On Fri, 30 Oct 1998 09:58:55 -0700, marnix at u.washington.edu (Marnix L.
Bosch) wrote:
>In article <363928d8.273477005 at netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
>johnburgin at worldnet.att.net wrote:
>>> On Thu, 29 Oct 1998 16:46:20 -0700, marnix at u.washington.edu (Marnix L.
>> Bosch) wrote:
>>> >The point you were trying to make was that presence of antibodies
>> >signified protection. You were shown to be wrong. Anything else you can't
>> >explain ?
>>>> Marnix, Marnix, Marnix. What have I been shown wrong for?
>>see above
I repeat, where have I been wrong? I said that you can't have it both
ways. You can't use the immunity defense when things work and forget
about it when things don't. I repeat, what will the HIV serologic
status be for a person "immunized" against "a" strain of HIV?
>>> 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.
>>Who said antibodies to HIV-1 are not effective ?
I'm saying they are alive and doing well. It's just what you
genocidal scientists do with the person who is HIV + that is
incorrect.
The mere fact that HIV-1
>is mutating away from
This is beginning to sound like you're taking a microbiological
spacewalk.
the effects of the produced antibodies shows them to
>be effective. Just not 100%, for various reasons. Let me know if you're
>interested ?
>>> 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
>>I would not recommend antivirals for anyone
Thank you
who has only an antibody test
>to demonstrate HIV status.
Not everyone agrees with you. I repeat, pregnant HIV + women are
being "treated", as are their children in the womb and for a while
thereafter, with AZT. They are not necessarily AIDS patients. Care
to dispute this? You'll lose, I'll definitely cite the reference on
that, if you'll apologize immediately thereafter. Also, since my
credibility as a medical health person has been questioned(repeatedly
ad nauseum) you might ask the CDC to confirm the recommended protocol
of AZT for individuals "possibly" exposed through accidental needle
stick or exposure to HIV contaminated blood or sputum. No HIV +
status even required there.
As for your question: such a person would have
>antibodies to the viral proteins contained in the vaccine prep. This could
>label him/her seropositive.
Thank you
Various proposals are under discussion as to
>how to distinguish this status from true seropositivity resulting from
>infection.
Yes, I'm sure we at Reappraising AIDS and HEAL would love to know how
that is going to be done.
All vaccines in clinical trials to date (that I'm aware off)
>use only selected HIV-1 antigens
But, er, don't they "keep on mutating". What's a fella to do?
, mostly envelope.
Just the envelope or is that your way of saying that this is just like
every other garden variety retrovirus, or virus for that matter?
Thus immunized
>individuals would not be seropositive for HIV-1 but only show reactivity
>to a limited subset of HIV-1 antigens.
I'm sure THAT will make the poor schmucks being immunized feel a lot
better! I can see it now. We're going to immunize you but we don't
know if we are immunizing you against the strain of HIV that you may
be exposed to, so BE CAREFUL. Also, since you will now be HIV +, you
don't have to worry about getting a job in a hospital, at a blood bank
or procuring life or health insurance because we know how open minded
these institutions are to speculation.
But, I do appreciate the "kinder" tone of your chastisement this time.
Thank you for being somewhat civil. jb
>>Marnix Bosch
