Dr. Holzmann (and you, Spartypoo)

1 view
Skip to first unread message

mcoo...@my-deja.com

unread,
Jan 4, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/4/00
to
Robert

I was going to respond to a comment you made in a post you made
yesterday (3 January), but ding-dang it, I can't locate the post. I'd
wanted to respond, but I can't find it and I'm pressed for time. So
please forgive me starting another thread. You mentioned that if no one
responded to Spartypoo, he'd just shrivel up and blow away.

Actually, Robert, I agree with you that might make him stomp his tiny
little feet and leave. But I don’t agree that that is the best way to
approach Spartypoo and his intellectual diarrhea. You no doubt have
noticed that the only posts I’ve made here recently were directed at
the little sciolist. As a quick review of Deja.com would reveal, I
rarely post here. I prefer to read without comment your (and Messrs
Bennet, Bosch, Stein, Carter, Hogan and other regulars) posts for
interesting scientific points and literature. As an immunologist who’s
several years removed from active HIV research, I like to keep
vicarious tabs on the current state of the art. However, unlike Sparty-
poo, I prefer my ignorance to be a private matter.

As it is, sometimes I read one or two of Sparty’s posts with the same
sort of grotesque fascination one might have in watching a train wreck.
He’s over there whining on the ‘dissidents’ thread right now.
Occasionally I troll him because I know that gets to him; witness his
shrilly-ineffectual rebuttals. If the unread email he’s sent me is any
indication, he’s beginning to take it personally as well. You see,
Robert, it’s just such great sport being the sand in his swimsuit.

He likes to see himself as a sort of Thom Jones wanna-be. You know, a
pugilist-cum-warrior who’s literate and oh so rough and tough. He
writes his little autohagiographic, although fake, vignettes as if he
really, as he puts it; “was in the ‘nam” (isn’t that precious) and he
regales us with his ‘tougher than thou’ childhood stories. What is
priceless is that Spartypoo is blithely unaware that he comes across as
nothing more than a garden-variety poseur and omphalopsychite.

He thinks, like all net.megalomaniacs, that there is a cadre of lurkers
out there hanging on his every word. Isn’t that just so CUTE, Robert? I
mean the little aeolist really believes that a total lack of
understanding of the scientific, medical and historical basis for the
“orthodoxy’s” efforts to combat AIDS makes him look good. It is just so
special, and it seems to me this newsgroup would be less interesting if
the only entertainment came from net.pyschotics like Fred.

Still, give the devil his due; few can write extemporaneously as well
as Sparty can. The arrogant pissant uses atrocious spelling and grammar
and chides others for theirs, but he does have an entertaining style,
you must admit.

Oh yeah, and Spartypoo, if you’re reading this (and I KNOW you are),
are you going to address any of the points in Mr. Hogan’s challenge or
are you going to continue to cry about what a big meany everyone here
is?


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

Marnix Bosch

unread,
Jan 4, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/4/00
to
If you enjoy his lunatics and whining so much, perhaps you should
respond to his email messages, and ignore him here. He does not amuse
me. The only reason to respond to him would be the fear that anyone
takes his rantings seriously. But that seems unlikely.

Marnix Bosch

SPARTACUS

unread,
Jan 4, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/4/00
to

mcoo...@my-deja.com wrote:

All that and not one gag.

Brother, you're pathetic.

Spartacus

SPARTACUS

unread,
Jan 4, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/4/00
to

Marnix Bosch wrote:

> If you enjoy his lunatics and whining so much, perhaps you should
> respond to his email messages, and ignore him here. He does not amuse
> me. The only reason to respond to him would be the fear that anyone
> takes his rantings seriously. But that seems unlikely.
>
> Marnix Bosch

Marnix, Baby!

How many white mice did you shoot up with the juice today, baby?

Spartacus

Robert S. Holzman

unread,
Jan 4, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/4/00
to

SPARTACUS wrote:
>
> mcoo...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > Robert
> >
> > I was going to respond to a comment you made in a post you made
> > yesterday (3 January), but ding-dang it, I can't locate the post. I'd
> > wanted to respond, but I can't find it and I'm pressed for time. So
> > please forgive me starting another thread. You mentioned that if no one
> > responded to Spartypoo, he'd just shrivel up and blow away.
> >

Thanks for your comments. I certainly don't want to spoil your
fun and it is a free country so do rest assured that I have no
sense of betrayal. Indeed, I am beginning to reconsider my
position. It seems that the only one that is censored by my
ignoring the troll is me! So I just may go back to commenting on
his failure to address any scientific issues with other than
rhetoric.

