"AIDS Treatment News" online * New Issue #302 (searchable/indexed)
carlton at walleye.ccbr.umn.edu
Fri Sep 25 15:47:08 EST 1998
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
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
>>> 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