"AIDS Treatment News" online * New Issue #302 (searchable/indexed)

johnburgin at worldnet.att.net johnburgin at worldnet.att.net
Tue Nov 3 18:56:20 EST 1998


Carlton, I repeat, you suck big time.  You will never understand that
life is not in
a test tube.  When you have the time(which obviously you do because
you're sending pointless emails and answering newsgroup messages with
individuals who don't give a shit about what you say or think), read
about the story involving the Maine mother who won her court fight
against HIV doctors.  Her name is Valerie Emerson, 27.  When
there is a basic disagreement in ideology, as there is with you and
me, there can be no reason, or proof that will satisfy either of us.
I assure you, if I thought, for a moment, that there was any validity
in the "research" that you do or the argument that you have, I would
have the time, intellect and resources to understand.  But,
your belief is motivated by money and career advancement.  You
philistines are all alike.  But, just because you seem slow at
understanding where I stand on things:
1)There is no relevance in the argument that you seem to want to
pursue about antibodies producing a life long immunity to disease.
There are instances when we lose immunity over time  with little or no
reexposure to the antigen for a significant period of time.  These
"revaccinations" are called booster injections(hepatitis b and
tetanus).  However, I stand by my statement, there must be
immunity with antibody formation, at least in the immediate(I consider
years) term. That is why HIV, cannot cause AIDS. Especially if one is
constantly "reexposed" to the antigen by a "mutant" strain.   What one
is doing at the time we are "diagnosed" HIV + makes all the
difference.  If our immune system is all fucked up because of IV
or oral drugs(as in 90% of the cases of AIDS), that has nothing to do
with HIV.  If some lameass physician places an HIV+ person on AZT
monotherapy, Cocktail therapy or whatever the poison du jour is, that
will certainly not encourage the immune system to flourish.  As a
matter of natural progression with poisons, the individual will
eventually succumb or become so sick that they will be forced to stop
taking it.  You will note that in the accompanying article.
2)Enhancing antibodies, I don't care if you find fifty thousand
references to them.  My point was and still is, they don't make a
difference.  There are some things that I trust to others, information
on enhancing antibodies from people that I respect would be in line.
If pathologists don't use them or haven't heard of them, why in the
crap should I worry about it?  You're an epicyclist with spin that is
so unbelieveably incredible that you're getting like Clinton, you
can't even tell yourself when you're lying.
3)Nucleosides, AZT in particular, I have demonstrated, have been
reduced in dosage from the monotherapy levels, but not enough(zero is
the correct amount).  If I gave you a hundred case studies it wouldn't
change your mind that higher amounts were given before the PI's came
along.  You've already shown that by the ones that I have
indicated.  You don't have a conscience.  You never will.  I hope that
when the scientific world has to pay for their arrogance and
iatrogenicide, you will be the first in line to pay and I will be in
the front row watching(I'll be the one with the bag of
popcorn).  As I've said before, the truth is like an airplane, it has
to land sometime.