Unfortunately, while he does write well he suffers from having
nothing to say. I think it is the lack of critical thinking that
is the problem, don't you? He simply parrots what others say
(for example parroting what Provocateur said about Kochs
Postulates not being fulfilled) but he is not able to back up the
claim when pressed and responds with his usual magnificently
articulate slime.

Gary Stein

unread,
Jan 4, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/4/00
to

"Robert S. Holzman" <holz...@med.nyu.edu> wrote in message
news:38729223...@med.nyu.edu...

Well I would just say articulate slime, magnificence is not an
attribute that I assign to fools.
--
Gary Stein
ges...@bellatlantic.net

"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea
massive, difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and
a source of mind- boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect
it."
(Gene Spafford)

SPARTACUS

unread,
Jan 4, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/4/00
to

"Robert S. Holzman" wrote:

> SPARTACUS wrote:
> >
> > mcoo...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > > Robert
> > >
> > > I was going to respond to a comment you made in a post you made
> > > yesterday (3 January), but ding-dang it, I can't locate the post. I'd
> > > wanted to respond, but I can't find it and I'm pressed for time. So
> > > please forgive me starting another thread. You mentioned that if no one
> > > responded to Spartypoo, he'd just shrivel up and blow away.
> > >
>
> Thanks for your comments. I certainly don't want to spoil your
> fun and it is a free country so do rest assured that I have no
> sense of betrayal. Indeed, I am beginning to reconsider my
> position. It seems that the only one that is censored by my
> ignoring the troll is me! So I just may go back to commenting on
> his failure to address any scientific issues with other than
> rhetoric.
>
> Unfortunately, while he does write well he suffers from having
> nothing to say. I think it is the lack of critical thinking that
> is the problem, don't you? He simply parrots what others say
> (for example parroting what Provocateur said about Kochs
> Postulates not being fulfilled) but he is not able to back up the
> claim when pressed and responds with his usual magnificently
> articulate slime.

Whatever...

But really, Koch's postulates are old hat.

Oh, by the way, where's Lil' Daniel?

Spartacus


Robert S. Holzman

unread,
Jan 4, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/4/00
to

[I posted...]

> > Unfortunately, while he does write well he suffers from having
> > nothing to say. I think it is the lack of critical thinking that
> > is the problem, don't you? He simply parrots what others say
> > (for example parroting what Provocateur said about Kochs
> > Postulates not being fulfilled) but he is not able to back up the
> > claim when pressed and responds with his usual magnificently
> > articulate slime.
>
> Whatever...
>
[Spartacus interjected...]

> But really, Koch's postulates are old hat.
>
> Oh, by the way, where's Lil' Daniel?
>
> Spartacus

Thanks for providing another illustration.

Robert S. Holzman

unread,
Jan 4, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/4/00
to

[I posted...]

> > Unfortunately, while he does write well he suffers from having
> > nothing to say. I think it is the lack of critical thinking that
> > is the problem, don't you? He simply parrots what others say
> > (for example parroting what Provocateur said about Kochs
> > Postulates not being fulfilled) but he is not able to back up the
> > claim when pressed and responds with his usual magnificently
> > articulate slime.
>

[Sparty responded...]


> Well I would just say articulate slime, magnificence is not an
> attribute that I assign to fools.

It was your articulateness I termed magnificent, not you. But
have it your way. By your own admission you are an articulate
and slimey fool (I never called you one).

See folks how easy it is to be carried away. The fact is it DOES
feel good.

SPARTACUS

unread,
Jan 5, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/5/00
to

"Robert S. Holzman" wrote:

Please, get your attributions right. I didn't write the above.

But let's pause and talk about your favorite topic for a moment, shall
we?

So what are YOU doing wrong? How about some self-criticism? To hear you
tell it, you've never wrote a ill-conceived post since you've been here.
Now that's been years and in all that time you've not once admitted any
error on your part in this whole AIDS fiasco.

Well, something's wrong and if I must use unorthodox means to bring it
out, then so be it. Five more years of you, Bennett and Bosch larding on
about what fine fellows you are will take us no closer to the cure than
the past five years. You see, there are people like Fauci and Gallo who
read this group. People a little higher up the food chain than you. These
people can't afford to participate, but nobody knows it when they read
my posts, so that's all right. Well, it's these people I'm here to
rattle; the ones who led us down this road of no return in the first
place. You know about the shenanigans going on in this thing, but wise
politico that you are, you daren't speak out. That's where I come in.

See how it works?

