On 22 Oct 1998 18:29:23 GMT, carlton at walleye.ccbr.umn.edu (Carlton
Hogan) wrote:
>In article <362f74e4.1383636237 at netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
> <johnburgin at worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>On 22 Oct 1998 16:29:02 GMT, carlton at walleye.ccbr.umn.edu (Carlton
>>Hogan) wrote:
>>>>>In article <362e66ea.1314511186 at netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
>>> <johnburgin at worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>>>On 21 Oct 1998 16:41:33 GMT, carlton at walleye.ccbr.umn.edu (Carlton
>>>>Hogan) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>In article <362dd6f4.1277652441 at netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
>>>>> <johnburgin at worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>>>>>On 16 Oct 1998 17:27:18 GMT, carlton at walleye.ccbr.umn.edu (Carlton
>>>>>>Hogan) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>In article <3623d68e.622091374 at netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
>>>>>>> <johnburgin at worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>was so poisonous, or caused AIDS, how could pairing the same dose
>>>>>>>>>with another nuke *improve* clinical outcome?
>>>>>>>>Beats me, maybe some kind of reductionist synergism, like mixing two
>>>>>>>>highly toxic poisons, sodium with Chlorine, to make table salt.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You have aspired to your loftiest apex of genius yet. Please provide
>>>>>>>any plausible chemical reaction through which this could occur.
>>>>>>>>>>>>2Na + Cl2 > 2 NaCl , um, that was what you wanted, wasn't it? jb
>>>>>>>>>>You are either the one of the stupidest persons extant, or the most
>>>>>disingenuous.
>>>>>>>Neither, apparently you don't have a sense of humor....it was a joke.
>>>>Anyway, humor is lost on even morons(or is that especially?)jb
>>>>>>You may call it humor: I call it misdirection. You claimed
>>No, I didn't claim anything of the sort, you said that I did. I was
>>merely making a bit of highly sarcastic humor that apparently went
>>several miles above your puny but thick skull. No. I don't have the
>>foggiest idea why what you claim is happening, but, why don't you
>>recommend this thought, just for the hell of it, to your think tank.
>>It couldn't hurt, they thrown everything into this equation but El
>>Nino.
>>OK so you are now sliming your way away from your claim that the
>increase in survival seen in combination therapy
I simply have tried to make a point, which is apparently too obvious
for you to comprehend, that is, there is no logical explanation why
mixing two poisons together would produce a result that treats a
disease favorably, a disease which is found 90% of the time in a
"subset" of mostly men(young gay males between the ages of 18 and 44)
and IV Drug users. The other 10% are the poor unfortunates that have
been labeled with the HIV+ tag and are sentenced to death, a premature
death, by taking drugs that are unnecessary. When you can tell me why
HIV+ individuals without the use of your drugs are living well past
the ever extending latent phase of the HIV to AIDS timetable, I will
tell you what the answer is to your question concerning the
combination effect being "successful" in your opinion. Same argument
as before, talk to me about "non-neutralizing" antibodies. Come on,
I'm listening.
is due to some
>"chemical reaction" that causes two drugs which have toxicities
>separately to be less toxic together. Well then, if these drugs
>do not attack HIV, how can you explain the reduction in deaths
Do you remember spontaneous generation? Your logic in the previous
sentence is empirical at best, and at worst life threatening. Give
all of the options to the poor schmucks diving into the cesspool of
drugs.
?
>>BTW: I don't work for a "think tank". Perhaps my citations of the
>literature confuse you.
Perhaps, and then I could cut and paste things that might, might I
say, impress you also. I don't even believe you're who YOU say you
are.
It's relatively common, both in academia
>and medicine. If you had a glancing awareness of either field, perhaps
>you might know this. The inanity of your statements (like that
>antibodies mean you have necessarily countered an infection)
>convince me that it is *highly* unlikely that you are a dentist,
>as you claim. Perhaps a dental hygienist?
Perhaps, or a garbage collector or a nuclear physicist....
>>I also have no idea what you mean by "they thrown everything into this
>equation but El Nino."
Figure of speech
Besides the grammatical lapse, I have absolutely
>no clue as to what you are babbling about. We do clinical trials.
Does that include placebo trials, are do you simply try to see which
drug incapacitates the patient the quickest.
>A basic biostatistics text book could familiarize you with common
>methodology.
Statistics show correlation, not cause. jb
>>Carlton
