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

johnburgin at worldnet.att.net johnburgin at worldnet.att.net
Wed Nov 4 17:56:13 EST 1998


On 4 Nov 1998 21:22:49 GMT, carlton at walleye.ccbr.umn.edu (Carlton
Hogan) wrote:

So, two out of let me see, 5 is it?  You and George are gay, that
really makes your arguments biased.  Did you say there was a pay
freeze on for you and your other lab rats? Excellent!  A pay cut would
be better, but I'll be satisfied with the freeze for now.
Did you even take the time to read the email that I sent you about
Valerie?  
>In article <363fa56b.91622836 at netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
> <johnburgin at worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>Carlton, I repeat, you suck big time.  You will never understand that
>>life is not in
>>a test tube. 
>
>I don't work with test tubes. I do clinical trials. That means trials
>in people. Any basic biostatistics book could tell you more.
>
>> 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),
>
>This coming from a crossposting spammer who excretes a dozen messages 
>a day?
nasty!
>
>> read about the story involving the
>>Maine mother
>>who won her court fight against HIV doctors.  Her name is Valerie
>>Emerson, 27.
>
>Yeah, so? People have the choice and the right to take meds or not
>as they choose. 
Liar! You obviously don't know that this woman had her child taken
away from her by the courts becaused she refused further poisoning
with AZT or the Cocktail "therapy". Some choice.
You will never find anything I have ever said that 
>contradicts this. Her right to refuse AZT 
What right?  
tells us nothing about AZT
>itself, just as Christian Scientists
Be careful, I might just be a Christian Scientist
 who refuse vaccines tell us 
>nothing about vaccine efficacy
>
>>  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.
>
>Not true for me (although probably for you) If there was a substantial
>body of credible evidence that something other than HIV caused AIDS,
>I would have to rethink my position.
No you wouldn't because then the awful truth would come out, that your
behavior caused you to become sick
 Problem is, the "dissident"
>viewpoint gets weaker, and more untenable every year,
Not so, and you know it.  HEAL wasn't even around until 1985.  Now
there are chapters across the U.S. and several foreign countries(it
might help you to look into this, it might even save your life)  More
and more scientists, physicians and lay people are joining Reapprasing
AIDS every day.
 not more 
>believable.
>
>>  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.
>
>
>Thank you for admitting that you have not taken the time to understand
>the research you condemn. Unlike you,
What have you read of Duesberg and Lanka?  Have you read Inventing the
AIDS Virus?  I keep waiting for you to claim that the RA group,
especially Duesberg, are homophobic, is that correct?  What about
Lauritsen?  He's not a scientist either but he is gay and  he'll tear
you up on this issue.
 I *have* read Duesberg, Lanka,
>the PAG as well as mainstream research. I would never make up my mind 
>until I understood both sides of the argument.
How can you possible know RA's argument and not be in favor of further
investigation into causality?  Hypocrite! 
>
>  But,
>>your belief is motivated by money and career advancement.  You
>>philistines are all
>>alike.  
>
>Money? Bwahahahaha! Tell my boss. maybe he will stop laughing long
>enough to tell you that the University has been under a pay-freeze for
>seven years. I am in AIDS research because I have AIDS, and I have lost
>dozens of friends. This may be onanistic verbiage to you. to me it's 
>life and death.
>
>>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. 
>
>
>You little snake.
Oh, so now I'm a little snake.  Weren't you the one that wanted to
stay away from ad hominem attacks?
 I never said the above. YOU claimed that Abs
>necessarily mean one has conquered infection.
Yes, I plead guilty to the truth!
 Your monomaniacal focus
My maniacal focus!  You're the one with AIDS.
>on Abs alone is ridiculous. You don't seem to even acknowledge
>cell-mediated immunity, which appears key to HIV immunity.
>
>> There are
>>instances when we
>>lose immunity over time  with little or no reexposure to the antigen
>>for a
>>significant period of time.
>
>So? That blows out of the water your claim that HIV Ab means you 
>have conquered HIV.
No, it says exactly what it means.  Reexposure shortly(years) after a
successful antigen/antibody reaction formation insures protection.
>
>>  These "revaccinations" are called booster
>>injections(hepatitis b and tetanus). 
>
>Are we talking about immunity via infection, or via vaccination?
>You seem very confused.
Are you a child?  What's the difference between getting vaccinated
with the agent and getting exposed to the disease if the reaction
achieves the aforementioned result, i.e., protection?
>
>> 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. 
>
>Several people have told you thatyou are wrong in this.
It'll take more than "several" biased individuals.
 Get a basic
>immunology textbook. I recommend William Paul's. Its well written and thorough.
>
>>  What one is doing at the time we
>>are "diagnosed"
>>HIV + makes all the difference.
>
>And you have data to support this idea?
What's the matter, asshole, can't take it?  Can't take listening to
the poor story of a 
person not as "educated" as you?  Just ignore her, is that it?  You're
more concerned 
about word wrapping than a person's life or the sanctity of the
family?  You couldn't 
handle the truth if it was presented to you by your mother, assuming
you weren't cloned.jb

Carlton Hogan wrote: 

  "John B Burgin, DDS writes to say:"
  >
  > Carlton, I repeat, you suck big time.  You will never understand
that life is not in
  > a test tube.

