On 12 Oct 1998 17:48:25 GMT, carlton at walleye.ccbr.umn.edu (Carlton
Hogan) wrote:
>In article <362204f5.502879737 at netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
> <johnburgin at worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>On Tue, 22 Sep 1998 11:25:39 -0700, marnix at u.washington.edu (Marnix L.
>>Bosch) wrote:
>>>>>In article <3607e5c8.49487590 at netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
>>>johnburgin at worldnet.att.net wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 22 Sep 1998 10:44:00 -0700, marnix at u.washington.edu (Marnix L.
>>>> Bosch) wrote:
>>>>>>>> >In article <3607ded5.47708518 at netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
>>>> >johnburgin at worldnet.att.net wrote:
>>>> >
>>>>>>At least Bob Gallo's 'proclamation' was based on some
>>That's soooooo scientific!
>> evidence. Whcih was
>>>subsequently peer
>>That "AIDS" is caused by HIV? Show me the money! The exact
>>scientific paper that has been "peer reviewed" and says, without a
>>doubt, that HIV causes "AIDS".
>>Please show me the one, peer-reviewed paper that shows T. Pallidum
>causes syphilis.
You can see those little squiggly fellows all over the place under the
microscope, (how about the mysteriously absent HIV?)
Or that influenza strains cause the flu. Or that
>HBV causes hepatitis B.This dissident idea of one overarching paper
>that contains all of the varied information (virologic, epidemiologic, etc)
>holds HIV to a standard that is not required for any other disease.
That's absolute poo poo mister.
>>(snip)
>>>Nothing you will explore further than the end of your nose.
>>, and conflicts with good solid evidence from clinical
>>>trials that combination therapy helps people with AIDS live longer.
>>They, the people running the studies "proving" the efficacy of AZT and
>>PI's keep shutting down the studies as soon as "some positive results"
>>show up. Take the "double blind" Welcome studies on AZT. Cut off a
>>little premature?
>
>Excuse me? If you ever were involved in clinical trials
Every day of my life
or their monitoring,
Every day of my life
>you would know that one could not do anything but stop a trial that
Had early results before the adverse effects of the drug kicked in
overriding the last ditch effort of the immune system to muster some
half-ass attempt to counteract the poison.
>showed a statistically significant result of 19 events in the control
>group , and only one event in the treatment group. Please explain how
>any rational person could _not_ terminate such a study.
Well now, we know that we should have let it go on about a year longer
and let somebody besides Wellcome pay for it. It's just a tad bit
more objective that way. jb
>>Carlton
>
