On 4 Nov 1998 22:56:13 GMT, johnburgin at worldnet.att.net wrote:
>On 4 Nov 1998 21:22:49 GMT, carlton at walleye.ccbr.umn.edu (Carlton
>Hogan) wrote:
>>So, two out of let me see, 5 is it? You and George are gay, that
>really makes your arguments biased. Did you say there was a pay
>freeze on for you and your other lab rats? Excellent! A pay cut would
>be better, but I'll be satisfied with the freeze for now.
>Did you even take the time to read the email that I sent you about
>Valerie?
>>In article <363fa56b.91622836 at netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
>> <johnburgin at worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>>Carlton, I repeat, you suck big time. You will never understand that
>>>life is not in
>>>a test tube.
>>>>I don't work with test tubes. I do clinical trials. That means trials
>>in people. Any basic biostatistics book could tell you more.
>>>>> When you have the time(which obviously you do because
>>>you're sending
>>>pointless emails and answering newsgroup messages with individuals who
>>>don't give a
>>>shit about what you say or think),
>>>>This coming from a crossposting spammer who excretes a dozen messages
>>a day?
>nasty!
>>>>> read about the story involving the
>>>Maine mother
>>>who won her court fight against HIV doctors. Her name is Valerie
>>>Emerson, 27.
>>>>Yeah, so? People have the choice and the right to take meds or not
>>as they choose.
>Liar! You obviously don't know that this woman had her child taken
>away from her by the courts becaused she refused further poisoning
>with AZT or the Cocktail "therapy". Some choice.
>You will never find anything I have ever said that
>>contradicts this. Her right to refuse AZT
>What right?
>tells us nothing about AZT
>>itself, just as Christian Scientists
>Be careful, I might just be a Christian Scientist
> who refuse vaccines tell us
>>nothing about vaccine efficacy
>>>>> When
>>>there is a basic disagreement in ideology, as there is with you and
>>>me, there can be
>>>no reason, or proof that will satisfy either of us.
>>>>Not true for me (although probably for you) If there was a substantial
>>body of credible evidence that something other than HIV caused AIDS,
>>I would have to rethink my position.
>No you wouldn't because then the awful truth would come out, that your
>behavior caused you to become sick
> Problem is, the "dissident"
>>viewpoint gets weaker, and more untenable every year,
>Not so, and you know it. HEAL wasn't even around until 1985
make that, correction, 1995(sorry)
. Now
>there are chapters across the U.S. and several foreign countries(it
>might help you to look into this, it might even save your life) More
>and more scientists, physicians and lay people are joining Reapprasing
>AIDS every day.
> not more
>>believable.
>>>>> I assure you, if
>>>I thought, for
>>>a moment, that there was any validity in the "research" that you do or
>>>the argument
>>>that you have, I would have the time, intellect and resources to
>>>understand.
>>>>>>Thank you for admitting that you have not taken the time to understand
>>the research you condemn. Unlike you,
>What have you read of Duesberg and Lanka? Have you read Inventing the
>AIDS Virus? I keep waiting for you to claim that the RA group,
>especially Duesberg, are homophobic, is that correct? What about
>Lauritsen? He's not a scientist either but he is gay and he'll tear
>you up on this issue.
> I *have* read Duesberg, Lanka,
>>the PAG as well as mainstream research. I would never make up my mind
>>until I understood both sides of the argument.
>How can you possible know RA's argument and not be in favor of further
>investigation into causality? Hypocrite!
>>>> But,
>>>your belief is motivated by money and career advancement. You
>>>philistines are all
>>>alike.
>>>>Money? Bwahahahaha! Tell my boss. maybe he will stop laughing long
>>enough to tell you that the University has been under a pay-freeze for
>>seven years. I am in AIDS research because I have AIDS, and I have lost
>>dozens of friends. This may be onanistic verbiage to you. to me it's
>>life and death.
>>>>>But, just because you seem slow at understanding where I stand
>>>on things:
>>>1)There is no relevance in the argument that you seem to want to
>>>pursue about
>>>antibodies producing a life long immunity to disease.
>>>>>>You little snake.
>Oh, so now I'm a little snake. Weren't you the one that wanted to
>stay away from ad hominem attacks?
> I never said the above. YOU claimed that Abs
>>necessarily mean one has conquered infection.
>Yes, I plead guilty to the truth!
