On Fri, 30 Oct 1998 10:11:27 -0700, marnix at u.washington.edu (Marnix L.
Bosch) wrote:
>In article <36392c43.274351805 at netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
>johnburgin at worldnet.att.net wrote:
>>> On 29 Oct 1998 03:38:12 GMT, flefever at ix.netcom.com(F. Frank LeFever)
>> wrote:
>>>> >
>> >This is worth repeating.
>> >
>> >I've trimmed some of the fat so Bosch's respnse to "John Burgin" is not
>> >obscured. It appears that not only is "John Burgin" (real name??)
>> >ignorant of some basic terms, but (if we can believe him) so are his
>> >alleged medical colleagues and his molecular biologist (apologies
>> they don't need apologies, they agree with me that you're full of it
>> to
>> >them if he misrepresents them). Moreover, they do not know how to
>> >write a good
>> Oh, so you're the big kahuna of medline because you can drag up a few
>> obscure and TOTALLY UNIMPORTANT articles about "Enhancing Antibodies"?
>> Tell me, is that all you know?
>> Medline search strategy. Bosch wrote one and found ample
>> >documentation of widespread use of a term "John Burgin" had ridiculed
>>>> and, continues to ridicule
>> >as unheard of...
>> because it isn't worth fooling with. jb
>>Actually, it is. While I feel that currently in the efforts to make an
>HIV-1 vaccine, enhancing antibodies are the least of our concern, they
>should not be completely ignored. The most obvious example being Dengue
>fever, where preexisting antibodies (from an earlier infection that is
>generally nonpathogenic) enhance uptake of Dengue virus into macrophages
>resulting in enhanced systemic replication of the virus and ensuing dengue
>hemorragic fever and possibly dengue shock syndrome.
>>Marnix Bosch
Marnix, again, I don't know what's come over you and Holzman, this
genuine show of professionalism is overwhelming. Thank you so very
much for being civil. Now, on to other things:
Your statement, While I feel that currently in the efforts to make an
>>HIV-1 vaccine, enhancing antibodies are the least of our concern, they
>>should not be completely ignored.
May have some validity, but not with HIV or AIDS. Until two
scientists of "equal" stature, such as Peter Duesberg and Robert(I'm
still getting royalties anyway) Gallo can debate on 60 minutes, or
Crossfire or Dateline or MSNBC or MTV or any place you think it would
be a neutral site, can break this argument down into pieces small
enough for the end users to understand, trivialities, and side shows
will prevail on your end. You remind me of THE Church, trying to
discredit Gallileo for asserting that the Earth wasn't the center of
the universe and having to fess up 300 years later that he, Gallileo
was right, and they, THE Church were wrong. Gallileo didn't have the
internet. You know, I know, we all know that this ain't gonna happen.
Duesberg is censored and ostracized. jb
