"AIDS Treatment News" online * New Issue #302 (searchable/indexed)
johnburgin at worldnet.att.net
johnburgin at worldnet.att.net
Tue Oct 13 21:24:14 EST 1998
Got the word on you today. Ever hear of Val Turner? He's heard of
you. Any comments on this fellow, Leonard? Is he "qualified" to
hang with you guys?
> Re: information on Leonard Pattenden
> Thu, 24 Sep 1998 19:14:56 +0800
> Val Turner <vturner at cyllene.uwa.edu.au>
> "John B Burgin, DDS" <johnburgin at worldnet.att.net>
>Leonard Pattenden wants to conduct a debate with the Perth group on the HIV
>theory of AIDS. We responded to this request by pointing out that we have
>written several papers disputing the HIV theory and have invited him to
>respond to specific points in our papers OR to write to the editors of the
>journals where we have published. That's as far as it's got. We've never
>debated because he has never responded either way with his arguments.
>It is true that there are no HEALS in Australia. I believe that one was
>set up in Sydney but at least one of the instigators died. I think that was
>a few years ago. Australia is incredibly conservative and it would not
>surprise me if HEAL did not get a look in here. The OZ HIV authorities do
>not tolerate insurrection one little bit. Even journalists are afraid to
>cross their paths. But, the bigger they are, the harder they fall.
Take care Leonard, I'll let you tuff it out with someone on your own
continent that can bat you about without my assistance.jb
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
> 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
>> 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
>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.
>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
>> 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
>Have a day John!
More information about the Immuno