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

johnburgin at worldnet.att.net johnburgin at worldnet.att.net
Thu Sep 24 18:28:02 EST 1998

On 24 Sep 1998 18:27:58 GMT, carlton at walleye.ccbr.umn.edu (Carlton
Hogan) wrote:

>In article <Pine.A41.3.95L.980923213817.130648C-100000 at login3.isis.unc.edu>,
>Wolfgang Resch  <wresch at email.unc.edu> wrote:
>>On 23 Sep 1998 johnburgin at worldnet.att.net wrote:
>>> 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 ?
>Thanks. I was going to make a similar point, but I said to myself
>"why bother?". This individual is far too ignorant to waste 
>time arguing with, and I have some sensitivity to the poster 
>earlier this week, who requested that discussions here be about
>molecular biology. As I have made the same entreaty in the past,
>it would be hypocritical not to honor it now. This strange poster
>seems to be far more ignorant than even the usual "dissident", completely
>unaware of, and dismissive of, good scientific practice. Maybe if we
>ignore him, he will go away.
That's right Carlton, I'm far too ignorant to waste time arguing with.
So why don't you pick on something really big and ugly.  The facts.
You see, when I've been confronted with people(and I use the term
loosely to include you) who know everything because they have been in
some mind warp trying to epicycle themselves to death I get great
pleasure in the knowledge that one day, hopefully sooner than later,
what they believe is statistical knowledge will bury them.  I've been,
as I said, involved in discussions with pathologists, people who
should know better, who should be able to defend this b.s., and find
them unable to defend HIV specificity tests, clinicians who can't
understand why an HIV positive test shouldn't confer immunity like
every other disease, physicians who have no idea what Koch's
postulates are and physicians who say that the HIV retrovirus fulfills
Koch's postulates.  I have spoken to AIDS patients that I have treated
that don't know why they are taking chemotherapy medication.  The news
media doesn't post "anomalies", "statistically insignificant items as
though people don't matter.  Why can't you understand that?  Do you
know anything outside of your field?  Got a hobby?  Got a life? 
What does good scientific practice mean to you?  Have you ever had a
person't life in your care?  Have you ever seen a doctor prescribe an
antibiotic for a sick patient without knowing the pathological agent,
using "empirical" therapy until it could be substantiated that the
organism was indeed susceptible to the antibiotic that you are using?
please don't think that I need your approval for my sense of self
worth.  Climb out of your test tube and learn about life.  Talk to
people that have been through the process of a misdiagnosis of being
HIV positive(due to a number of unrelated causes to HIV "infection")
and have had their lives ruined.  Hey, but what's a life worth anyway.
Anytime you guys want to prove just how smart you are or how good your
data is, submit it to Reappraising AIDS.  Start with the protease
inhibitors.  Address it to David Rasnick, 7514 Girard Ave., #1-331, La
Jolla, CA 92037(you do know who that is, don't you?)  I'm sure we'd be
willing to "carefully" evaluate your data and submit a point by point
objective review.  David doesn't claim to be a physician and I don't
claim to be a molecular biologist.  However, together we'll bury you.
> __________________________________________________________________________
> |                                                                        |
> |   Carlton Hogan  (carlton at gopher.ccbr.umn.edu)                         |
> |   Community Programs for Clinical Research on AIDS Statistical Center  |
> |   Coordinating Center for Biometric Research                           |
> |   Division of Biostatistics, School of Public Health                   |
> |   University of Minnesota          http://www.biostat.umn.edu/~carlton |
> |   2221 University Ave SE, Suite 200              Voice: (612) 626 8899 |
> |   Minneapolis  MN 55414                            FAX: (612) 626 8892 |
> |________________________________________________________________________|
>   Affilation provided for purpose of identification, not representation.

More information about the Immuno mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net