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

johnburgin at worldnet.att.net johnburgin at worldnet.att.net
Tue Oct 13 17:32:19 EST 1998


On 13 Oct 1998 17:00:28 GMT, carlton at walleye.ccbr.umn.edu (Carlton
Hogan) wrote:

>In article <362286f7.536167326 at netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
> <johnburgin at worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>On 12 Oct 1998 17:48:25 GMT, carlton at walleye.ccbr.umn.edu (Carlton
>>Hogan) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <362204f5.502879737 at netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
>>> <johnburgin at worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>>>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:
>>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>>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".  
>>>
>>>Please show me the one, peer-reviewed paper that shows T. Pallidum 
>>>causes syphilis. 
>>You can see those little squiggly fellows all over the place under the
>>microscope, (how about the mysteriously absent HIV?)
>>Or that influenza strains cause the flu. Or that 
>>>HBV causes hepatitis B.This dissident idea of one overarching paper
>>>that contains all of the varied information (virologic, epidemiologic, etc)
>>>holds HIV to a standard that is not required for any other disease.
>>That's absolute poo poo mister.
>
>Than please supply examples of such papers in other disease.

In time, my pretty, all in good time.
>>>
>>>(snip)
>>>
>>>>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? 
>>>
>>
>>>Excuse me? If you ever were involved in clinical trials
>>Every day of my life
>> or their monitoring,
>>Every day of my life
>
>Since you elect to remain anonymous, it's rather difficult to verify
>or repudiate your claim
you wouldn't verify it if i placed a big ugly fact right on top of
your nose.  That's how you work.
. Frankly, I doubt it very much.
doubt all you wish, but quit acting like the Jesus Christ of AIDS

>
>By the way: Are you now ready to defend your assertion that presence
>of antibodies mean that the host has necessarily overcome infection?
Do you recall my question when you first asked me to prove this?  No?
Well, I'll help you.  The subject was "non-neutralizing antibodies",
remember?  Going answer that one first?
>
>>>you would know that one could not do anything but stop a trial that 
>>Had early results before the adverse effects of the drug kicked in
>>overriding the last ditch effort of the immune system to muster some
>>half-ass attempt to counteract the poison.
>
>Sorry, but this is simply not in accord with the in vivo or in vitro 
>data.
In vitro experiments do not make people sick, only test tubes and
petri dishes.  the study was unblinded(the big study, the one that got
this trash on the market) thus worthless.
 Excess AIDS was never seen in the active treatment arm of 
>any of the AZT vs. placebo trials.
Ditto previous sentence
>
>I really don't have time for people whose debate reaches it's zenith
>with "That's absolute poo poo mister". If you have facts to post, please 
>do so.
Well then, if you don't have time to respond, why bother?  By the way,
and I really feel that this is important.  There are laws for not
telling the truth, unless you are Clinton.  If all of the people
saying the bad things about AZT and PI's are lying, why don't the drug
companies go after them?  Why not, could they be afraid of something
coming out, like, the truth?  jb
>
>
>Carlton




More information about the Immuno mailing list