> Your monomaniacal focus
>My maniacal focus! You're the one with AIDS.
>>on Abs alone is ridiculous. You don't seem to even acknowledge
>>cell-mediated immunity, which appears key to HIV immunity.
>>>>> There are
>>>instances when we
>>>lose immunity over time with little or no reexposure to the antigen
>>>for a
>>>significant period of time.
>>>>So? That blows out of the water your claim that HIV Ab means you
>>have conquered HIV.
>No, it says exactly what it means. Reexposure shortly(years) after a
>successful antigen/antibody reaction formation insures protection.
>>>>> These "revaccinations" are called booster
>>>injections(hepatitis b and tetanus).
>>>>Are we talking about immunity via infection, or via vaccination?
>>You seem very confused.
>Are you a child? What's the difference between getting vaccinated
>with the agent and getting exposed to the disease if the reaction
>achieves the aforementioned result, i.e., protection?
>>>>> However, I stand by my
>>>statement, there must be
>>>immunity with antibody formation, at least in the immediate(I consider
>>>years) term.
>>>That is why HIV, cannot cause AIDS. Especially if one is constantly
>>>"reexposed" to
>>>the antigen by a "mutant" strain.
>>>>Several people have told you thatyou are wrong in this.
>It'll take more than "several" biased individuals.
> Get a basic
>>immunology textbook. I recommend William Paul's. Its well written and thorough.
>>>>> What one is doing at the time we
>>>are "diagnosed"
>>>HIV + makes all the difference.
>>>>And you have data to support this idea?
>What's the matter, asshole, can't take it? Can't take listening to
>the poor story of a
>person not as "educated" as you? Just ignore her, is that it? You're
>more concerned
>about word wrapping than a person's life or the sanctity of the
>family? You couldn't
>handle the truth if it was presented to you by your mother, assuming
>you weren't cloned.jb
>>Carlton Hogan wrote:
>> "John B Burgin, DDS writes to say:"
> >
> > Carlton, I repeat, you suck big time. You will never understand
>that life is not in
> > a test tube.
>> John:
>> I work in clinical trials, not test tube work. If you knew what you
>were
> talking about, you would know the difference.
>> Your beliefs, below, are just bizarre and wrong. Get a basic
>imunology
> text book.
>> Oh, and learn to word wrap at < 80 characters.
>> Carlton
>> When you have the time(which obviously you do because you're
>sending
> > pointless emails and answering newsgroup messages with individuals
>who don't give a
> > shit about what you say or think), read about the story involving
>the Maine mother
> > who won her court fight against HIV doctors. Her name is Valerie
>Emerson, 27.
> When
> > there is a basic disagreement in ideology, as there is with you
>and me, there can be
> > no reason, or proof that will satisfy either of us. I assure you,
>if I thought, for
> > a moment, that there was any validity in the "research" that you
>do or the argument
> > that you have, I would have the time, intellect and resources to
>understand. But,
> > your belief is motivated by money and career advancement. You
>philistines are all
> > alike. But, just because you seem slow at understanding where I
>stand on things:
> > 1)There is no relevance in the argument that you seem to want to
>pursue about
> > antibodies producing a life long immunity to disease. There are
>instances when we
> > lose immunity over time with little or no reexposure to the
>antigen for a
> > significant period of time. These "revaccinations" are called
>booster
> > injections(hepatitis b and tetanus). However, I stand by my
>statement, there must be
> > immunity with antibody formation, at least in the immediate(I
>consider years) term.
> > That is why HIV, cannot cause AIDS. Especially if one is
>constantly "reexposed" to
> > the antigen by a "mutant" strain. What one is doing at the time
>we are "diagnosed"
> > HIV + makes all the difference. If our immune system is all
>fucked up because of IV
> > or oral drugs(as in 90% of the cases of AIDS), that has nothing to
>do with HIV. If
> > some lameass physician places an HIV+ person on AZT monotherapy,
>Cocktail
> therapy or
> > whatever the poison du jour is, that will certainly not encourage
>the immune system
> > to flourish. As a matter of natural progression with poisons, the
>individual will
> > eventually succumb or become so sick that they will be forced to
>stop taking it. You
> > will note that in the accompanying article.
> > 2)Enhancing antibodies, I don't care if you find fifty thousand
>references to them.
