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

johnburgin at worldnet.att.net johnburgin at worldnet.att.net
Tue Oct 27 17:53:33 EST 1998

On 27 Oct 1998 22:37:35 GMT, carlton at walleye.ccbr.umn.edu (Carlton
Hogan) wrote:

>In article <3636479a.84714787 at netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
> <johnburgin at worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>On 27 Oct 1998 18:04:44 GMT, carlton at walleye.ccbr.umn.edu (Carlton
>>Hogan) wrote:
>>>In article <363541e0.17702413 at netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
>>> <johnburgin at worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>>>Standard errors are all that you can produce when you have a faulty
>>>>premise.  Still don't know what spontaneous generation is?  
>>>I think no more need be said about this clown's scientific acumen.
>>>John- look up standard error in any biostatistic or epidemiology test.
>>>I think you will be amazed at how different the meaning is from what 
>>>you imagine.
>>Call me anything you prefer, the fact remains that standardized error
>>is immaterial when the basic premise for the test
The tests, any of them that are labeled "AIDS" tests, ELISA, Western
Blot, etc., the flawed premise being HIV=AIDS. jb
 is flawed.
>What test is that? We were talking about the standard error on HEALs
>claim of 1000 healthy HIV+. No test in sight. Try and stay awake, dear.
>>  No,
>>you're wrong, there's nothing that you guys could say that wouldn't
>>strecth my imagination.  I believe that you fellas have pretty much
>>left yourselves so openminded that your brains have fallen out and you
>>don't know it.  Faulty premise, HIV doesn't cause AIDS.  No scientific
>>paper has proven it.  You can't use the "prove it doesn't" routine,
>>you know better. Show us all the paper, the magic, peer reviewed paper
>>concluding that HIV causes AIDS 
>All you layperson dissidents harp on and on about this magic paper
>that "proves" HIV causes AIDS. Where is the paper that proves influenza
>causes the flu? Or that T.Pallidum causes syphilis? Or that M. tuberculosis
>causes TB? The magical, all-in-one paper you demand would need
>to incorporate molecular biology, virology, epidemiology etc. Such
>a comprehensive paper has never been written (except in review articles).
>This is because epidemiologists talk about what they know:
>epidemiology. Virologists publish on virology - it's their fielf. 
>This magical paper you demand is not standard scientific practice,
>and does not exist for most diseases where even you would concede
>a causative micoorganism has been identified.

More information about the Immuno mailing list