                                Letter from Valerie Emerson
from the October issue of Reappraising AIDS, 1998

Dear David Rasnick:
    There are no words strong enough for me to express the depth of my
gratitude to you.  My son has a new lease on life now thanks to you
and all my other supporters.
    My daughter Tia was sick before she took AZT, but after she
started taking it she went downhill fast.  I asked about all the new
problems that suddenly appeared along with it.  The answer  to all of
my questions was --HIV.
    My son NIkolas was nowhere as sick as Tia had been, so when he got
worse while taking AZT, it was obviously the AZT, not HIV.
    I knew little then about HIV and AIDS, just what the doctors told
me.
    I read Duesberg's article, "With Therapies Like This, Who Needs
Disease?"  That is what finally convinced me 100% that my ideas
weren't ludicrous.  Duesberg writes about Cheryl Nagel's baby girl
Lindsey, and compares her with Doug and Nancy Simon's
daughter, Candice.  if you look at my two children and those two
children, the experiences are exactly the same.  That was the first
time I had any evidence backing my ideas about these drugs.  it felt
so good to realize that I was not alone with my
ideas, that I was not "making up notions to disregard AIDS" as I had
been told.
    I am just a country girl and mother.  The only education I have is
I graduated from high school with honors. if I can come up with the
same conclusions that you and Dr Duesberg and Dr Giraldo have with all
your expertise, why is it so hard for everyone else?  To me it is as
clear as black and white based on my experience and
the limited amount of research I've been able to do.  Why do doctors
with all this information at easy access so adamantly reject your
ideas?  Yours is the only conclusion that makes any sense at all.
    You and Dr Giraldo are the first to accept my beliefs without
question. You gave me the self confidence I needed to get through this
court battle.  I was so scared my son's life was going to be
sacrificed just like Tia's, for a bad idea.  As the judge
wrote, "She feels that she has willingly and in good faith surrendered
up the life of one child to the best treatment medicine has to offer
and does not want to do the same with the next."  He also wrote: "Dr
McIntosh best sums up the medical observation of having to suffer a
terminal illness by statin that all people suffer from the terminal
illness called life.
    Awesome judge--I think!
    His decision has set a precedent that will help other parents
protect their children from the HIV doctors.  But it can't help them
if they don't know about it.
This is why I speak to reporters every chance I get.  This is the way
I can help others, the way you and Dr Giraldo and Hillary Billings
helped me.  I feel it is my duty as a human being, my "calling".
    I can remember my grandmother sitting in the kitchen on the old
homestead peeling apples for an apple pie. She said to me, "Val, for
everything in life there is a purpose--we may never know what that
purpose is, but God has a purpose for everything
in life."  I believe the purpose of my family's ordeal is to help save
others to live.  This eases the pain in my life, and makes me welcome
it.
    Thank you so much for enriching my life.  You and Dr Giraldo are
my heroes. Please tell Dr Duesberg how much he has helped.  If it
wasn't for doctors like you three , my child might be on death's door
right now.  I cannot express the depths of my gratitude.
    Sincerely,  Valerie Emerson

This, Carlton, is life outside of the test tube.  You suck bigtime. jb



On 27 Oct 1998 17:49:13 GMT, carlton at walleye.ccbr.umn.edu (Carlton
Hogan) wrote:

