"AIDS Treatment News" (Medline search)
johnburgin at worldnet.att.net
johnburgin at worldnet.att.net
Fri Oct 30 14:36:39 EST 1998
On Fri, 30 Oct 1998 12:04:08 -0700, marnix at u.washington.edu (Marnix L.
>In article <363a06ca.330303445 at netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
>johnburgin at worldnet.att.net wrote:
>> Marnix, again, I don't know what's come over you and Holzman, this
>> genuine show of professionalism is overwhelming. Thank you so very
>> much for being civil.
>It must be Friday ...
>> Now, on to other things:
>> Your statement, While I feel that currently in the efforts to make an
>> >>HIV-1 vaccine, enhancing antibodies are the least of our concern, they
>> >>should not be completely ignored.
>> May have some validity, but not with HIV or AIDS. Until two
>> scientists of "equal" stature, such as Peter Duesberg and Robert(I'm
>> still getting royalties anyway) Gallo can debate on 60 minutes, or
>> Crossfire or Dateline or MSNBC or MTV or any place you think it would
>> be a neutral site, can break this argument down into pieces small
>> enough for the end users to understand, trivialities, and side shows
>> will prevail on your end. You remind me of THE Church, trying to
>> discredit Gallileo for asserting that the Earth wasn't the center of
>> the universe and having to fess up 300 years later that he, Gallileo
>> was right, and they, THE Church were wrong. Gallileo didn't have the
>> internet. You know, I know, we all know that this ain't gonna happen.
>> Duesberg is censored and ostracized. jb
>And so he should be. There is no true disagreement in the scientific
That is false or there wouldn't be at least 3 Nobel laureates in the
Reapprasing AIDS camp if it were.
Duesberg stands alone and has been proven wrong many times.
No, Duesberg has sat still calmly, rationally refuting the dogma and
the molecular biological think tanks have been busting their asses to
figure out what to do and say next after such events take place:
1)KS is dropped as an AIDS indicator disease
2)AZT monotherapy fails
3)Cocktail therapy promotion shows more and more severe cracks
4)Leading AIDS scientists like Big Bob Gallo are found suspect by
their own peers
5)More and more scientists and lay people question the dogma
>This has been pointed out to you complete with literature citations
Duesberg, Mullis, Bernstein, Miller, Rasnick, etc., etc. etc. have
done the same for you and all you hear is blah, blah, blah.
>you have either not bothered to look up or to further discuss here.
>Instead your typical reaction is one of ranting, insulting the messenger
And well they should be! But THIS is not ranting. You haven't even
begun to see ranting. Why, when I get to ranting the first thing I do
is depress the all-caps key and don't release it.
>and changing the subject.
The subject is, does HIV cause AIDS. The answer is NO.
You show no evidence of having the training to
>grasp complex scientific issues, yet you are ready to dismiss solid
I remember tellin one of you when this was mentioned to me before that
it kind of sounded like "solid stools", and, for the same reason.
just because they come from the 'establishment'.
>What is it that you find convincing in Duesberg's stance ?
That he is correct and has absolutely nothing to gain financially by
Or does his
>position as iconoclast
That might appeal to him, but not to me.
appeal to you rather than his scientific arguments
So, you do admit that his arguments are scientific! jb
More information about the Immuno