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

Carlton Hogan carlton at walleye.ccbr.umn.edu
Thu Oct 22 13:29:23 EST 1998


In article <362f74e4.1383636237 at netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
 <johnburgin at worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>On 22 Oct 1998 16:29:02 GMT, carlton at walleye.ccbr.umn.edu (Carlton
>Hogan) wrote:
>
>>In article <362e66ea.1314511186 at netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
>> <johnburgin at worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>>On 21 Oct 1998 16:41:33 GMT, carlton at walleye.ccbr.umn.edu (Carlton
>>>Hogan) wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <362dd6f4.1277652441 at netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
>>>> <johnburgin at worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>>>>On 16 Oct 1998 17:27:18 GMT, carlton at walleye.ccbr.umn.edu (Carlton
>>>>>Hogan) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>In article <3623d68e.622091374 at netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
>>>>>> <johnburgin at worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>was so poisonous, or caused AIDS, how could pairing the same dose 
>>>>>>>>with another nuke *improve* clinical outcome?
>>>>>>>Beats me, maybe some kind of reductionist synergism, like mixing two
>>>>>>>highly toxic poisons, sodium with Chlorine, to make table salt.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You have aspired to your loftiest apex of genius yet. Please provide
>>>>>>any plausible chemical reaction through which this could occur.
>>>>>
>>>>>2Na  +  Cl2  > 2 NaCl  , um, that was what you wanted, wasn't it? jb
>>>>
>>>>You are either the one of the stupidest persons extant, or the most
>>>>disingenuous.
>>
>>>Neither, apparently you don't have a sense of humor....it was a joke.
>>>Anyway, humor is lost on even morons(or is that especially?)jb
>>
>>You may call it humor: I call it misdirection. You claimed
>No, I didn't claim anything of the sort, you said that I did.  I was
>merely making a bit of highly sarcastic humor that apparently went
>several miles above your puny but thick skull.  No.  I don't have the
>foggiest idea why what you claim is happening, but, why don't you
>recommend this thought, just for the hell of it, to your think tank.
>It couldn't hurt, they thrown everything into this equation but El
>Nino.  

OK so you are now sliming your way away from your claim that the 
increase in survival seen in combination therapy is due to some
"chemical reaction" that causes two drugs which have toxicities
separately to be less toxic together. Well then, if these drugs
do not attack HIV, how can you explain the reduction in deaths?

BTW: I don't work for a "think tank". Perhaps my citations of the 
literature confuse you. It's relatively common, both in academia
and medicine. If you had a glancing awareness of either field, perhaps 
you might know this. The inanity of your statements (like that 
antibodies mean you have necessarily countered an infection) 
convince me that it is *highly* unlikely that you are a dentist,
as you claim. Perhaps a dental hygienist?

I also have no idea what you mean by "they thrown everything into this 
equation but El Nino." Besides the grammatical lapse, I have absolutely
no clue as to what you are babbling about. We do clinical trials.
A basic biostatistics text book could familiarize you with common
methodology.

Carlton



More information about the Immuno mailing list