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

Carlton Hogan carlton at walleye.ccbr.umn.edu
Fri Oct 16 12:21:55 EST 1998


In article <3623d324.621216606 at netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
 <johnburgin at worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>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.

In other words, you don't have them.
>>>>
>>>>(snip)
>>
>>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.

You have not showen documentation, proof, or citation supporting 
any of the "facts" you have posted here. Trying to derail notice
of that by personal attack is childish and ineffective.

0>. Frankly, I doubt it very much.
>doubt all you wish, but quit acting like the Jesus Christ of AIDS

Does this mean anything?
>
>>
>>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?

No. You are asking me to defend statement that *you* made, in reponse 
to my first request for clarification on your absurd ideas about 
antibodies. This all started when YOU said that presence of Ab
meant one had conquered an infection. At the time you said 
nothing about neutralizing, enhancing, or any other kind of Abs. 
If you don't believe this, please retract it. Trying to throw
up a smokescreen, asking me to defend a poorly worded and confused
sentence of YOUR making does nothing to answer my criticism, or 
defend your credibility.

YOU started this with an outrageous and incorrect claim about Abs.
Defend it or retract it. Stop passing smoke.
>>
>>>>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.

It was unblinded after 1 person in the AZT arm died, and 19 in the 
placebo. I don't think any person of conscience could continue such a 
trial.

> Excess AIDS was never seen in the active treatment arm of 
>>any of the AZT vs. placebo trials.
>Ditto previous sentence

You really have no ability to argue the facts, do you? Can you give
concrete examples of why BW 002, EACG 017 and 023, ACTG 117/118, 175 
and 320, Concorde and Delta were terminated prematurely? Remember:
cite FACTS, not just sentences that are required to uphold your
bizarre ideas.
>>
>>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

No, I think very few people really care what a few fringe whackos think.
There are tens of thousands of researchers and clinicians working in 
AIDS. If there were these huge discrepancies, don't you think they
would notice? Or are you just smarter and more perceptive than all
the experts in the field? I urge you to actually READ some HIV research,
not just distorted summaries such as are seen on virusmyth. Your 
credibility keeps dropping. Perhaps if you were better read, you would
not look like such a prejudiced idiot.

Carlton
>>
>>
>>Carlton
>





More information about the Immuno mailing list