In article <363a06ca.330303445 at netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
johnburgin at worldnet.att.net wrote:
> Marnix, again, I don't know what's come over you and Holzman, this
> genuine show of professionalism is overwhelming. Thank you so very
> much for being civil.
It must be Friday ...
> Now, on to other things:
> Your statement, While I feel that currently in the efforts to make an
> >>HIV-1 vaccine, enhancing antibodies are the least of our concern, they
> >>should not be completely ignored.
> May have some validity, but not with HIV or AIDS. Until two
> scientists of "equal" stature, such as Peter Duesberg and Robert(I'm
> still getting royalties anyway) Gallo can debate on 60 minutes, or
> Crossfire or Dateline or MSNBC or MTV or any place you think it would
> be a neutral site, can break this argument down into pieces small
> enough for the end users to understand, trivialities, and side shows
> will prevail on your end. You remind me of THE Church, trying to
> discredit Gallileo for asserting that the Earth wasn't the center of
> the universe and having to fess up 300 years later that he, Gallileo
> was right, and they, THE Church were wrong. Gallileo didn't have the
> internet. You know, I know, we all know that this ain't gonna happen.
> Duesberg is censored and ostracized. jb
And so he should be. There is no true disagreement in the scientific
community. Duesberg stands alone and has been proven wrong many times.
This has been pointed out to you complete with literature citations, that
you have either not bothered to look up or to further discuss here.
Instead your typical reaction is one of ranting, insulting the messenger
and changing the subject. You show no evidence of having the training to
grasp complex scientific issues, yet you are ready to dismiss solid
studies just because they come from the 'establishment'.
What is it that you find convincing in Duesberg's stance ? Or does his
position as iconoclast appeal to you rather than his scientific arguments
?
Marnix Bosch
