In article <3640d600.169607260 at netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
<johnburgin at worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>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!
You pathetic moron. I'll make these sentences short, so that you can
follow: George raised the fact that immunity from infection was not
always the same as immunity from vaccination. You jeered at this. I pointed
out the western blots were different. You said "No vaccine and you already
got the wester(sic) blot for it!" I gave you references to vaccines
in trials were these data came from. You try, once again, to change
the subject to whether you want to pay for this research or not.
Whether you approve or not is irrelevant. The point is that western
blot data is available from vaccine trials. Is it impossible for you
to stay on subject? All this squirming and misdirection fools nobody.
>>>>>>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.
Really? You claimed HIV has never been isolated. Are you sticking by
that statement, or renouncing it? And how can you find the Perth
Group's statements "convincing", when you have demonstrated time and
again your utter lack of scientific knowledge, and your disinclination
to actually educate yourself as to the facts? Of course I have read
Duesberg - how else could I have any justification for disagreeing
if I was not familar with his ideas. Perhaps you might want to take
a similar tack, and read some immunology, virology, and epidemiology
before you accuse 99.9% of the people in those fields as being either
too stupid to realize all their experiments were not on HIV as they
thought, or else malificent conspirators.
Carlton
