George M. Carter wrote:
>> Robert--
>> Almost all of Duesberg's claims and assertions are based on invalid
> data or have been soundly refuted. As a bare-bones beginning, you
> could start with an excellent treatise available at the NIH site. I
> can't find the address at the moment
>> George M. Carter
>> Robert Sedaker <rsedaker at inetconn.net> wrote:
>> >I have been reading with great interest Dr Duesberg's book and would
> >welcome rebuttles from those who do not share his views. In
> >particular, I would like to know how such people would respond to
> >Duesberg's claim that HIV doesn't meet Koch's Postulates? Also, Why is
> >so little of the Antigen present when the T-cell count is on the wane?
> >Why isn't the Antibody to HIV bound hin higher concentrations in such
> >incidences? What are the latest thoughts on seronegative AIDS patients
> >and seropositive People who never develope HIV? Finally, why have the
> >epidemiological numbers not changed in the patient populations as
> >expected (ie why no "explosion" of heterosexual exposure patients as was
> >predicted-- which has been true of other bona-fide "epidemics" --
> >especially in STDs)
>> >I think Duesberg has made some very solid observations. Still I'm not
> >sure I sit well with a strictly toxocologically based theory either.....
>> >I appreciate thoughtful dialog.
>> >Thanks
>> >Robert Sedaker BS
George i think you are wrong when you say that duesbergs claims have been
refuted--unless you mean someone spoke a refutation.
