On 4 Nov 1998 21:04:13 GMT, carlton at walleye.ccbr.umn.edu (Carlton
Hogan) wrote:
>In article <363f9ca5.89376972 at netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
> <johnburgin at worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>On 2 Nov 1998 20:47:59 GMT, carlton at walleye.ccbr.umn.edu (Carlton
>>Hogan) wrote:
>>>>>In article <363ce241.84284241 at netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
>>> <johnburgin at worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>>>On Sun, 01 Nov 1998 13:26:27 GMT, gmc0 at ix.netcom.com (George M.
>>>>Carter) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>johnburgin at worldnet.att.net wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Vaccination-induced seropositivity is NOT the same as
>>>>>infection-induced seropositivity.
>>>>Vaccination-induced seropositivity is NOT the same as
>>>>>infection-induced seropositivity.
>>>>How do you know? How do you know?
>>>>>>Because he reads the literature. It really helps in understanding.
>>`>Because he can, excuse me, "read"?
>>Once again, your command of the material, and thoughtful analysis
>show through.
thank you
>>>>>>>>> (There are many different kinds of
>>>>>vaccines, including whole-killed, live but disabled, subunit and other
>>>>>varieties; the "live but disabled" variety (my terms)
>>>>Actually, for the vaccines currently in trials, there *is* a distinctive
>>>and unique wester blot associated with vaccination. This is because no
>>>vaccine is using whole HIV, but just incomplete collections of antigens.
>>>Absolutely bogus. No vaccine and you already got the wester(sic) blot
>>for it!
>>What the hell are you talking about? There are at least two vaccines
>rapidly appproaching phase III (VaxSyn and Remune), and *dozens* in
>phase I trials.
I don't care how "rapidly" they are approaching anywhere, it's bogus
research and I'm having to pay for it. That makes it really bad. Why
don't you sign up for the first phase of vaccinations? Enjoy the
bennies of being the first guy on your block to receive the wonders of
a new drug, like, let me see, why, AZT!
>>>>>>>>How will the test be
>>>>able to tell, with certaintly, that the seropositive status is from
>>>>"non-neutralizing" antibodies(I just love that term, it's so
>>>>"grounding") or the real McCoy? Obviously the only way one will know
>>>>for sure is if they don't develop AIDS. Isn't that special?
>>>>>>It's not true, is what it is. See the above.
>>>see the above
>>Your ignorance of the existing clinical trials doesn't mean they
>don't exist - try http://hivinsite.ucsf.edu and use the "trialfinder"
>to get sites, eligibility, etc for the current vaccine trials in the US.
>Not even mentioning the trials going on in Africa, Thailand, etc.
>>>>Isolation of the HIV retrovirus hasn't been accomplished(remember the
>>$1 million dollar reward in Continuum. So, even if, if it caused
>>AIDS, which it obviously doesn't, how are you going to make the proper
>>antigen for the vaccine?
>>Funny: your hero, Duesberg claims it *has* been isolated, and tried to
>collect the prize. The folks at continuum "moved the goalposts" and
>screwed him over.
Well, you have been reading about Dr Duesber! Perth disagrees with
him and their arguments are pretty convincing. They do both agree
that HIV doesn't cause AIDS so, this little sideshow doesn't bother me
in the least. jb
>>Carlton
