In <36392ac7.273972053 at netnews.worldnet.att.net>
johnburgin at worldnet.att.net writes:
>>On 29 Oct 1998 03:48:12 GMT, flefever at ix.netcom.com(F. Frank LeFever)
>wrote:
>>>>>>>I've tried to clear away some of the clutter. "John Burgin"
ridiculed
>>the terrm "enhancing antibodies" as unheard of, claimed it could not
be
>>found in a Medline search. Bosch easily found it (400 or so articles
>>used it in title or abstract, and about 10% of these did so in the
>>context of AIDS).
>>>>Whereupon "John Burgin" challenges him ("big boy") to show him some
>>"sites". Is it just a matter of mis-spelling, or is he really so
naive
>>as to think one goes to Medline to find websites? If he means
"cites"
>>(as a vulgar abbreviation for "citations"), why doesn't he ask how to
>>do the Medline search properly and read a few of the articles cited?
"John Burgin" replieds (in part):
>F., I'm not naive enough to waste my time searching through a mountain
>of b.s. for "enhancing" antibodies when medical pathologists who have
>just finished their board exams(successfully I might add) don't recall
>even a question on their exam or reference to such terms. Can't be
>very important now can it?
Can't be a very rigorous board exam. May be adequate for the basics of
clinical practice, but evidently not for cutting edge of research (not
even cutting edge, given that one review article was published in 1982,
if I recall correctly). Maybe you do not pick your associates wisely,
if they are so ignorant of current literature. Well, no, maybe you do
pick them wisely, for your narrow purpose: finding someone on your own
level, unable to criticize your obvious lack of critical thinking or
objective reading.
On the other hand, maybe these board-certified professionals are
fictions. Either deliberate fictions (i.e. lies) or "all in your
head".
F. LeFever
