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
