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

johnburgin at worldnet.att.net johnburgin at worldnet.att.net
Fri Sep 25 15:49:52 EST 1998

On 25 Sep 1998 20:47:08 GMT, carlton at walleye.ccbr.umn.edu (Carlton
Hogan) wrote:

>One more comment: If you are in fact a dentist, and believe that 
>presence of antibodies means you have conquered an infection
>(counter examples: syphilis, herpes, hepatitis and most damningly
>leishmaniasis, leprosy and schistomasiasis, where higher antibody
>titers are prognostic for WORSE clinical outcome) then I am very concerned
>for your patients. Such staggering ignorance in a medical professional
>is outrageous.
now who's guilty of handwaving!jb
>In article <6ugv9h$da8$1 at news1.tc.umn.edu>,
>Carlton Hogan <carlton at walleye.ccbr.umn.edu> wrote:
>>In article <360bf911.316608552 at netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
>> <johnburgin at worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>>On Fri, 25 Sep 1998 11:27:34 +1000, Leonard Pattenden
>>><ddlpatte at mailbox.uq.edu.au> wrote:
>>>>On 24 Sep 1998 johnburgin at worldnet.att.net wrote:
>>>>> 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.
>>>>We are still waiting for you to post 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.
>>>>Please post statistics showing AZT causes AIDS, especially uncorrelated to
>>>>HIV infection.
>>>>  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.
>>>>Which postulate of Koch's has not been fulfilled John?
>>>none of them,
>>>In a key paper on tuberculosis in 1884, Koch spelled out the three
>>>criteria for proving a microbe guilty of causing a disease:
>>>1)First, the germ must be found growing abundantly in every patient
>>>and every diseased tissue.
>>>2)Second, the germ must be isolated and grown in the laboratory
>>>3)Third, the purified germ must cause the disease again in another
>>Interestingly enough, Koch himself was unable to apply his postulates
>>to cholera, although he himself was sure of the organism. So koch's
>>postulates (which never even acknowledged viruses) fell short of 
>>even meeting Koch's needs. It's worthwhile to do some background 
>>reading before regurgitating dissident lore intact.
>>>>impression you are a physician.
>>>So, since I am a dentist, you are assuming what?  Are you now going to
>>>assume that a dentist is not "qualified" to investigate, question and
>>>repudiate, if need be, the information that you proclaim to be beyond
>>No, but somebody who speaks dismissively of "dumb as (sic)
>>scientific journals", and who claims that science is not 
>>meaningful unless it's in the newspaper is CLEARLY not qualified.

More information about the Immuno mailing list

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