JGC claims to be a biology, immunologist, and molecular biologist. He said he is employed in all three capacities. That's fine, but he also has implied that he is board certified and legally licensed in all three titles. Will the real JGC please stand up? I have no doubt the boy serves under some kind of professional capacity here, however, he's certified and licensed in all three? Here's why I question that he's definitely not licensed as an immunologist.

I said that immune cells primarily use free radicals (e.g. reactive oxygen and nitrogen species) to kill pathogens. I used statements from a medical doctor who said this, first of all, as a cross-examined witness. And the medical doctor could just as well claim employment all three fields too, so whoopti-do? (So could I for that matter.)

Secondly, he wanted a reference from a journal article. Can this guy cross the street unless he reads that it's safe in some reference? I wasn't going to give it to him, but then I obliged and gave him one - from a basic immunology textbook:

From "Basic Immunology" by Abbas and Lichtman, 2001, p. 279 under the definition of reactive oxygen species (ROI):

"Highly reactive metabolites of oxygen, including superoxide anion, hydroxl radical, and hydrogen peroxide, which are produced by activated phagocytes. ROIs are used by the phagocytes to form oxyhalides that damage ingested bacteria. ROIs may also be released from the cells and promote inflammatory responses or cause tissue damage".

Vindicates and proves everything I said. But like a child JGC continues to say "Nah-uhhh!" Why not fess up? I mean, if you're an immunologist, you should know this basic information right? But as a matter of fiat, it's wrong, wrong, wrong!!! How professional! REAL professionals know, in fact, that efficiency is nice but it's more important to be academically courteous and admit when they are wrong when they know it.

So...gee I don't know, is JGC really an immunologist? How can you be, JGC, when you STILL don't understand that immune cells primarily kill through free radicals and that this method is most certainly NOT confused with cytokines or cytokine storms? The reference certainly proves it beyond doubt. Moreover, you said if the evidence was strong enough you'd accept it. Well, the evidence is strong enough coming from a basic college textbook and medical doctor. I just wanted others to be aware of your deceptive practices and unprofessional courtesy. If you admit ignorance in the matter, thus reestablishing your level of professionalism, then we're on friendly terms again. Otherwise I want others to see there's no convincing you in ANY area if you can't accept the free radical thing.

I'm sorry dude but immune cells primarily kill by free radicals: fact! You certainly don't have to believe it? But as an immunologist I certainly would expect you to! This is like a mathematician denying that primes exist! So will the real JGC please stand up? You're certainly not an immunologist.

Are you?

I've never claimed nor implied that I was either board certified or licensed, Patrick--who are you confusing me with?

"JGC claims to be a biology, immunologist, and molecular biologist."

Do you have a quote, or is this just another strawman churned out to get attention?

No, but then again, I'm not the one that claimed to be.

I suppose it is a little about attention. But so what? But fine, here ya go:

">>Once again, I've never claimed to be a physicist. I have been employed as a research biologist/immunologist/molecul​ar biologist for more than a quarter century, and I do read journal; articles on a weekly if not daily basis (depending on the amount of my other work) just as other professionals (an IT manager or auto mechanic for example) keeps abreast of the state of the art in their own respective fields."

<link>

He has implied that he is boarded certified and licensed as all three with the very titles.

You have not explicitly so claimed directly but you have definitely implied. Apparently I have you confused with the other JGC who has said:

">>I have been employed as a research biologist/immunologist/molecul​ar biologist for more than a quarter century

If I've misunderstood anything here, it's you're own damn fault as the root cause for playing this semantic game of appealing to yourself as authority, implying you bear three titles, simply because you've done research.

If you bare all three titles, you have to be legally certified and recognized by the state that you are in fact licensed as a biologist, molecular biologist, and immunologist - again to bear those titles, not simply to work in each field.

Doing research in the fields doesn't mean you ARE those things like you're trying to claim by implication. If this was true, you know, I've helped with (and therefore "done") research in all those fields too!? No lie either. But unlike you, I don't claim to bear those titles.

Here's the deal. If you're a biologist I know you at least have to have a masters or Phd. You claim to have this? Then I believe in order to work in a state bearing these titles, you have to take an exam to get a certification. You're saying you have these? And to be an immunologist, um you have to be freaking doctor Sherlock, either MD or DO. And you have to be licensed and certified. The similar cases apply for molecular biologists.