Spartacus

PS: Carltoon, you may now file your pro forma whine so I can nail you to
the wall again.


Carlton Hogan

unread,
Jan 5, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/5/00
to
In article <387281B0...@mindspring.com>,

SPARTACUS <spart...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
>"Robert S. Holzman" wrote:
>
>> SPARTACUS wrote:
>> >
>> > mcoo...@my-deja.com wrote:
>> >
>> > > Robert
>> > >
>> > > I was going to respond to a comment you made in a post you made
>> > > yesterday (3 January), but ding-dang it, I can't locate the post. I'd
>> > > wanted to respond, but I can't find it and I'm pressed for time. So
>> > > please forgive me starting another thread. You mentioned that if no one
>> > > responded to Spartypoo, he'd just shrivel up and blow away.
>> > >
>>
>> Thanks for your comments. I certainly don't want to spoil your
>> fun and it is a free country so do rest assured that I have no
>> sense of betrayal. Indeed, I am beginning to reconsider my
>> position. It seems that the only one that is censored by my
>> ignoring the troll is me! So I just may go back to commenting on
>> his failure to address any scientific issues with other than
>> rhetoric.
>>
>> Unfortunately, while he does write well he suffers from having
>> nothing to say. I think it is the lack of critical thinking that
>> is the problem, don't you? He simply parrots what others say
>> (for example parroting what Provocateur said about Kochs
>> Postulates not being fulfilled) but he is not able to back up the
>> claim when pressed and responds with his usual magnificently
>> articulate slime.
>
>Whatever...

>
>But really, Koch's postulates are old hat.

Glad to hear it. Perhaps now you can provide the specifics that support
your characterizations of AIDS science?


Carlton

Carlton Hogan

unread,
Jan 5, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/5/00
to
In article <3872F2EE...@mindspring.com>,

SPARTACUS <spart...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
> You see, there are people like Fauci and Gallo who
>read this group. People a little higher up the food chain than you.

Hmpf. MMMummph. mmmBWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

You have just joined the Fred Shaw megalomaniac moron society.
Fauci and Gallo here? As always, you very dramatically oversetimate
your importance to the universe. Why the hell would they lurk here?
After all, they can always just call Duesberg up direct if they
are in the mood to bitch-slap someone around.


>PS: Carltoon, you may now file your pro forma whine so I can nail you to
>the wall again.

Still waiting for you to provide the specifics that support your claims.
Of course, anyone who would sniff dismissively at "Blue Jean Sequencing"
obviously comes to this battle of wits unarmed.

Carlton

>

SPARTACUS

unread,
Jan 5, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/5/00
to

Carlton Hogan wrote:

The dissident position is well known. Why do you insist upon pretending it isn't?

Spartacus


SPARTACUS

unread,
Jan 5, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/5/00
to

Carlton Hogan wrote:

> In article <3872F2EE...@mindspring.com>,
> SPARTACUS <spart...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > You see, there are people like Fauci and Gallo who
> >read this group. People a little higher up the food chain than you.
>
> Hmpf. MMMummph. mmmBWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
>
> You have just joined the Fred Shaw megalomaniac moron society.
> Fauci and Gallo here? As always, you very dramatically oversetimate
> your importance to the universe. Why the hell would they lurk here?
> After all, they can always just call Duesberg up direct if they
> are in the mood to bitch-slap someone around.
>

You're getting excited again. You know, you really shouldn't post after
quaffing a fistful of those horse pills. Anyway, I have it on good account
both these... ahem, distinguished members of the Orthodoxy read this group
quite regularly. As to why they would lurk... that should be obvious even to
a man of your remarkable intellect.

>
> >PS: Carltoon, you may now file your pro forma whine so I can nail you to
> >the wall again.
>
> Still waiting for you to provide the specifics that support your claims.
> Of course, anyone who would sniff dismissively at "Blue Jean Sequencing"
> obviously comes to this battle of wits unarmed.
>
> Carlton

So it's a "battle of wits" now is it?

Better stick to AIDS science, Carltoon. When I get through with you, you
won't have enough T-cells to spell your name with.

Spartacus

>
>
> >


Carlton Hogan

unread,
Jan 5, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/5/00
to
In article <38738802...@mindspring.com>,

SPARTACUS <spart...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
>Carlton Hogan wrote:
>


Apples and Oranges. *You* made a claim in a public forum about the quality
of AIDS science. It now appears that you are completely unwilling or unable
to back that up. The relevance of whether I am familiar with the claims
of third parties is nil. Can you, or can you not back up your claims?

