"AIDS Treatment News" online * New Issue #302 (searchable/indexed)
carlton at walleye.ccbr.umn.edu
Mon Oct 26 11:50:50 EST 1998
In article <362faf53.1398597755 at netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
<johnburgin at worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>On 22 Oct 1998 18:29:23 GMT, carlton at walleye.ccbr.umn.edu (Carlton
>>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
>>>>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
>>>>>>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
>>>>>>>>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
>>>>>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
>>OK so you are now sliming your way away from your claim that the
>>increase in survival seen in combination therapy
>I simply have tried to make a point, which is apparently too obvious
>for you to comprehend, that is, there is no logical explanation why
>mixing two poisons together would produce a result that treats a
If the two compounds are just toxins, and have no therapeutic benefit,
the above would hold. Thank you. You just reinforced my implict
statement: that the only way to reconcile the data is if antiretrovirals
do have benefit. You do a lot of blowing smoke, but you have not
responded to my request, of at least a month back, to explain the
ispecific flaws in the randomized clinical trial of antiretrovirals.
the simple fact that you don't like the results is not adequate.
If you think all antiretroviral trials are somehow fatally flawed,
explain their limitations.
And do have some backbone. At least support the statements you make
in the last week or so, rather than going off on wild tangents, trying
to misdirect attention from the fact you have made outrageous, scientifically
i>a disease which is found 90% of the time in a
>"subset" of mostly men(young gay males between the ages of 18 and 44)
>and IV Drug users. The other 10% are the poor unfortunates that have
>been labeled with the HIV+ tag and are sentenced to death, a premature
>death, by taking drugs that are unnecessary.
And the data supporting this is ...where?
> When you can tell me why
>HIV+ individuals without the use of your drugs are living well past
>the ever extending latent phase of the HIV to AIDS timetable,
Distribution? Standard deviation? ANY DATA AT ALL? I thought not.
> I will
>tell you what the answer is to your question concerning the
>combination effect being "successful" in your opinion. Same argument
>as before, talk to me about "non-neutralizing" antibodies. Come on,
You are avoiding the point again. _YOU_CLAIMED_THAT_ANTIBODIES_MEAN_
YOU_HAVE_CONQUERED_INFECTION. I never made the syntacticly garbled,
nonsensical statement about "neutralizing" antibodies you are asking me
to defend. do you, or do you not believe that presence of antibodies
mean you have necessarily conquered infection? I have asked this
question a dozen times of you. The more you delay and blow smoke,
the more obvious it is to everybody you have no idea what you are talking
> 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
>Do you remember spontaneous generation?
What does this babble mean?
>Your logic in the previous
>sentence is empirical at best,
Thank you. I like being grounded in empirical fact.
>and at worst life threatening. Give
>all of the options to the poor schmucks diving into the cesspool of
Does this mean anything? I don't prescribe drugs to anyone. I am a researcher.
try and keep up.
>>BTW: I don't work for a "think tank". Perhaps my citations of the
>>literature confuse you.
>Perhaps, and then I could cut and paste things that might, might I
>say, impress you also. I don't even believe you're who YOU say you
That's a laugh, from an anonymous troll. My life is an open book. I use
my real name, and real affiliation. And you are..?
> 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?
>Perhaps, or a garbage collector or a nuclear physicist....
Does this babble have any relevance? Are you now backing from from your claim
that you are a dentist?
>>I also have no idea what you mean by "they thrown everything into this
>>equation but El Nino."
>Figure of speech
> Besides the grammatical lapse, I have absolutely
>>no clue as to what you are babbling about. We do clinical trials.
>Does that include placebo trials, are do you simply try to see which
>drug incapacitates the patient the quickest.'
A quick review of the literature can give you information on the research we
have done. You do know how to use MEDLINE?
More information about the Immuno