On Wed, 23 Sep 1998 11:42:39 -0700, learn at u.washington.edu (Jerry
>In article <6ubd93$sp9$1 at news1.tc.umn.edu>, carlton at walleye.ccbr.umn.edu>(Carlton Hogan) wrote:
>>> In article <3608f0a9.117819364 at netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
>> <johnburgin at worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> >On 22 Sep 1998 19:12:27 GMT, carlton at walleye.ccbr.umn.edu (Carlton
>> >Hogan) wrote:
>> >>In article <3607ed93.51483244 at netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
>> >> <johnburgin at worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> >>>Just dispatch old Kary, snap! Just like that. He gives you the most
>> >>>important biochemical discovery in the history of the world and you
>> >>>say thanks, see you later pal? Do you think he's a one trick pony?jb
>> >>Is this your only response to the cited scientific literature?
>> >>And by the way, what else medically meaningful work *has* Mullis
>>>> >Boy, that a brilliant statement. If Einstein had only published his
>> >theory of relativity as a young patent clerk, that wasn't proven for
>> >another 20 years, would he still be considered as "limited" due to not
>> >solving all the problems of the world. The days of da Vincis are over
>> >mister. By the way, since you brought it up, what have you or your
>> >diatribe of coneheads done lately that made life a little sweeter?
>> >Haven't seen your faces or names in the paper. Maybe buried in some
>> >dumb as scientific journal that no one reads outside of your peers.
>> >Can't say that about Mullis, can you? jb
>>>> Wow. what a scyntilatingly detailed, referenced, and well thought
>> out rejoinder! I guess *you* dealt with all the substantive issues
>> I raised. By the way, diatribe refers to heated speech: it is not a
>> description of a group of individuals. As to my work, well, if you
>> can access AIDSLINE, it speaks for itself. While you may not value
>> "dumb as(sic) scientific journals" I am afraid those of us who
>> work in scientific fields find them quite valuable: far more so
>> than the newspaper. Isn't that one of your prime criticisms of
>> Gallo? That he did "science by press conference" rather than
>> by peer review? Boy, you dissidents are a confused bunch.
>> You claim that if my work isn't in the papers it is valueless,
>> yet Gallo needs a different standard; you embrace Concorde
>> for it's demonstration that AZT monotherapy is not indicated in
>> asympomatics, yet squawk when reminded that Concorde also
>> demonstrated, quite convincingly, that AZT does not cause
>> AIDS. Maybe you all should put together a little "talking points"
>> paper, so that you don't contradict yourself quite as often.
>>>> I don't think anyone requested DaVincis. Rather, I would like to
>> see virologists who know virology, chemists who know chemistry,
>> and epidemiologists who know epidemiology. Not half-baked
>> virologists who criticize the epidemiology, and acid-sotted
>> chemists who criticize the virology and immunology. By the way.
>> What *has* Mullis done lately (besides creating a totally data-
>> free model of AIDS pathogenesis)?
>>>I did a check of Medline this morning, and the only thing that I can find
>since 1992 from him is the above mentioned paper (A hypothetical disease
>of the immune system that may bear some relation to the acquired immune
>deficiency syndrome. Genetica 95(1-3):195-197).
>>I'm sure we will all draw whatever conclusions seem appropriate.
Publishing just to be read is just like farting just to be heard.jb
>Jerry Learn <Learn at u.washington.edu>
>U. of Washington
>Seattle, WA 98195-7740 USA