In article <363a1392.333575599 at netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
johnburgin at worldnet.att.net wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Oct 1998 12:04:08 -0700, marnix at u.washington.edu (Marnix L.
> Bosch) wrote:
> > Duesberg stands alone and has been proven wrong many times.
> No, Duesberg has sat still calmly, rationally refuting the dogma and
> the molecular biological think tanks have been busting their asses to
> figure out what to do and say next after such events take place:
> 1)KS is dropped as an AIDS indicator disease
I don't think this has happened.
> 2)AZT monotherapy fails
AZT monotherapy proved it's activity as an antiviral agent in AIDS
patients, there by strenthening the link between HIV-1 and AIDS. The
shortlived nature of that benefit has parallels in many other systems
(drug resistance in bacteria e.g.) and is therefore not unusual or
unexpected, or, for that matter, bears on the role of HIV-1 in the
causation of AIDS.
> 3)Cocktail therapy promotion shows more and more severe cracks
Cocktail therapy prolongs life of AIDS patients. Sometimes with unpleasant
side effects. None as unpleasant as death however, I'm told.
> 4)Leading AIDS scientists like Big Bob Gallo are found suspect by
> their own peers
Duesberg has raised a bit of suspicion himself too. So ?
> 5)More and more scientists and lay people question the dogma
That's healthy. Hope they're more open to the data than you seem to be.
> >What is it that you find convincing in Duesberg's stance ?
> That he is correct and has absolutely nothing to gain financially by
> his position.
Circular reasoning. What convinces you that he is correct. And he's
selling the book isn't he ?
Marnix Bosch
