"AIDS Treatment News" online * New Issue #302 (searchable/indexed)
johnburgin at worldnet.att.net
johnburgin at worldnet.att.net
Fri Sep 25 15:32:12 EST 1998
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
Three strikes, you're out.
> 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.
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
reproach? Are you sure Ptolmey was an ancestor of yours? I'm sure
that many of your dental colleagues would take serious offense to
being placed anywhere but on the same professional level as
physicians. Labels never concerned me, but they do piss off many
people that I know when denigrated in the fashion as you attempt to
do. My brother is a physician, my sister is a nurse, I have been on
the staff of 2 hospitals which didn't seem concerned about my level of
understanding of scientific fact, rather, they request my services on
a regular basis when they don't know what to do with medical diseases
related to dental origin.
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
>> 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
>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.
>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
>> 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
>Have a day John!
More information about the Immuno