On 29 Oct 1998 04:09:56 GMT, flefever at ix.netcom.com(F. Frank LeFever)
wrote:
>Again, I've cleared away some of the clutter (a very primitive form of
>obscurantism). Someone documents that "enhancing antibody" is indeed a
>widely used term in the scientific literature.
So is the word "ain't" in literature, but it is just as out of place
in meaningful discussion of AIDS, and you know it.
>>Obscuring the point:
No, you are obscuring the obvious, HIV doesn't cause AIDS and throwing
around a "bunch" of pseudoscientific terms doesn't make your argument
more credible. Show me the paper boy, HIV causes AIDS. THE PAPER!
Where is it?
>(1) "John Burgin" inserts his response IN THE MIDDLE OF A CITATION OF A
>SPECIFIC ARTICLE (making it dificult to spot; v. infra).
>(2) He demands to know what this has to do with the "AIDS=HIV issue",
It has nothing to do with the HIV= AIDS dogma
>conveniently ignoring the fact that the person supplying this citation
>and many others (I snipped most) specifically
and conveniently
said he was citing only
>articles not dealing with that issue because they might be less
>controversial (i.e. making it easier for "jb" to accept the idea tht
>this is a legitimate term, in widespread use).
Maybe you want us to believe that enhancing antibodies should be
accepted, say, in a metaphysical sense rather than purely didactly in
the strict m.b. terminology. I can accept anything if you say that it
"might" be applicable in a certain situation somewhere to somebody or
thing, but not in this AIDS argument.
>>The point is, his bluff was called, he was shown to be just plain
>wrong, and he does not have the grace to admit it.
I haven't been shown wrong about issues that are not germane
>>(n.b.: in another reply to this diatribe against the ignorant
>charlatans who use this nonexistent term, a Medline search found 43
why don't you respond, as your pals obviously cannot, to my question
about the HIV=AIDS parallel to spontaneous generation(clue, it's not
the same as spontaneous combustion).
>articles using the term in the context of HIV...)
At last count there were several hundred thousand worthless references
to HIV in the literature, so what does your comment prove?
>>(key points of this embarassing exchange are excerpted below)
>>F. LeFever
>>>In <3637b6bc.178714401 at netnews.worldnet.att.net>
>johnburgin at worldnet.att.net writes:
>>>- - - - - - - (snip) - - - - - - - - - - - -
>>>>> Not only are you a pompous ass, you're a defensive pompous ass.
>Talk
>>>> to me, us, about "enhancing" antibodies. A few of my other
>ignorant
>>>> medical colleagues, including 2 board certified medical pathologist
>>>> and a molecular biologist are laughing their asses off at your
>>>> bullshit. Do you really believe that because you say something in
>>>> scientific jargon that people believe it? If they can't understand
>>>> what you are saying, and they don't know who you are, why should
>they
>>>> believe you? Come on, talk to us all, o.k., just me about
>"enhancing"
>>>> antibodies. Make your case. No references to medline searches.
>They
>>>> don't bring up the term.
>>>>>(ABOVE: JOHNBURGIN'S RIDICULE OF SOMEONE'S USE OF THE TERM "ENHANCING
>ANTIBODIES)
>>(BELOW, ONE OF THE RESPONSES DOCUMENTING ITS WIDESPREAD USE AND JB'S
>INSERTION OF A MISLEADING REPLY IN THE MIDDLE OF A CITATION)
>>>>>Just for you and your colleagues information:
>>>>>>Neutralizing and enhancing activities of human respiratory syncytial
>virus-specific
>>>antibodies.
>>Thank you, now please explain their role in the HIV=AIDS issue. jb
>>> Clin Diagn Lab Immunol. 1996 May;3(3):280-6.
>>> PMID: 8705669; UI: 96336082.
>- - - - - - - -(snip) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>>>>Enhancing antibody: a novel component of the immune response.
>>> Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1982 Jun;79(12):3828-32.
>>> PMID: 6179088; UI: 82247944.
>>>>>>This ignores the extensive literature associated with HIV and
>associated
>>>retroviruses where much of the recent work on ehhancing antibodies
>has been carried
>>>out. However, I thought the references to other fields of research
>might be less
>>>controversial.
>>>>>>Andrew Walley
Wa, wa, wa, Walley, I'm so, so, so, pr,pr, proud of yo, yo, you! Yes,
I will ignore the extensive literature(I'll bet it's not that
extensive or we'd hear about it on the six o'clock news just like
David HO HO's viral toad theory. I wonder if he'd take his own
cocktail therapy regimen or just put a bullet in his head. It's so
easy to recommend something for others that you wouldn't dream of
doing yourself(OH well, they'd die anyway, I can just hear him
saying). Not if they listened to someone else who wasn't interested
in a Nobel Prize.jb
>>>>>>
