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

johnburgin at worldnet.att.net johnburgin at worldnet.att.net
Thu Sep 24 12:46:38 EST 1998


On Wed, 23 Sep 1998 21:40:57 -0400, Wolfgang Resch
<wresch at email.unc.edu> wrote:

>
>
>On 23 Sep 1998 johnburgin at worldnet.att.net wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>> he's been busy writing a book, which you should buy and read.  He is
>> passionately against what you proclaim to be "good science".  Not all
>> scientists are bad, just the ones that aren't objective, which
>> obviously, you are not.  Have you ever heard of Emerson's quote, and I
>> paraphrase, brilliance is the ability to hold to conflicting views on
>> a subject and still be able to maintain objectivity.  Something like
>> that.  I used to be where you are, swallowing all the garbage the
>> government was spewing.  So, I guess I sort of feel sorry for you.
>> But there will be a time when you will be confronted with evidence
>> that you can't deny or dismiss.  One day you will meet someone that
>> has been HIV + for 20 years with no evidence of AIDS and no history of
>> taking drugs like AZT and PI's.  I hope that one day is no more than 7
>> years away.  Obviously that's the 20 year mark for the test labelling
>> people as being HIV + having been developed.
>> jb
>
>there are long-term non-progresors infected for a long time. and there are
>99 years old heavy smokers. will you deny smoking is unhealthy ? what does
>that mean for your argument ?
>
Smoking is not an viral "infection".  Same principle as my argument
against ARV's for AIDS, though.  Long term exposure to a toxin(tar,
toluene, AZT, etc) will produce varying results depending on the
constitution of the individual exposed to it.  Heavy smoking will
usually create the results consistent with medical findings.  On the
other hand, HIV, being a retrovirus, is consistent in its behavior
with every other retrovirus "infecting" man.  We need some well
documented, scientifically peer reviewed, controlled studies with HIV
+ individuals  who do not take AZT versus those that do.  These
studies must then be released for public review in a language that the
public can understand.  After all, they're usually the ones who must
take the meds.  Isn't that fair?  jb
>cheers
>wolfgang
>
>
>[snip]
>




More information about the Immuno mailing list