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

johnburgin at worldnet.att.net johnburgin at worldnet.att.net
Mon Oct 12 08:38:43 EST 1998

On Tue, 22 Sep 1998 11:25:39 -0700, marnix at u.washington.edu (Marnix L.
Bosch) wrote:

>In article <3607e5c8.49487590 at netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
>johnburgin at worldnet.att.net wrote:
>> On Tue, 22 Sep 1998 10:44:00 -0700, marnix at u.washington.edu (Marnix L.
>> Bosch) wrote:
>> >In article <3607ded5.47708518 at netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
>> >johnburgin at worldnet.att.net wrote:
>> >
>> >> >> >> There is evidence to the opposite also, that is, that those
>taking the
>> >> >> >> immunosuppressive "AIDS" drugs have worse clinical conditions and
>> >> >> >> poorer survival when they take drugs(I assume you are speaking of the
>> >> >> >> usual poisons, AZT and PI's)in combination than those who do not use
>> >> >> >> drugs(again I am assuming the same thing) who have progressed
>to AIDS.
>> >> >> >> Really poor sentence structure and definitely a circular argument,
>> >> >> >> kind of HIV=AIDzey(pronounced like 'sy' in easy)
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Could you please post that evidence ? That is: studies that show that
>> >> >> >people on anti-HIV cocktails fare worse than matched HIV-1 infected
>> >> >> >untreated controls. Please.
>> >> 
>> >> It would seem logical, but excuse me for being objective, that would
>> >> be your responsibility.  Why hasn't it been done?
>> >
>> >If it hasn't been done you can't claim anything about the results. Which
>> >is what you did above. Which makes it safe to disregard your statement. 
>> Right on time!  Bob Gallo did the same thing, didn't he?  Made a
>> proclamation to the world that HIV(his brand disclaimed since he stole
>> it from Luc Montagnier) 1994.  Shocked, shocked mind you, the
>> scietific world, not because of his revelation, but because he did it
>> without peer review.  It is never safe to disregard the truth.  HEAL
>At least Bob Gallo's 'proclamation' was based on some
That's soooooo scientific!
 evidence. Whcih was
>subsequently peer
That "AIDS" is caused by HIV?  Show me the money!  The exact
scientific paper that has been "peer reviewed" and says, without a
doubt, that HIV causes "AIDS".  jb
 reviewed and published. And his hypothesis was borne out
>subsequently by many other groups. Your statement on the other hand is
>based on nothing
Nothing you will explore further than the end of your nose.
, and conflicts with good solid evidence from clinical
>trials that combination therapy helps people with AIDS live longer.
They, the people running the studies "proving" the efficacy of AZT and
PI's keep shutting down the studies as soon as "some positive results"
show up.  Take the "double blind"  Welcome studies on AZT.  Cut off a
little premature?  How about the bennies the offspring of pregnant HIV
positive women get, cut off just a little premature?  I'm sure
thalidomide would have gotten the same peer review in the latter case.
It's all about money.  jb
>Marnix Bosch

More information about the Immuno mailing list