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?
>> I have spoken to AIDS patients that I have treated
>> that don't know why they are taking chemotherapy medication.
>>You should clarify you are a dentist, in this forum some might get the
>impression you are a physician. Of course this does not negate your
>arguements, but some scientific sources would be desirable. To date your
>arguements have merely been words in a vacuum.
>>[snip]... 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.
>>There was this recently in this regard from the CDC update you may find
>interesting:
>>From preventionews at cdcnpin.org Fri Sep 25 11:09:25 1998
>Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 09:24:58 -0400
>From: *Preventionews <preventionews at cdcnpin.org>
>To: "'prevention-news at hattrick.qrc.com'" <prevention-news at hattrick.qrc.com>
>Subject: [CDC News] CDC HIV/STD/TB Prevention News Update 09/23/98
>>***************************************************************
> PEER-REVIEWED JOURNALS
>***************************************************************
>>"False-Positive HIV-1 Test Results in a Low-Risk Screening
>Setting of Voluntary Blood Donation"
>Journal of the American Medical Association Online
>(09/23/98-09/30/98) Vol. 280, P. 1080; Kleinman, Steven; Busch,
>Michael P.; Hall, Lisa; et al.
>Researchers for the Retrovirus Epidemiology Donor Study report
>that a false HIV-1 diagnosis can result from the combination of
>enzyme immunoassay and Western blot screening in blood donor and
>other HIV-1 testing programs. The scientists investigated the
>frequency of false positive HIV-1 results among blood donors in
>the United States at five blood centers. Of 5 million allogeneic
>and autologous blood donors who donated between 1991 and 1995,
>421 donors were diagnosed HIV-1 positive by Western blot.
>Thirty-nine of the donors (9.3 percent) met the criteria for
>false positive diagnosis due to their lack of p31 reactivity; 20
>of these individuals (51.3 percent) were shown to be
>HIV-1-negative through PCR testing. The researchers found that
>4.8 percent of Western blot-positive donors were diagnosed
>false-positive, while 0.0004 percent of all donors tested
>false-positive for HIV-1. The scientists suggest that donors who
>lack the p31 band who receive a positive Western blot result
>should be advised that there is some uncertainty about the
>result. They further recommend that these donors be tested by
>RNA PCR if possible and HIV serologic analysis.
>>comment:
>Yes their are some mistakes made, however, we are still on the cusp here
>and we need to do more research. Work such as this will help to eliminate
>false positives, which is reported above to represent 0.0004% of all
>donors tested or ~5% of those diagnosed HIV-1 positive by these screening
>methods.
>>> 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 see you got in contact with David. Unfortunately David does not
>understand much about the PIs. I read a statement where he suggested
>VX-478 has a native peptide in P2' (occupied by a sulfylbenzylamine). Can
>you name me a native amino acid with such a moiety? I am quite
>disappointed with his work actually. I would have thought he would have
>attacked the real errors in PI work, rather than easily defendable trivia.
>His work is generally the better quality of the dissidents.
>> 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.
>>That's good you don't make such claims, because you're a dentist and he's
>an enzymologist. I don't see how you will bury anything but yourself
>however, as you have so far failed to support your rhetoric with any data
>whatsoever.
>>Have a day John!
>>Len...
ps. Had a nice chat with Val Turner, M.D., your country. Seems to
disagree with you on a scientific basis very strongly. Sure you can
handle him?jb
>>>
