Here are two questions easily answered by any reader of the newsgroup;
they do not require expertise in molecular biology in general nor in
the immunology of AIDS in particular.
In the exchange below,
(1) which is an attempt to give an answer to the question of what the
antibody response is after vaccination and which is the equivalent of a
shout, such as "nya-nya, can't hear you, you're wrongs, you're wrong,
can't hear you, that's bullshit, nya-nya...(etc.)"?
(a clue: the "nya-nya" writer typically makes it difficult to followw
the dialogue because he does the equivalent of shouting and
interrupting, i.e. inserting his impulsive insults in the midst of his
opponent's responses, in such a way as to obscure what is being
written; this small excerpt dooes not adequately convey the extent of
this disorderly corruption of dialogue)
(2) which statement was written by "John Burgin"?
Further question: even if you had not seen previous examples of "John
Burgin" being shown flatly wrong defiant or evasive upon correction on
some rather mundane points of scientific research, which writer (in the
exchange below) would you trust for a reasoned, informed, and balanced
account of the controversy?
Does "John Burgin" have any critical self-awareness? Does he have any
concept of how much his presentation damages the very cause he
supposedly seeks to advance? I think even Duesenberg would be
embarassed by him.
F. LeFever
In <3639ff30.328356633 at netnews.worldnet.att.net>
johnburgin at worldnet.att.net writes:
- - - - - -(snip) - - - - - - -
>>They are seropositive for the antigens in the vaccine and
seronegative for the
>>antigens not in the vaccine.
>You know, if I close my eyes and read that sentence back really slow
>it starts to sound like a backyard bully taunting someone with yan-ya,
>yan-ya
- - - - - - - (snip) - - - - - - - -
