's just the beginning.
>>Burton and the boys showed dendritic cells passing
>virus to T-cells in vitro even in the presence of
>excess neutralizing antibody. It produced infective
>progeny.
>>Single amino acid mutations in viral glycoprotein
>produce viral escape.
>>Apototic debris containing viral DNA escapes
>macrophage destruction and produces infectious
>virions within phagocytes.
>>There is no "good" immunological response to HIV.
>>You must defeat the fundamental pathological determinant.
>>PANDOC
Answer my question. What will the serologic status be of a person
immunized against HIV(you pick the strain). Don't be evasive. jb