  John:

  I work in clinical trials, not test tube work. If you knew what you
were
  talking about, you would know the difference.

  Your beliefs, below, are just bizarre and wrong. Get a basic
imunology
  text book.

  Oh, and learn to word wrap at < 80 characters.

  Carlton

    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
  >
  > Carlton Hogan wrote:
  >
  > > "John B Burgin, DDS writes to say:"
  > > >
  > > > Carlton,  you suck big time.  love, jb
  > >
  > > You certainly refuted my claim that you cannot win an argument
on merit
  > > by this trenchant and informed comment. When you want to argue
FACTS I
  > > will be here.
  > >
  > > >
  > > > Carlton Hogan wrote:
  > > >
  > > > > "John B Burgin, DDS writes to say:"
  > > > > >
  > > > > >
  > > > > >
  > > > > > Carlton Hogan wrote:
  > > > > >
  > > > > > > In article <36392c43.274351805 at netnews.worldnet.att.net>
you write:
  > > > > > > >On 29 Oct 1998 03:38:12 GMT, flefever at ix.netcom.com(F.
Frank 
  LeFever)
  > > > > > > >wrote:
  > > > > > > >
  > > > > > > >>
  > > > > > > >>This is worth repeating.
  > > > > > > >>
  > > > > > > >>I've trimmed some of the fat so Bosch's respnse to
"John Burgin" is not
  > > > > > > >>obscured.  It appears that not only is "John Burgin"
(real name??)
  > > > > > > >>ignorant of some basic terms, but (if we can believe
him) so are his
  > > > > > > >>alleged medical colleagues and his molecular biologist
(apologies
  > > > > > > >they don't need apologies, they agree with me that
you're full of it
  > > > > > > > to
  > > > > > > >>them if he misrepresents them).  Moreover, they do not
know how to
  > > > > > > >>write a good
  > > > > > >
  > > > > > > >Oh, so you're the big kahuna of medline because you can
drag up a few
  > > > > > > >obscure and TOTALLY UNIMPORTANT articles about
"Enhancing 
  Antibodies"?
  > > > > > >
  > > > > > > Totally unimportant? I would rather here such a
judgement from
  > > > > > > SOMEONE WHO ACTUALLY HAS A CLUE WHAT S/HE IS 
  TALKING ABOUT.
  > > > > >
  > > > > > I try to understand why you would advocate giving totally
healthy
  > > > > > chemotherapy meds to babies that are in the womb of an
HIV+ mother.  I 
  just
  > > > > > can't fathom your motives or explanations.
  > > > >
  > > > > You seem to have a great skill in trying to change the
subject. The
  > > > > subject here is that claimed 1. presence of antibodies mean
one
  > > > > has conquered infection. 2. enhancing antibodies don't
exist.
  > > > > 3. dosage of nucleosides are reduced when using PIs.
  > > > >
  > > > > You seem incapable of admitting that you are wrong on all
three of these.
  > > > > Babbling on about "spontaneous generation", and perinatal
transmission
  > > > > doesn't fool anyone. You cannot win an argument on merits,
so
  > > > > you try and change the subject. I'm on to you.
  > > > >
  > > > > Carlton
  > > >
  > > >
  > > >
  > > >
  > >
  > > --
  > >  

__________________________________________________________________________
  > >  |
|
  > >  |   Carlton Hogan  (carlton at gopher.ccbr.umn.edu)
|
  > >  |   Community Programs for Clinical Research on AIDS
Statistical Center  |
  > >  |   Coordinating Center for Biometric Research
|
  > >  |   Division of Biostatistics, School of Public Health
|
  > >  |   University of Minnesota
http://www.biostat.umn.edu/~carlton |
  > >  |   2221 University Ave SE, Suite 200              Voice: (612)
626 8899 |
  > >  |   Minneapolis  MN 55414                            FAX: (612)
626 8892 |
  > >  

|________________________________________________________________________|
  >
  >
  >
  >

  --

__________________________________________________________________________
   |
|
   |   Carlton Hogan  (carlton at gopher.ccbr.umn.edu)
|
   |   Community Programs for Clinical Research on AIDS Statistical
Center  |
   |   Coordinating Center for Biometric Research
|
   |   Division of Biostatistics, School of Public Health
|
   |   University of Minnesota
http://www.biostat.umn.edu/~carlton |
   |   2221 University Ave SE, Suite 200              Voice: (612) 626
8899 |
   |   Minneapolis  MN 55414                            FAX: (612) 626
8892 |

|________________________________________________________________________
  |

  



>
>You're right about one thing - I really do have no more time for this.
>Let's summarize:
>You claimed - 
>            antibodies mean one has conquered infection
>            enhancing antibodies don't exist
>            nucleoside doses were lowered for use with PIs.
>
>You have been shown wrong on all these points. Yet you keep 
>changing the subject, ducking and weaving, and trying to missdirect 
>attention. Let's talk about these three points, with references to data,
>OK?
>
o.k. daddy. jb
>Carlton




More information about the Immuno mailing list