On Fri, 30 Oct 1998 10:07:27 +0000, Andrew Walley
<awalley at radius.jr2.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>johnburgin at worldnet.att.net wrote:
>>> On Thu, 29 Oct 1998 11:07:19 +0000, Andrew Walley
>> <awalley at radius.jr2.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>> >
>> >
>> >johnburgin at worldnet.att.net wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Wed, 28 Oct 1998 13:02:33 +0000, Andrew Walley
>> >> <awalley at radius.jr2.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Just for you and your colleagues information:
>> >> >
>> >> >Neutralizing and enhancing activities of human respiratory syncytial virus-specific
>> >> >antibodies.
>> >> Thank you, now please explain their role in the HIV=AIDS issue. jb
>> >
>> >Enhancing antibodies may
>> That's what I thought, more b.s. jb
>>I think it's far more obvious that you don't understand this subject and anything you don't
>understand you describe as b.s. Just because your colleagues weren't taught about something
>doesn't mean it is fictitious. As this is the basis of your arguments about HIV and AIDS
Absolutely incorrect. This is not the basis for my arguments about
HIV and AIDS. You brought up the "explanation" for "enhancing
antibodies" and I simply discredited the inference that they might
have some relevance in the issue.
>being unrelated I would have thought you would understand that. Equally, they will not have
>been questioned on hundreds of rare disorders and diseases because medics
Not medics, physcians, pathologist(also physicians), dentists, nurses
in AIDS education, laboratory technicians in the HIV testing
arena(shall I go on?)
need to know what
>they will come across every day and not once in their career.
Oh, excuse me, I thought AIDS was an "epidemic". Nothing rare about
an epidemic, is there?
>>The fact that I said "may" simply means that the majority of scientists
How many scientists, what type and where are they?
agree it is the best
>theory to explain published evidence. You are obviously don't accept how science works
You obviously don't know me and cannot draw a conclusion like that
with any basis in credulity because to do so would indict the very
individuals who don't know what the hell you were talking about,
haven't read it, can't find it, and therefore seriously doubt any
chance of it being valid but DO believe that HIV is the cause of AIDS
and are continuing with their treatment of HIV and PWA based upon
trust in junk science like this that they ABSOLUTELY DO NOT HAVE TIME
OR INTEREST TO RESEARCH THEMSELVES!
and
>are unable to present logical arguments in a coherent manner, rapidly resorting to ad
>hominem attacks
This newsgroup is replete with ad hominem attacks against me, Todd
Miller and anyone presenting an AIDS dissident view, so don't be a
hypocrite like the other knotheads on the group sharing your mindset.
as soon as you feel threatened.
>>If you want to discuss the theory that HIV does not cause AIDS then I suggest you return to
>the library and learn enough to be able to debate the matter openly
Ask Peter Duesberg, who obviously doesn't need to go to the library to
take all of you on, anywhere, anytime if he can have an "open" debate,
free of "ad hominem" attacks. You guys beat everything(to quote
Sheriff Andy Taylor).
and rationally.
>Dismissing subjects like "enhancing antibodies" as pseudoscience only alienates
Excuse me, did it appear as though I was trying to have a meaningful
discussion with you? I'm sorry, I had no such plan.
the very
>people you are trying to communicate with and does your cause untold
Define untold. You mean censorship? You mean more ad hominem
attacks? You mean no more NIH grants for research? Please!
harm.
>>I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with your basic argument
Because you can't, won't or don't know how to. jb
just that the bionet newsgroups are
>for scientific discussion and they are not an appropriate place for personal attacks.
>>Andrew Wallet
>
