On 22 Sep 1998 johnburgin at worldnet.att.net wrote:
No paper proving untreated controls fare better than those on treatment.
John, why not contact the Australian HEAL chapter - they all died off.
They gave up being "guinea pigs" too, perhaps they didn't have enough
"faith"? What about HEAL founding members, why are they pushing up
Speak to real live persons John - they can tell you too. there is a list
server for those on Crixivan (Crixlist), and how about the longterm
non-progressors list? Why not ask them? In the meantime I'd search the
literature a bit better, you seemed to have missed quite a few key
articles on antiretroviral therapies and their benefits. But of course,
you were just reciting the dissident nonsense weren't you? Or were
you dodging Marnix's question by trying to turn it about?
> That's exactly the point, there are no controlled studies to prove
> that they don't. I suggest that you contact the Los Angeles chapter
> of HEAL. Talk to some real live people that gave up on being guinea
> pigs and are very healthy, despite being HIV +. Start with Christine
> Maggiore. Duesberg has been screaming for a controlled study like
> this for at least 9 years. The AIDS establishment doesn't want it to
> happen. But again, the best evidence is in speaking with real live
> persons. There are plenty of the real dead ones that went your route
> that can't defend themselves. jb
> On Mon, 21 Sep 1998 17:41:44 -0700, marnix at u.washington.edu (Marnix L.
> Bosch) wrote:
>> >In article <3606c736.257123235 at netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
> >johnburgin at worldnet.att.net wrote:
> >> On Thu, 17 Sep 1998 15:57:23 GMT, gmc0 at ix.netcom.com (George M.
> >> Carter) wrote:
> >> >Todd Miller <todd33 at ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>AIDS Treatment News / Immunet wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>> Long-term survivors have usually tried many different treatments,
> >> >>> and found combinations which work for them.
> >> >
> >> >>Does anyone know of a reference that supports this statement?
> >> >>Is this statement true because by definition, a "long-term
> >> >>survivor" is a person who HAS taken the establishment's therapy,
> >> >>while a "long-term non-progressor" is a person who has avoided
> >> >>this therapy?
> >> >
> >> >There is evidence that people with AIDS (who have progressed whether
> >> >they took drugs or not) have better clinical condition and survival
> >> >when they take drugs in combination than those who do not use drugs
> >> >who have progressed to AIDS.
> >> There is evidence to the opposite also, that is, that those taking the
> >> immunosuppressive "AIDS" drugs have worse clinical conditions and
> >> poorer survival when they take drugs(I assume you are speaking of the
> >> usual poisons, AZT and PI's)in combination than those who do not use
> >> drugs(again I am assuming the same thing) who have progressed to AIDS.
> >> Really poor sentence structure and definitely a circular argument,
> >> kind of HIV=AIDzey(pronounced like 'sy' in easy)
> >Could you please post that evidence ? That is: studies that show that
> >people on anti-HIV cocktails fare worse than matched HIV-1 infected
> >untreated controls. Please.
> >Marnix Bosch