On 30 Oct 98 08:06:30 EDT, holzmr01 at mcrcr6.med.nyu.edu (ROBERT S.
HOLZMAN) wrote:
>In article <3638fa0f.261497980 at netnews.worldnet.att.net>, johnburgin at worldnet.att.net writes:
>> On 28 Oct 98 19:22:36 EDT, holzmr01 at mcrcr6.med.nyu.edu (ROBERT S.
>> HOLZMAN) wrote:
>>>>>In article <36364960.85168152 at netnews.worldnet.att.net>, johnburgin at worldnet.att.net writes:
>>>> On 27 Oct 1998 17:49:13 GMT, carlton at walleye.ccbr.umn.edu (Carlton
>>>> Hogan) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You are a silly and amazingly ignorant man. In the below you state:
>>>>>>>>>>">If, assuming that you are correct, which I don't believe, that
>>>>>>antibodies do "not" always mean that you have conquered infection, as
>>>>>>I stated before, how can you arbitrarily recommend using them to
>>>>>>signify protection one time(as with prophylactic vaccination against
>>>>>>Hepatitis B and not with HIV? What, please tell me, would an
>>>>>>individual "vaccinated" against HIV present as proof of immunization?
>>>>>>He would be HIV + of course! Again, are these "non-neutralizing"
>>>>>>antibodies in the latter case or neutralizing antibodies in the first
>>>>>>case?"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>They might well be nonneutralizing in both cases. In any event, before you
>>>and your pathologist/biologist friends laugh too hard you might first consider
>>>that while immunization with Hepaititis B surface antigen fragments produce
>>>antibodies and immunity to infection, the ability to produce such antibodies
>>>does not ensure recovery from natural infection, which is what is being
>>>asserted. If you think that hepatitis antibody does enusure recovery then you
>>>might try explaing how chronic hepatitis B occurs.
>>>>> My point was and still is, you can't pick and choose when you want
>> anitbodies to be preventative and when they are not. There's lots of
>> things I can't explain, maybe you can't explain a few either. jb
>>>>>Precisely wrong.
To what?
You and I can't pick and choose but mother nature does.
The problem that I have, and an exponentially growing(thanks to the
www) number of people have is that YOU speak for nature, not nature
for itself. There's an old quote I like to use at times like this:
I do not pretend to know what many ignorant people are sure of.
For
>example, antibodies to pneumococcal capsular polysaccharide are protective
>against pneumococci while antibodies against other components are not.
>Antibodies against group A streptococcal capsule are not while antibodies to
>other coat proteins are. Whether we understand the basis of such protection
>or non protection is beside the point.
No, it is precisely the point.
It is easy to demonstrate
Then what's the big hold up on a vaccine?
>experimentally that some antibodies are protective and others are not and it
>has been demonstrated in many systems over the past century. This, in turn,
>demonstrates that the statement that the presence of antibodies signals
>immunity or "has always [prior to the advent of HIV] been interpreted to
>indicate immunity to [or resistance to or recovery from ] infection" is just
>plain wrong and ignorant to boot.
I can promise you, if I am ignorant and wrong, or either of the two,
this world is in serious trouble for I know hundreds(with an "S") of
physicians, dentists, nurses and other medical personnel that do not
know enough about AIDS or HIV to speak to a second grade class,
parochial or public(in case quality of education is a question).jb
>>