>
>You are a silly and amazingly ignorant man. In the below you state:
>
>">If, assuming that you are correct, which I don't believe, that
>>antibodies do "not" always mean that you have conquered infection, as
>>I stated before, how can you arbitrarily recommend using them to
>>signify protection one time(as with prophylactic vaccination against
>>Hepatitis B and not with HIV?  What, please tell me, would an
>>individual "vaccinated" against HIV present as proof of immunization?
>>He would be HIV + of course!  Again, are these "non-neutralizing"
>>antibodies in the latter case or neutralizing antibodies in the first
>>case?"
>
>Your stupidity is amazing. I never have said that I "reccomend using them
>to signify protection". That is YOUR claim. In fact, a healthy CTL 
>response is probably necessary to counter HIV. Antibodies are clearly
>not protective (with the possible exception of anti-p24), as one of 
>the hallmarks of HIV infection is hypergammaglobulinemia.
>
>Once again: antibodies, especially in the case of viruses DO NOT mean 
>you have conquered infection. Several conditions spring immediately to
>mind: herpes viruses, hepatitis, syphilis.
>
>I no longer have time for your inane ignorance. I will correct you on
>misstatements of fact, but in consideration for others trying to use 
>Usenet in a productive way so I will not keep this mind-bendingly dumb
>threads going.
>
>Carlton
>
>In article <3634fdab.238354 at netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
> <johnburgin at worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>On 26 Oct 1998 16:50:50 GMT, carlton at walleye.ccbr.umn.edu (Carlton
>>Hogan) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <362faf53.1398597755 at netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
>>> <johnburgin at worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>>>On 22 Oct 1998 18:29:23 GMT, carlton at walleye.ccbr.umn.edu (Carlton
>>>>Hogan) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In article <362f74e4.1383636237 at netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
>>>>> <johnburgin at worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>>>>>On 22 Oct 1998 16:29:02 GMT, carlton at walleye.ccbr.umn.edu (Carlton
>>>>>>Hogan) wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In article <362e66ea.1314511186 at netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
>>>>>>> <johnburgin at worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>On 21 Oct 1998 16:41:33 GMT, carlton at walleye.ccbr.umn.edu (Carlton
>>>>>>>>Hogan) wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>In article <362dd6f4.1277652441 at netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
>>>>>>>>> <johnburgin at worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>On 16 Oct 1998 17:27:18 GMT, carlton at walleye.ccbr.umn.edu (Carlton
>>>>>>>>>>Hogan) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>In article <3623d68e.622091374 at netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
>>>>>>>>>>> <johnburgin at worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>was so poisonous, or caused AIDS, how could pairing the same dose 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>with another nuke *improve* clinical outcome?
>>>>>>>>>>>>Beats me, maybe some kind of reductionist synergism, like mixing two
>>>>>>>>>>>>highly toxic poisons, sodium with Chlorine, to make table salt.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>You have aspired to your loftiest apex of genius yet. Please provide
>>>>>>>>>>>any plausible chemical reaction through which this could occur.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>2Na  +  Cl2  > 2 NaCl  , um, that was what you wanted, wasn't it? jb
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>You are either the one of the stupidest persons extant, or the most
>>>>>>>>>disingenuous.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Neither, apparently you don't have a sense of humor....it was a joke.
>>>>>>>>Anyway, humor is lost on even morons(or is that especially?)jb
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You may call it humor: I call it misdirection. You claimed
>>>>>>No, I didn't claim anything of the sort, you said that I did.  I was
>>>>>>merely making a bit of highly sarcastic humor that apparently went
>>>>>>several miles above your puny but thick skull.  No.  I don't have the
>>>>>>foggiest idea why what you claim is happening, but, why don't you
>>>>>>recommend this thought, just for the hell of it, to your think tank.
>>>>>>It couldn't hurt, they thrown everything into this equation but El
>>>>>>Nino.  
>>>>>
>>>>>OK so you are now sliming your way away from your claim that the 
>>>>>increase in survival seen in combination therapy
>>>>I simply have tried to make a point, which is apparently too obvious
>>>>for you to comprehend, that is, there is no logical explanation why
>>>>mixing two poisons together would produce a result that treats a
>>>>disease favorably, 
>>>
>>>If the two compounds are just toxins, and have no therapeutic benefit, 
>>>the above would hold. Thank you. You just reinforced my implict 
>>>statement: that the only way to reconcile the data is if antiretrovirals
>>>do have benefit. You do a lot of blowing smoke, but you have not 
>>>responded to my request, of at least a month back, to explain the 
>>>ispecific flaws in the randomized clinical trial of antiretrovirals.
>>>the simple fact that you don't like the results is not adequate.
