In article <363fa56b.91622836 at netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
<johnburgin at worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Carlton, I repeat, you suck big time. You will never understand that
>life is not in
>a test tube.
I don't work with test tubes. I do clinical trials. That means trials
in people. Any basic biostatistics book could tell you more.
> When you have the time(which obviously you do because
>pointless emails and answering newsgroup messages with individuals who
>don't give a
>shit about what you say or think),
This coming from a crossposting spammer who excretes a dozen messages
> read about the story involving the
>who won her court fight against HIV doctors. Her name is Valerie
Yeah, so? People have the choice and the right to take meds or not
as they choose. You will never find anything I have ever said that
contradicts this. Her right to refuse AZT tells us nothing about AZT
itself, just as Christian Scientists who refuse vaccines tell us
nothing about vaccine efficacy
>there is a basic disagreement in ideology, as there is with you and
>me, there can be
>no reason, or proof that will satisfy either of us.
Not true for me (although probably for you) If there was a substantial
body of credible evidence that something other than HIV caused AIDS,
I would have to rethink my position. Problem is, the "dissident"
viewpoint gets weaker, and more untenable every year, not more
> I assure you, if
>I thought, for
>a moment, that there was any validity in the "research" that you do or
>that you have, I would have the time, intellect and resources to
Thank you for admitting that you have not taken the time to understand
the research you condemn. Unlike you, I *have* read Duesberg, Lanka,
the PAG as well as mainstream research. I would never make up my mind
until I understood both sides of the argument.
>your belief is motivated by money and career advancement. You
>philistines are all
Money? Bwahahahaha! Tell my boss. maybe he will stop laughing long
enough to tell you that the University has been under a pay-freeze for
seven years. I am in AIDS research because I have AIDS, and I have lost
dozens of friends. This may be onanistic verbiage to you. to me it's
life and death.
>But, just because you seem slow at understanding where I stand
>1)There is no relevance in the argument that you seem to want to
>antibodies producing a life long immunity to disease.
You little snake. I never said the above. YOU claimed that Abs
necessarily mean one has conquered infection. Your monomaniacal focus
on Abs alone is ridiculous. You don't seem to even acknowledge
cell-mediated immunity, which appears key to HIV immunity.
> There are
>instances when we
>lose immunity over time with little or no reexposure to the antigen
>significant period of time.
So? That blows out of the water your claim that HIV Ab means you
have conquered HIV.
> These "revaccinations" are called booster
>injections(hepatitis b and tetanus).
Are we talking about immunity via infection, or via vaccination?
You seem very confused.
> However, I stand by my
>statement, there must be
>immunity with antibody formation, at least in the immediate(I consider
>That is why HIV, cannot cause AIDS. Especially if one is constantly
>the antigen by a "mutant" strain.
Several people have told you thatyou are wrong in this. Get a basic
immunology textbook. I recommend William Paul's. Its well written and thorough.
> What one is doing at the time we
>HIV + makes all the difference.
And you have data to support this idea?
You're right about one thing - I really do have no more time for this.
You claimed -
antibodies mean one has conquered infection
enhancing antibodies don't exist
nucleoside doses were lowered for use with PIs.
You have been shown wrong on all these points. Yet you keep
changing the subject, ducking and weaving, and trying to missdirect
attention. Let's talk about these three points, with references to data,