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. 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.
(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 or their monitoring,
you would know that one could not do anything but stop a trial that
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.
Carlton
