In article <362286f7.536167326 at netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
<johnburgin at worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>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.
Than please supply examples of such papers in 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
>Every day of my life
> or their monitoring,
>Every day of my life
Since you elect to remain anonymous, it's rather difficult to verify
or repudiate your claim. Frankly, I doubt it very much.
By the way: Are you now ready to defend your assertion that presence
of antibodies mean that the host has necessarily overcome infection?
>>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.
Sorry, but this is simply not in accord with the in vivo or in vitro
data. Excess AIDS was never seen in the active treatment arm of
any of the AZT vs. placebo trials.
I really don't have time for people whose debate reaches it's zenith
with "That's absolute poo poo mister". If you have facts to post, please
do so.
Carlton