So, how many degrees do you have and how many licenses? If you're a immunologist, it's quite clear you also claim to be a doctor! It's logic by association. If you claim to be smurf, for example, you also claim to be blue! So anyone with a head about their shoulders can see you're pulling some kind of scam here.

Instead of fessing up, now you dig your hole even further by stating: "I've never claimed nor implied that I was either board certified or licensed". And yet, if you're a immunologist, you have a medical certification and license! If you don't have these, you're not an immunologist. So quit lying. And it's too late to go back to claim, "Oh wait, turns out I am." And you know what? It's REALLY freaking obvious because you had absolutely no knowledge about free radicals storms produced by immune cells.

Thank you though, this has been really enlightening.

Btw, because I've worked in various fields too, I can play the same game you play. I've worked in the following fields and am therefore the following: biologist, molecular biologist, immunologist, geneticist, microbiologist, chemist, computer science, and so on. I have training in them all to? Whoop-ti-do? And besides the real guys with the titles employ guys all the time to help out with journal article research. They could make the same claims that you do!?

You're not a doctor dude, and you don't have three of those titles. This is proved by the fact that you admitted no certifications, which you need to be an immunologist. Immunologists are doctors. Don't try to tell me they aren't. You either need an MD or Phd. If you have no certifications, you're not an immunologist to please don't lie about being one.

And if you're doing research in biology, you also need an PhD. You have one?

And what about certifications generally? Have any? For example, from this site:

<link>

You need: "Ability to obtain any License or Certification required by ANMC, State of Alaska or other accrediting/regulatory bodies "

Oh, that was for molecular biologist technician, which isn't a molecular biologist. But you get the point I hope. You're not a doctor. Don' t claim to be one simply to dismiss the basic immunology information that free radicals are used to kill pathogens.

A bare bones overview of immune response:

The human immune employs of cell mediated and antibody mediated immunity. Cell-mediated immunity involves cytotoxic T-leukocytes, macrophages, natural killer cells, dendritic cells and the release of cytokines (some of which provoke a general inflammatory response.)

Antibody-mediated (i.d., humoral) immunity involves antibodies produced in B lymphocytes which bind to specific epitopes on the surface of invading molecules. Once bound the antibody may directly affect the antigen's effector function (by preventing a virus from recognizing and binding to receptors on a cells surface allowing it to enter, by bidnign to the active site of a key enzyme, etc.) and/or may flag the molecule for destruction.by non-specific mechanisms such as phagocytosis.

Note that with respect to vaccinations we're chiefly concerned with antibody mediated immune response.

Now—where exactly in this process does the 'free radical storm" you claim is the mechanism by which the immune system "kills germs" occur?

Patrick:

No, but then again, I'm not the one that claimed to be.

No, you're just the one that is making all kinds of claims and throwing out all kinds of propositions that are likely to get people killed. And, when confonted by hard evidence from a real scientist, instead of the quacks and charlatans you seem to favor, your only reaction is to question their credentials.

Maybe you should actually look at some of the credentials of some of the folks that you do believe. The last one that I looked in to was sanctioned and had his medical license revoked.

Now—where exactly in this process does the 'free radical storm" you claim is the mechanism by which the immune system "kills germs" occur?

From my purely lay perspective, Patrick appears to be talking about an aspect of phagocytosis - perhaps that's where the confusion arises?

Phagocytosed molecules are principlally destroyed by enzymatic digestion, however, not due to soemthing called a 'rfree radical storm'. More to the point, phagocytosis is a general mechanism that scavenges all manner of molecules from the body, not just pathogenic molecules or bacteria. If this does involve a 'free radical storm" the free radical storms are going on all the time even in the absence of infection, and I don't see how one can reasonably argue that the problem with vaccines is that they ay cause something to occur that's going on all the time anyway, whether one has been immunized or not.

">>I have been employed as a research biologist/immunologist/molecul​ar biologist for more than a quarter century"

That's the case, Patrick: I have been.

"If I've misunderstood anything here, it's you're own damn fault as the root cause for playing this semantic game of appealing to yourself as authority, implying you bear three titles, simply because you've done research."