>>>If you think all antiretroviral trials are somehow fatally flawed,
>>>explain their limitations.
>>>
>>>And do have some backbone. At least support the statements you make 
>>>in the last week or so, rather than going off on wild tangents, trying
>>>to misdirect attention from the fact you have made outrageous, scientifically
>>>non-justified claims.
>>>
>>>i>a disease which is found 90% of the time in a
>>>>"subset" of mostly men(young gay males between the ages of 18 and 44)
>>>>and IV Drug users.  The other 10% are the poor unfortunates that have
>>>>been labeled with the HIV+ tag and are sentenced to death, a premature
>>>>death, by taking drugs that are unnecessary. 
>>>
>>>And the data supporting this is ...where?
>>Read Inventing the AIDS Virus, Peter Duesberg, PhD, Regnery Press.
>>>
>>>> When you can tell me why
>>>>HIV+ individuals without the use of your drugs are living well past
>>>>the ever extending latent phase of the HIV to AIDS timetable,
>>>
>>>Distribution? Standard deviation? ANY DATA AT ALL? I thought not.
>>Would a thousand people be considered signifigant to you?  Two
>>thousand?   http://www.heal-la.org/
>>>
>>>> I will
>>>>tell you what the answer is to your question concerning the
>>>>combination effect being "successful" in your opinion.  Same argument
>>>>as before, talk to me about "non-neutralizing" antibodies.  Come on,
>>>>I'm listening.
>>>
>>>You are avoiding the point again. _YOU_CLAIMED_THAT_ANTIBODIES_MEAN_
>>>YOU_HAVE_CONQUERED_INFECTION. I never made the syntacticly garbled,
>>>nonsensical statement about "neutralizing" antibodies you are asking me 
>>>to defend. do you, or do you not believe that presence of antibodies 
>>>mean you have necessarily conquered infection? I have asked this 
>>>question a dozen times of you. The more you delay and blow smoke,
>>>the more obvious it is to everybody you have no idea what you are talking 
>>>about.
>>If, assuming that you are correct, which I don't believe, that
>>antibodies do "not" always mean that you have conquered infection, as
>>I stated before, how can you arbitrarily recommend using them to
>>signify protection one time(as with prophylactic vaccination against
>>Hepatitis B and not with HIV?  What, please tell me, would an
>>individual "vaccinated" against HIV present as proof of immunization?
>>He would be HIV + of course!  Again, are these "non-neutralizing"
>>antibodies in the latter case or neutralizing antibodies in the first
>>case?  
>>>
>>>> is due to some
>>>>>"chemical reaction" that causes two drugs which have toxicities
>>>>>separately to be less toxic together. Well then, if these drugs
>>>>>do not attack HIV, how can you explain the reduction in deaths
>>>
>>>>Do you remember spontaneous generation?  
>>>
>>>What does this babble mean?
>>Obviously you don't.  And you thus don't have a clue as to why the
>>scientific method with critical peer review was established in the
>>first place.
>>>
>>>>Your logic in the previous
>>>>sentence is empirical at best, 
>>>
>>>Thank you. I like being grounded in empirical fact.
>>Empirical fact, like global warming caused by cfc's being released
>>into the atmosphere causing global catastrophic atmospheric changes?
>>Like the hole in the ozone layer causing all of the new skin cancers
>>being detected?  Junk science.
>>>
>>>>and at worst life threatening.  Give
>>>>all of the options to the poor schmucks diving into the cesspool of
>>>>drugs.
>>>
>>>Does this mean anything? I don't prescribe drugs to anyone. I am a researcher.
>>of what, new ways to rip off the government of my money?
>>>try and keep up.
>>>>?
>>>>>
>>>>>BTW: I don't work for a "think tank". Perhaps my citations of the 
>>>>>literature confuse you.
>>>
>>>>Perhaps, and then I could cut and paste things that might, might I
>>>>say, impress you also.  I don't even believe you're who YOU say you
>>>>are.  
>>>
>>>That's a laugh, from an anonymous troll. My life is an open book. I use
>>>my real name, and real affiliation. And you are..?
>>Guess?
>>>
>>>> It's relatively common, both in academia
>>>>>and medicine. If you had a glancing awareness of either field, perhaps 
>>>>>you might know this. The inanity of your statements (like that 
>>>>>antibodies mean you have necessarily countered an infection) 
>>>>>convince me that it is *highly* unlikely that you are a dentist,
>>>>>as you claim. Perhaps a dental hygienist?
>>>
>>>>Perhaps, or a garbage collector or a nuclear physicist....
>>>
>>>Does this babble have any relevance? Are you now backing from from your claim 
>>>that you are a dentist?
>>I might be, does that make the dental profession sound a little more
>>scientific?
>>>>>
>>>>>I also have no idea what you mean by "they thrown everything into this 
>>>>>equation but El Nino."
>>>>Figure of speech
>>>
>>>Meaning what?
>>El Nino is being blamed for everything, why not AIDS.
>>>
>>>> Besides the grammatical lapse, I have absolutely
>>>>>no clue as to what you are babbling about. We do clinical trials.
>>I don't prescribe drugs to anyone. I am a researcher(you said that
>>earlier, now you're a hyprocrit again)
>>>
>>>>Does that include placebo trials, are do you simply try to see which
>>>>drug incapacitates the patient the quickest.'
>>>
>>>A quick review of the literature can give you information on the research we 
>>>have done. You do know how to use MEDLINE?
>>I don't prescribe drugs to anyone. I am a researcher(ibid) jb
>>>
>>>Carlton
>>
>
>




More information about the Immuno mailing list