On 27 Oct 1998 17:49:13 GMT, carlton at walleye.ccbr.umn.edu (Carlton
Hogan) wrote:
>>You are a silly and amazingly ignorant man. In the below you state:
>>">If, assuming that you are correct, which I don't believe, that
>>antibodies do "not" always mean that you have conquered infection, as
>>I stated before, how can you arbitrarily recommend using them to
>>signify protection one time(as with prophylactic vaccination against
>>Hepatitis B and not with HIV? What, please tell me, would an
>>individual "vaccinated" against HIV present as proof of immunization?
>>He would be HIV + of course! Again, are these "non-neutralizing"
>>antibodies in the latter case or neutralizing antibodies in the first
>>case?"
>>Your stupidity is amazing. I never have said that I "reccomend using them
>to signify protection".
I never said that YOU did. You don't treat patients, remember?
Not only are you a pompous ass, you're a defensive pompous ass. Talk
to me, us, about "enhancing" antibodies. A few of my other ignorant
medical colleagues, including 2 board certified medical pathologist
and a molecular biologist are laughing their asses off at your
bullshit. Do you really believe that because you say something in
scientific jargon that people believe it? If they can't understand
what you are saying, and they don't know who you are, why should they
believe you? Come on, talk to us all, o.k., just me about "enhancing"
antibodies. Make your case. No references to medline searches. They
don't bring up the term. MY stupidity is amazing? Shame on you.
That is YOUR claim. In fact, a healthy CTL
>response is probably necessary to counter HIV. Antibodies are clearly
>not protective (with the possible exception of anti-p24), as one of
>the hallmarks of HIV infection is hypergammaglobulinemia.
Again, why do medical authorities test for HIV antibodies after
Hepatitis B immunization if not for proof of immunity? All my medical
cronies want to know. You're looking stupid again.
>>Once again: antibodies, especially in the case of viruses DO NOT mean
>you have conquered infection.
So, knucklehead, why look for them? Why do our doctors look for them?
Hmmm?
Several conditions spring immediately to
>mind: herpes viruses, hepatitis, syphilis.
You've said that before.
By the way, there doesn't seem to be a preponderence of opposition to
you meatheads. I'm getting a kick out of this. Look at the postings
for the past months. Who would you have to "trash around" if I
weren't here? At first I believed that maybe you guys knew something.
I thought maybe, for once, someone would be able to show
scientifically why we should believe the AIDS dogma. All that you
fellas have shown anybody is that you like to play king of the
mountain, "protect the website at all costs". Get a real job.
>>I no longer have time for your inane ignorance. I will correct you on
>misstatements of fact, but in consideration for others trying to use
>Usenet in a productive way so I will not keep this mind-bendingly dumb
>threads going.
Please ignore these comments as long as you prefer, but I'll bet you
can't, you just can't stand to see these postings go unchallenged!
Look at your track record. Silly boys.jb
>>Carlton
>>In article <3634fdab.238354 at netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
> <johnburgin at worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>On 26 Oct 1998 16:50:50 GMT, carlton at walleye.ccbr.umn.edu (Carlton
>>Hogan) wrote:
>>>>>In article <362faf53.1398597755 at netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
>>> <johnburgin at worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>>>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,
>>>>>>If the two compounds are just toxins, and have no therapeutic benefit,
>>>the above would hold. Thank you. You just reinforced my implict
>>>statement: that the only way to reconcile the data is if antiretrovirals
>>>do have benefit. You do a lot of blowing smoke, but you have not
>>>responded to my request, of at least a month back, to explain the
>>>ispecific flaws in the randomized clinical trial of antiretrovirals.
>>>the simple fact that you don't like the results is not adequate.
>>>If you think all antiretroviral trials are somehow fatally flawed,
>>>explain their limitations.
>>>>>>And do have some backbone. At least support the statements you make
>>>in the last week or so, rather than going off on wild tangents, trying
>>>to misdirect attention from the fact you have made outrageous, scientifically
>>>non-justified claims.
>>>>>>i>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.
>>>>>>And the data supporting this is ...where?
>>Read Inventing the AIDS Virus, Peter Duesberg, PhD, Regnery Press.
>>>>>>> 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,
>>>>>>Distribution? Standard deviation? ANY DATA AT ALL? I thought not.
>>Would a thousand people be considered signifigant to you? Two
>>thousand? http://www.heal-la.org/>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>You are avoiding the point again. _YOU_CLAIMED_THAT_ANTIBODIES_MEAN_
>>>YOU_HAVE_CONQUERED_INFECTION. I never made the syntacticly garbled,
>>>nonsensical statement about "neutralizing" antibodies you are asking me
>>>to defend. do you, or do you not believe that presence of antibodies
>>>mean you have necessarily conquered infection? I have asked this
>>>question a dozen times of you. The more you delay and blow smoke,
>>>the more obvious it is to everybody you have no idea what you are talking
>>>about.
>>If, assuming that you are correct, which I don't believe, that
>>antibodies do "not" always mean that you have conquered infection, as
>>I stated before, how can you arbitrarily recommend using them to
>>signify protection one time(as with prophylactic vaccination against
>>Hepatitis B and not with HIV? What, please tell me, would an
>>individual "vaccinated" against HIV present as proof of immunization?
>>He would be HIV + of course! Again, are these "non-neutralizing"
>>antibodies in the latter case or neutralizing antibodies in the first
>>case?
>>>>>>> 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?
>>>>>>What does this babble mean?
>>Obviously you don't. And you thus don't have a clue as to why the
>>scientific method with critical peer review was established in the
>>first place.
>>>>>>>Your logic in the previous
>>>>sentence is empirical at best,
>>>>>>Thank you. I like being grounded in empirical fact.
>>Empirical fact, like global warming caused by cfc's being released
>>into the atmosphere causing global catastrophic atmospheric changes?
>>Like the hole in the ozone layer causing all of the new skin cancers
>>being detected? Junk science.
>>>>>>>and at worst life threatening. Give
>>>>all of the options to the poor schmucks diving into the cesspool of
>>>>drugs.
>>>>>>Does this mean anything? I don't prescribe drugs to anyone. I am a researcher.
>>of what, new ways to rip off the government of my money?
>>>try and keep up.
>>>>?
>>>>>>>>>>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.
>>>>>>That's a laugh, from an anonymous troll. My life is an open book. I use
>>>my real name, and real affiliation. And you are..?
>>Guess?
>>>>>>> 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....
>>>>>>Does this babble have any relevance? Are you now backing from from your claim
>>>that you are a dentist?
>>I might be, does that make the dental profession sound a little more
>>scientific?
>>>>>>>>>>I also have no idea what you mean by "they thrown everything into this
>>>>>equation but El Nino."
>>>>Figure of speech
>>>>>>Meaning what?
>>El Nino is being blamed for everything, why not AIDS.
>>>>>>> Besides the grammatical lapse, I have absolutely
>>>>>no clue as to what you are babbling about. We do clinical trials.
>>I don't prescribe drugs to anyone. I am a researcher(you said that
>>earlier, now you're a hyprocrit again)
>>>>>>>Does that include placebo trials, are do you simply try to see which
>>>>drug incapacitates the patient the quickest.'
>>>>>>A quick review of the literature can give you information on the research we
>>>have done. You do know how to use MEDLINE?
>>I don't prescribe drugs to anyone. I am a researcher(ibid) jb
>>>>>>Carlton
>>>>