>>iwasn't claiming these asa titles but indicating what I 've done for a living for a quarter century (although in point of fact my current job title is now and at other places of employment has been "Research Biologist" and my job title at previous places of employment has been "Staff Immunologist".) For about 10 years about 50% of my professional responsibilities has been development and validation of assays to assess the immunogenicity of biologics undergoing clinical trialsas well as reviewing the results of those trials to characterize their immunologic profile.

"If you bare all three titles, you have to be legally certified and recognized by the state that you are in fact licensed as a biologist, molecular biologist, and immunologist - again to bear those titles, not simply to work in each field. "

>>No you don't, Patrick, not unless you're asking to be licensed as a physician. I've never claimed to be a physician in any of my posts.

"Doing research in the fields doesn't mean you ARE those things like you're trying to claim by implication."

>>it does mean I am all those things—it just doesn't mean I'm licensed as a physician and I've enver claimed to be.

"If this was true, you know, I've helped with (and therefore "done") research in all those fields too!? No lie either. But unlike you, I don't claim to bear those titles.'

>>Have you been jired to perform in those capcities/ if so you also can legitimately claim you've been a research biologist or an immunologist etc. for whatever period of time those have been your profession.

"Here's the deal. If you're a biologist I know you at least have to have a masters or Phd. "

>>No, you don't, and for the record I don't have a master's opr PhD (I started a PhD program in the 80's but left when it became clear it would no longer be economically advantageous by the time I could complete it—I wasn't interested in doing two or three stints as a poorly-paid post doc (the scientific equivalent of a migrant farm worker) but pursued a career in industry that would allow me to immediately begin to support a family. What I do have 9and what employers find more valuable in my case) is 25 years of extremely varied experience.

"You claim to have this? Then I believe in order to work in a state bearing these titles, you have to take an exam to get a certification. You're saying you have these?"

>>I don't need licensing, because I'm not practicing medicine. I'm supporting clinical trials in humans, but again as I'm not acting as study director or administering compounds I don't need licensing. Your confusion seesm to be due to the fact that you really understand the field I work in.

"And to be an immunologist, um you have to be freaking doctor Sherlock, either MD or DO."

>>No, you do not, unless you intend to treat patients.

"And you have to be licensed and certified. The similar cases apply for molecular biologists."

>>No, it does not—all you need do is 'do' moecualr biology. Again, I'm describing what I do for a living, and you're reading all sorts of irrelevant 'therefore's" into it.

"So, how many degrees do you have and how many licenses?"

>>One degree—A B.S.—and a driver's license.

" If you're a immunologist, it's quite clear you also claim to be a doctor!"

>>I've never claimed to be a doctor, Patrick.

"It's logic by association."

>>It's not logic by any means—it's an unfounded assumption on your part.

"If you claim to be smurf, for example, you also claim to be blue!"

>>I haven't claimed to be a smurf either.

"So anyone with a head about their shoulders can see you're pulling some kind of scam here."

>>Anyone here can see that you've leapt to a conclusion unsupported by anything I've written.

I"nstead of fessing up, now you dig your hole even further by stating: "I've never claimed nor implied that I was either board certified or licensed". "

>>Well, I never have claimed to be either. How am I wrong to remind you fo that fact?

"And yet, if you're a immunologist, you have a medical certification and license!"

>>again: if you wish to practice medicine and treat patients, then you'll need the degrees and licenses required. I do neither.

"If you don't have these, you're not an immunologist."

>>the people who pa my salary disagree, and they've never been troubled by my lack of licensing.

"So quit lying. And it's too late to go back to claim, "Oh wait, turns out I am."

>>I'm not lying, Patrick. See all of the above where I've tried to explain that immunologist isn't synonymous with MD, and you don't need licensing as an immunologist to be employed as one.

"And you know what? It's REALLY freaking obvious because you had absolutely no knowledge about free radicals storms produced by immune cells."

>>You're right—I don't have any knowledge about free radical storms because 10 you still haven't scientifically defined what a 'free radical storm" is or provided any credible support that it's a fundamental process by which the immune system 'kills germs'.

"Thank you though, this has been really enlightening."

>>I hope I've cleared up your confusion re: immunologist/physician. Perhap's you could clear mine up, by providing the scientific definition of 'free radical storm' and indicating what part exactly you believe it plays in immune response?

I've neither stated nor implied I'm board certified or licensed, and i've never had the necessity to apply for either in the course of my professional career. I think you mistakenly beleive I've claimed to practice medicine (see my post above.)