On Mon, 02 Nov 1998 17:25:15 +0000, Andrew Walley
<awalley at radius.jr2.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>johnburgin at worldnet.att.net wrote:
>>> 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.
>>You didn't discredit the inference you simply disagreed with it.
Same thing, imagine me just dismissing it with the wave of my hand,
it's that easy.
>>> >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?
>>It is an epidemic, whatever it's cause.
Is is "endemic" to the 90% of individuals it affects(IV drug users and
young gay males between the ages of 18 and 42, hardly infectious by
any stretch of the imagination)
Stop avoiding the point that was actually being made
>that your colleagues are unlikely to have been taught about enhancing antibodies as it is not
>something they need to know to do their day to day job.
Nor should they
Especially the "dentists, nurses in
>AIDS education, laboratory technicians in the HIV testing arena" where it has no relevance. The
>only people likely to be taught about enahncing antibodies are immunologists, anyone taking
>advaned immunology options in their degree or people studying for a Ph.D.
and planning for a job that is dependent on government funding and
acceptance of a government dogma for that funding.
>> >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!
>>No -one has time to research every single disease. It is obvious that in any field you trust
>your peers to provide information tthat you cannot spend the time obtaining for yourself. You
>also skewed this back into the HIV=AIDS debate again which I did NOT bring up. Keep to the
HIV not equally AIDS is the argument, meathead.
>> >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.
>>I'm not resorting to ad hominem attacks so I am not a hypocrite. You are for berating your
>opponents for doing it and then doing it yourself.
Tit for tat.
>> >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).
>>YOU were presenting this argument not Peter Duesberg. Peter Duesberg has presented data in the
>scientific literature and the majority of scientists do not accept that his theories fit the
>evidence better than the current HIV hypothesis.
You are so incredibly full of shit. Duesberg can't get an article
published, so how the hell is he supposed to have it peer reviewed?
Are you simply stupid?
>>> 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.
>>Obviously. This 'discussion' is closed as far as I am concerned as you are unable to enter into
>any kind of rational dialogue.
As long as innocent people are being poisoned in the name of science,
this will always be rational dialogue, that is an excellent qualifier.
>>> 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!
>> >I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with your basic argument
>> Because you can't, won't or don't know how to. jb
>>Utter rubbish. I haven't presented any data on the argument you want to have as it wasn't the
>topic of discussion. If I thought there was any point arguing with you I would. As it is you
>seem far more close-minded than the scientists you accuse.
I'm getting sort of the same feeling.
>>Good bye and please leave the immunology newsgroup until you have something to say on the
How's this, get a real job. jb