In article <6ubd93$sp9$1 at news1.tc.umn.edu>, carlton at walleye.ccbr.umn.edu
(Carlton Hogan) wrote:
> In article <3608f0a9.117819364 at netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
> <johnburgin at worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >On 22 Sep 1998 19:12:27 GMT, carlton at walleye.ccbr.umn.edu (Carlton
> >Hogan) wrote:
> >
> >>In article <3607ed93.51483244 at netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
> >> <johnburgin at worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >>>Just dispatch old Kary, snap! Just like that. He gives you the most
> >>>important biochemical discovery in the history of the world and you
> >>>say thanks, see you later pal? Do you think he's a one trick pony?jb
> >>
> >>Is this your only response to the cited scientific literature?
> >>And by the way, what else medically meaningful work *has* Mullis
> >>done?
>> >Boy, that a brilliant statement. If Einstein had only published his
> >theory of relativity as a young patent clerk, that wasn't proven for
> >another 20 years, would he still be considered as "limited" due to not
> >solving all the problems of the world. The days of da Vincis are over
> >mister. By the way, since you brought it up, what have you or your
> >diatribe of coneheads done lately that made life a little sweeter?
> >Haven't seen your faces or names in the paper. Maybe buried in some
> >dumb as scientific journal that no one reads outside of your peers.
> >Can't say that about Mullis, can you? jb
>> Wow. what a scyntilatingly detailed, referenced, and well thought
> out rejoinder! I guess *you* dealt with all the substantive issues
> I raised. By the way, diatribe refers to heated speech: it is not a
> description of a group of individuals. As to my work, well, if you
> can access AIDSLINE, it speaks for itself. While you may not value
> "dumb as(sic) scientific journals" I am afraid those of us who
> work in scientific fields find them quite valuable: far more so
> than the newspaper. Isn't that one of your prime criticisms of
> Gallo? That he did "science by press conference" rather than
> by peer review? Boy, you dissidents are a confused bunch.
> You claim that if my work isn't in the papers it is valueless,
> yet Gallo needs a different standard; you embrace Concorde
> for it's demonstration that AZT monotherapy is not indicated in
> asympomatics, yet squawk when reminded that Concorde also
> demonstrated, quite convincingly, that AZT does not cause
> AIDS. Maybe you all should put together a little "talking points"
> paper, so that you don't contradict yourself quite as often.
>> I don't think anyone requested DaVincis. Rather, I would like to
> see virologists who know virology, chemists who know chemistry,
> and epidemiologists who know epidemiology. Not half-baked
> virologists who criticize the epidemiology, and acid-sotted
> chemists who criticize the virology and immunology. By the way.
> What *has* Mullis done lately (besides creating a totally data-
> free model of AIDS pathogenesis)?
>I did a check of Medline this morning, and the only thing that I can find
since 1992 from him is the above mentioned paper (A hypothetical disease
of the immune system that may bear some relation to the acquired immune
deficiency syndrome. Genetica 95(1-3):195-197).
I'm sure we will all draw whatever conclusions seem appropriate.
--
Jerry Learn <Learn at u.washington.edu>
U. of Washington
Seattle, WA 98195-7740 USA
