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

johnburgin at worldnet.att.net johnburgin at worldnet.att.net
Wed Nov 4 19:30:54 EST 1998


On 4 Nov 1998 22:56:13 GMT, johnburgin at worldnet.att.net wrote:

>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
make that, correction, 1995(sorry)
.  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