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

johnburgin at worldnet.att.net johnburgin at worldnet.att.net
Sun Oct 11 22:31:17 EST 1998


On Fri, 25 Sep 1998 11:27:34 +1000, Leonard Pattenden
<ddlpatte at mailbox.uq.edu.au> wrote:

>On 24 Sep 1998 johnburgin at worldnet.att.net wrote:
>
>> That's right Carlton, I'm far too ignorant to waste time arguing with.
>> So why don't you pick on something really big and ugly.  The facts.
>
>We are still waiting for you to post the facts.
>
>> You see, when I've been confronted with people(and I use the term
>> loosely to include you) who know everything because they have been in
>> some mind warp trying to epicycle themselves to death I get great
>> pleasure in the knowledge that one day, hopefully sooner than later,
>> what they believe is statistical knowledge will bury them.
>
>Please post statistics showing AZT causes AIDS, especially uncorrelated to
>HIV infection.
>
Journal of the National Cancer Institute 1997; 89:1602-1608
>  I've been,
>> as I said, involved in discussions with pathologists, people who
>> should know better, who should be able to defend this b.s., and find
>> them unable to defend HIV specificity tests, clinicians who can't
>> understand why an HIV positive test shouldn't confer immunity like
>> every other disease, physicians who have no idea what Koch's
>> postulates are and physicians who say that the HIV retrovirus fulfills
>> Koch's postulates.
>
>Which postulate of Koch's has not been fulfilled John?
>
>  I have spoken to AIDS patients that I have treated
>> that don't know why they are taking chemotherapy medication.
>
>You should clarify you are a dentist, in this forum some might get the
>impression you are a physician. Of course this does not negate your
>arguements, but some scientific sources would be desirable. To date your
>arguements have merely been words in a vacuum.
>
>[snip]... worth.  Climb out of your test tube and learn about life.  Talk
>to
>> people that have been through the process of a misdiagnosis of being
>> HIV positive(due to a number of unrelated causes to HIV "infection")
>> and have had their lives ruined.  Hey, but what's a life worth anyway.
>
>There was this recently in this regard from the CDC update you may find
>interesting:
>
>From preventionews at cdcnpin.org Fri Sep 25 11:09:25 1998
>Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 09:24:58 -0400
>From: *Preventionews <preventionews at cdcnpin.org>
>To: "'prevention-news at hattrick.qrc.com'" <prevention-news at hattrick.qrc.com>
>Subject: [CDC News] CDC HIV/STD/TB Prevention News Update 09/23/98
> 
>***************************************************************
>                    PEER-REVIEWED JOURNALS
>***************************************************************
>
>"False-Positive HIV-1 Test Results in a Low-Risk Screening 
>Setting of Voluntary Blood Donation"
>Journal of the American Medical Association Online 
>(09/23/98-09/30/98) Vol. 280, P. 1080; Kleinman, Steven; Busch, 
>Michael P.; Hall, Lisa; et al.
>Researchers for the Retrovirus Epidemiology Donor Study report 
>that a false HIV-1 diagnosis can result from the combination of 
>enzyme immunoassay and Western blot screening in blood donor and 
>other HIV-1 testing programs.  The scientists investigated the 
>frequency of false positive HIV-1 results among blood donors in 
>the United States at five blood centers.  Of 5 million allogeneic
>and autologous blood donors who donated between 1991 and 1995, 
>421 donors were diagnosed HIV-1 positive by Western blot.  
>Thirty-nine of the donors (9.3 percent) met the criteria for 
>false positive diagnosis due to their lack of p31 reactivity; 20 
>of these individuals (51.3 percent) were shown to be 
>HIV-1-negative through PCR testing.  The researchers found that 
>4.8 percent of Western blot-positive donors were diagnosed 
>false-positive, while 0.0004 percent of all donors tested 
>false-positive for HIV-1.  The scientists suggest that donors who
>lack the p31 band who receive a positive Western blot result 
>should be advised that there is some uncertainty about the 
>result.  They further recommend that these donors be tested by 
>RNA PCR if possible and HIV serologic analysis.
>
>comment:
>Yes their are some mistakes made, however, we are still on the cusp here
>and we need to do more research. Work such as this will help to eliminate
>false positives, which is reported above to represent 0.0004% of all
>donors tested or ~5% of those diagnosed HIV-1 positive by these screening
>methods. 
>
>> Anytime you guys want to prove just how smart you are or how good your
>> data is, submit it to Reappraising AIDS.  Start with the protease
>> inhibitors.  Address it to David Rasnick, 7514 Girard Ave., #1-331, La
>> Jolla, CA 92037(you do know who that is, don't you?)
>
>I see you got in contact with David. Unfortunately David does not
>understand much about the PIs. I read a statement where he suggested
>VX-478 has a native peptide in P2' (occupied by a sulfylbenzylamine). Can
>you name me a native amino acid with such a moiety? I am quite
>disappointed with his work actually. I would have thought he would have
>attacked the real errors in PI work, rather than easily defendable trivia.
>His work is generally the better quality of the dissidents.
>
>  I'm sure we'd be
>> willing to "carefully" evaluate your data and submit a point by point
>> objective review.  David doesn't claim to be a physician and I don't
>> claim to be a molecular biologist.  However, together we'll bury you.
>
>That's good you don't make such claims, because you're a dentist and he's
>an enzymologist. I don't see how you will bury anything but yourself
>however, as you have so far failed to support your rhetoric with any data
>whatsoever.
>
>Have a day John!
>
>Len...
>
>
>




More information about the Immuno mailing list