> > My point was and still is, they don't make a difference. There
>are some things that
> > I trust to others, information on enhancing antibodies from people
>that I respect
> > would be in line. If pathologists don't use them or haven't heard
>of them, why in the
> > crap should I worry about it? You're an epicyclist with spin that
>is so
> > unbelieveably incredible that you're getting like Clinton, you
>can't even tell
> > yourself when you're lying.
> > 3)Nucleosides, AZT in particular, I have demonstrated, have been
>reduced in dosage
> > from the monotherapy levels, but not enough(zero is the correct
>amount). If I gave
> > you a hundred case studies it wouldn't change your mind that
>higher amounts were
> > given before the PI's came along. You've already shown that by
>the ones that I have
> > indicated.
> > You don't have a conscience. You never will. I hope that when
>the scientific world
> > has to pay for their arrogance and iatrogenicide, you will be the
>first in line to
> > pay and I will be in the front row watching(I'll be the one with
>the bag of
> > popcorn). As I've said before, the truth is like an airplane, it
>has to land
> > sometime.
> >
> > Letter from Valerie Emerson
> > from the October issue of Reappraising AIDS, 1998
> >
> > Dear David Rasnick:
> > There are no words strong enough for me to express the depth
>of my gratitude to
> > you. My son has a new lease on life now thanks to you and all my
>other supporters.
> > My daughter Tia was sick before she took AZT, but after she
>started taking it she
> > went downhill fast. I asked about all the new problems that
>suddenly appeared along
> > with it. The answer to all of my questions was --HIV.
> > My son NIkolas was nowhere as sick as Tia had been, so when he
>got worse
> while
> > taking AZT, it was obviously the AZT, not HIV.
> > I knew little then about HIV and AIDS, just what the doctors
>told me.
> > I read Duesberg's article, "With Therapies Like This, Who
>Needs Disease?" That
> > is what finally convinced me 100% that my ideas weren't ludicrous.
>Duesberg writes
> > about Cheryl Nagel's baby girl Lindsey, and compares her with Doug
>and Nancy
> Simon's
> > daughter, Candice. if you look at my two children and those two
>children, the
> > experiences are exactly the same. That was the first time I had
>any evidence backing
> > my ideas about these drugs. it felt so good to realize that I was
>not alone with my
> > ideas, that I was not "making up notions to disregard AIDS" as I
>had been told.
> > I am just a country girl and mother. The only education I
>have is I graduated
> > from high school with honors. if I can come up with the same
>conclusions that you
> and
> > Dr Duesberg and Dr Giraldo have with all your expertise, why is it
>so hard for
> > everyone else? To me it is as clear as black and white based on
>my experience and
> > the limited amount of research I've been able to do. Why do
>doctors with all this
> > information at easy access so adamantly reject your ideas? Yours
>is the only
> > conclusion that makes any sense at all.
> > You and Dr Giraldo are the first to accept my beliefs without
>question. You gave
> > me the self confidence I needed to get through this court battle.
>I was so scared my
> > son's life was going to be sacrificed just like Tia's, for a bad
>idea. As the judge
> > wrote, "She feels that she has willingly and in good faith
>surrendered up the life of
> > one child to the best treatment medicine has to offer and does not
>want to do the
> > same with the next." He also wrote: "Dr McIntosh best sums up the
>medical
> > observation of having to suffer a terminal illness by statin that
>all people suffer
> > from the terminal illness called life.
> > Awesome judge--I think!
> > His decision has set a precedent that will help other parents
>protect their
> > children from the HIV doctors. But it can't help them if they
>don't know about it.
> > This is why I speak to reporters every chance I get. This is the
>way I can help
> > others, the way you and Dr Giraldo and Hillary Billings helped me.
>I feel it is my
> > duty as a human being, my "calling".
> > I can remember my grandmother sitting in the kitchen on the
>old homestead peeling
> > apples for an apple pie. She said to me, "Val, for everything in
>life there is a
> > purpose--we may never know what that purpose is, but God has a
>purpose for
> everything
> > in life." I believe the purpose of my family's ordeal is to help
>save others to
> > live. This eases the pain in my life, and makes me welcome it.
> > Thank you so much for enriching my life. You and Dr Giraldo
>are my heroes.
> > Please tell Dr Duesberg how much he has helped. If it wasn't for
>doctors like you
> > three , my child might be on death's door right now. I cannot
>express the depths of
> > my gratitude.
