In article <3640d7a8.170031517 at netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
<johnburgin at worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>On 4 Nov 1998 21:22:49 GMT, carlton at walleye.ccbr.umn.edu (Carlton
>>So, two out of let me see, 5 is it? You and George are gay, that
>really makes your arguments biased.
Did you say there was a pay
>freeze on for you and your other lab rats? Excellent! A pay cut would
>be better, but I'll be satisfied with the freeze for now.
>Did you even take the time to read the email that I sent you about
>>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.
>Liar! You obviously don't know that this woman had her child taken
>away from her by the courts becaused she refused further poisoning
>with AZT or the Cocktail "therapy". Some choice.
We were talking about my opinions when you tried to change the subject
by invoking Emerson. Your pathetic attempts to misdirect attention
are transparent. I never said everything the courts do is good and wise.
(although there is precedent, with PKU and syphilis testing that our
gov't feels it can trespass on the autonomy of new mothers) I said
I supported choice (which you snipped from my quote). Are you now
saying you oppose that?
>You will never find anything I have ever said that
>>contradicts this. Her right to refuse AZT
Her right as determined by the Maine courts.
>tells us nothing about AZT
>>itself, just as Christian Scientists
>Be careful, I might just be a Christian Scientist
> 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.
>No you wouldn't because then the awful truth would come out, that your
>behavior caused you to become sick
Ah ha. The true face of the dissident come out "you have AIDS because
you deserve AIDS, you pervert". Now that we have settled the fact
that you are making moral arguments, not scientific ones, maybe
we can help you some with your confusion.
> Problem is, the "dissident"
>>viewpoint gets weaker, and more untenable every year,
>Not so, and you know it.
I know no such thing
> HEAL wasn't even around until 1985.
Same year as the HIV test. Old, old news in the rapidly advancing area
of AIDS. Besides, I wasn't referring to opinions. I was referring to
the ever growing data that supports HIV's etiologic role.
>there are chapters across the U.S. and several foreign countries(it
>might help you to look into this, it might even save your life) More
>and more scientists, physicians and lay people are joining Reapprasing
>AIDS every day.
What, maybe ten scientists in areas related to AIDS (virology, immunology,
etc)? Let's contrast that with the thousands of scientists across
the world who are cloning HIV, growing it in culture, passaging it
repeatedly in the presence of antiretrovirals and noting consistent
genotypic changes that mirror what occurs in humans taking ARVs.
Gene products have been identified, genes sequenced and recombinantly
combined. Presence and titer of virus are measured and correlated in
consistent fashion using PCR, bDNA, NASBA, co-culture and in situ
hybridization. HIV is probably the most studied virus in the history
of the world. It has literally been taken apart and reassembled like
lego, and the products then grown in culture. If there was a loose thread
that pulled could tear down the HIV hypothesis, don't you think
one of these thousands of scientists would have discovered it?
You are saying that the THOUSANDS of respected scientists who work
on HIV are either dumber than you (BWAHAHAHA!), or else slimy
conspirators. Sorry, but that's as stupid as anything else you have said.
>>>>Thank you for admitting that you have not taken the time to understand
>>the research you condemn. Unlike you,
>What have you read of Duesberg and Lanka? Have you read Inventing the
>AIDS Virus? I keep waiting for you to claim that the RA group,
>especially Duesberg, are homophobic, is that correct?
>Lauritsen? He's not a scientist either but he is gay and he'll tear
>you up on this issue.
Really? I have been on usenet for ten years, and have debated Lauritsen
dozens of times. Learn some history, johnny-come-lately
> 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.
>How can you possible know RA's argument and not be in favor of further
>investigation into causality? Hypocrite!
All of the statements that Duesberg, PAG etc have made HAVE been considered,
and discared for their lack of connection to real-world data.
>>>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.
>Oh, so now I'm a little snake. Weren't you the one that wanted to
>stay away from ad hominem attacks?
When you twist things so that you accue me of saying a patent falsehood
that actually emanated from you yourself, yes, I stand by calling you a snake.
> I never said the above. YOU claimed that Abs
>>necessarily mean one has conquered infection.
>Yes, I plead guilty to the truth!
In complete opposition to the data. Ask any immunologist in the world.
> Your monomaniacal focus
>My maniacal focus! You're the one with AIDS.
Is there any sense in this statement?
>>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.
>No, it says exactly what it means. Reexposure shortly(years) after a
>successful antigen/antibody reaction formation insures protection.
Not all pathogens are conquered by Ab alone. Don't believe me. Ask any
immunologist. Or read Wm. Paul's book. It's a great resource.
>>>>> These "revaccinations" are called booster
>>>injections(hepatitis b and tetanus).
>>>>Are we talking about immunity via infection, or via vaccination?
>>You seem very confused.
>Are you a child? What's the difference between getting vaccinated
>with the agent and getting exposed to the disease if the reaction
>achieves the aforementioned result, i.e., protection?
No I am not a child. Abs are NOT PATHOGEN SPECIFIC. They are ANTIGEN
SPECIFIC. Many, many vaccines are just some of the conserved antigens,
and not the entire spectrum present in the pathogen. Besides, we were
talking about your bizarre claim that HIV antibodies mean you
have necessarily flushed HIV from your system. No vaccination, or
booster in sight. Besides, if you do believe that HIV is cleared
even temporarily, what is acting as a "booster"? I thought Abs
cleared HIV in your bizarre opinion. If HIV is cleared, it cannot
act like a "booster"
>>>>> 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.
>It'll take more than "several" biased individuals.
> 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?
>What's the matter, asshole, can't take it? Can't take listening to
>the poor story of a
>person not as "educated" as you?
I never criticized her education. For all I know, she may have a PhD.
It was the IDEA that I was criticizing as baseless.
> Just ignore her, is that it? You're
>about word wrapping than a person's life or the sanctity of the
You seem to have a very distorted view of the power of Usenet.