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? 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.
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. In case you didn't know there are several
thousand such people around so that it is not necessary to guess about this.
For some formulations there is also data that the antibodies are not
protective (similar rates of infection among vaccinees and nonvaccinees).