> > Sincerely, Valerie Emerson
> >
> > This, Carlton, is life outside of the test tube. You suck
>bigtime. jb
> >
> > Carlton Hogan wrote:
> >
> > > "John B Burgin, DDS writes to say:"
> > > >
> > > > Carlton, you suck big time. love, jb
> > >
> > > You certainly refuted my claim that you cannot win an argument
>on merit
> > > by this trenchant and informed comment. When you want to argue
>FACTS I
> > > will be here.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Carlton Hogan wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > "John B Burgin, DDS writes to say:"
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Carlton Hogan wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > In article <36392c43.274351805 at netnews.worldnet.att.net>
>you write:
> > > > > > > >On 29 Oct 1998 03:38:12 GMT, flefever at ix.netcom.com(F.
>Frank
> LeFever)
> > > > > > > >wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>This is worth repeating.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>I've trimmed some of the fat so Bosch's respnse to
>"John Burgin" is not
> > > > > > > >>obscured. It appears that not only is "John Burgin"
>(real name??)
> > > > > > > >>ignorant of some basic terms, but (if we can believe
>him) so are his
> > > > > > > >>alleged medical colleagues and his molecular biologist
>(apologies
> > > > > > > >they don't need apologies, they agree with me that
>you're full of it
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > >>them if he misrepresents them). Moreover, they do not
>know how to
> > > > > > > >>write a good
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >Oh, so you're the big kahuna of medline because you can
>drag up a few
> > > > > > > >obscure and TOTALLY UNIMPORTANT articles about
>"Enhancing
> Antibodies"?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Totally unimportant? I would rather here such a
>judgement from
> > > > > > > SOMEONE WHO ACTUALLY HAS A CLUE WHAT S/HE IS
> TALKING ABOUT.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I try to understand why you would advocate giving totally
>healthy
> > > > > > chemotherapy meds to babies that are in the womb of an
>HIV+ mother. I
> just
> > > > > > can't fathom your motives or explanations.
> > > > >
> > > > > You seem to have a great skill in trying to change the
>subject. The
> > > > > subject here is that claimed 1. presence of antibodies mean
>one
> > > > > has conquered infection. 2. enhancing antibodies don't
>exist.
> > > > > 3. dosage of nucleosides are reduced when using PIs.
> > > > >
> > > > > You seem incapable of admitting that you are wrong on all
>three of these.
> > > > > Babbling on about "spontaneous generation", and perinatal
>transmission
> > > > > doesn't fool anyone. You cannot win an argument on merits,
>so
> > > > > you try and change the subject. I'm on to you.
> > > > >
> > > > > Carlton
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > >
>>__________________________________________________________________________
> > > |
>|> > > | Carlton Hogan (carlton at gopher.ccbr.umn.edu)
>|> > > | Community Programs for Clinical Research on AIDS
>Statistical Center |
> > > | Coordinating Center for Biometric Research
>|> > > | Division of Biostatistics, School of Public Health
>|> > > | University of Minnesota
>http://www.biostat.umn.edu/~carlton |
> > > | 2221 University Ave SE, Suite 200 Voice: (612)
>626 8899 |
> > > | Minneapolis MN 55414 FAX: (612)
>626 8892 |
> > >
>>|________________________________________________________________________|
> >
> >
> >
> >
>> --
>>__________________________________________________________________________
> |
>|> | Carlton Hogan (carlton at gopher.ccbr.umn.edu)
>|> | Community Programs for Clinical Research on AIDS Statistical
>Center |
> | Coordinating Center for Biometric Research
>|> | Division of Biostatistics, School of Public Health
>|> | University of Minnesota
>http://www.biostat.umn.edu/~carlton |
> | 2221 University Ave SE, Suite 200 Voice: (612) 626
>8899 |
> | Minneapolis MN 55414 FAX: (612) 626
>8892 |
>>|________________________________________________________________________
> |
>>>>>>>>>You're right about one thing - I really do have no more time for this.
>>Let's summarize:
>>You claimed -
>> antibodies mean one has conquered infection
>> enhancing antibodies don't exist
>> nucleoside doses were lowered for use with PIs.
>>>>You have been shown wrong on all these points. Yet you keep
>>changing the subject, ducking and weaving, and trying to missdirect
>>attention. Let's talk about these three points, with references to data,
>>OK?
>>>o.k. daddy. jb
>>Carlton
>