Carlton

Carlton Hogan

unread,
Jan 5, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/5/00
to
In article <38738B3B...@mindspring.com>,

SPARTACUS <spart...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
>Carlton Hogan wrote:
>
>> In article <3872F2EE...@mindspring.com>,
>> SPARTACUS <spart...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > You see, there are people like Fauci and Gallo who
>> >read this group. People a little higher up the food chain than you.
>>
>> Hmpf. MMMummph. mmmBWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
>>
>> You have just joined the Fred Shaw megalomaniac moron society.
>> Fauci and Gallo here? As always, you very dramatically oversetimate
>> your importance to the universe. Why the hell would they lurk here?
>> After all, they can always just call Duesberg up direct if they
>> are in the mood to bitch-slap someone around.
>>
>
>You're getting excited again. You know, you really shouldn't post after
>quaffing a fistful of those horse pills. Anyway, I have it on good account
>both these... ahem, distinguished members of the Orthodoxy read this group
>quite regularly.


Yeah. Good account. The same place you got these insights about "the science"
that you can't quite remember well enough to post?
Let me get this straight. You think that Fauci and Gallo, besides being
institute directors, doing their own research, and running the world-wide
AIDS conspiracy have time to read this group? And what's the payoff?
Your stellar insights into "the science"? You have got to be kidding.
If the person who you got this on "good account" from is the same one
spoonfeeding you dissident rhetoric (which you don't seem to have digested
-- I guess you just upchucked after the initial provocative phrase or
something), you might want to rethink tying your reputation to this
outrageous fibber's star.

>>
>> Still waiting for you to provide the specifics that support your claims.
>> Of course, anyone who would sniff dismissively at "Blue Jean Sequencing"
>> obviously comes to this battle of wits unarmed.
>>
>> Carlton
>
>So it's a "battle of wits" now is it?
>
>Better stick to AIDS science, Carltoon. When I get through with you, you
>won't have enough T-cells to spell your name with.

But we're talking AIDS science here. This is an AIDS NG, in case your
dementia is acting up, and you forgot where you are. We are STILL
waiting for you to defend (or even clarify) your assertions in that regard.

Carlton

SPARTACUS

unread,
Jan 5, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/5/00
to

Carlton Hogan wrote:

> In article <38738802...@mindspring.com>,


> SPARTACUS <spart...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Carlton Hogan wrote:
> >

You seem to be on some macho rite of passage trip, a peculiar thing for someone as
long in the tooth as you. This discussion isn't about shucking down and comparing dick
lengths. It's not about spending endless bandwidth going back and forth playing
trivial pursuit. I'm certainly not qualified to present the dissident argument and
you're even less qualified to present the Orthodoxy side. And this has nothing to do
with the bubble gum stats you've memorized since becoming HIV positive. That's not
science, that's what kids do with baseball cards. I guess what I'm getting at Carlton
is that you're an ignorant man and the more you stand on your head and yell to the
world you're not, the more you convince people you are.

Grow up!

Spartacus


SPARTACUS

unread,
Jan 5, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/5/00
to

Carlton Hogan wrote:

> In article <38738B3B...@mindspring.com>,


> SPARTACUS <spart...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Carlton Hogan wrote:
> >

Look, either way it's no big deal, so why are you getting your drawers all
bunched up over it?

>
>
> >>
> >> Still waiting for you to provide the specifics that support your claims.
> >> Of course, anyone who would sniff dismissively at "Blue Jean Sequencing"
> >> obviously comes to this battle of wits unarmed.
> >>
> >> Carlton
> >
> >So it's a "battle of wits" now is it?
> >
> >Better stick to AIDS science, Carltoon. When I get through with you, you
> >won't have enough T-cells to spell your name with.
>
> But we're talking AIDS science here. This is an AIDS NG, in case your
> dementia is acting up, and you forgot where you are. We are STILL
> waiting for you to defend (or even clarify) your assertions in that regard.

No, you're still waiting. Anyone with half a brain knows that's not what I do.

Spartacus

>
>
> Carlton


Robert S. Holzman

unread,
Jan 5, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/5/00
to

SPARTACUS wrote:
I wrote...


> > > Well I would just say articulate slime, magnificence is not an
> > > attribute that I assign to fools.
> >
> > It was your articulateness I termed magnificent, not you. But
> > have it your way. By your own admission you are an articulate
> > and slimey fool (I never called you one).
> >
> > See folks how easy it is to be carried away. The fact is it DOES
> > feel good.
>

> > [Sparty responded...]


> Please, get your attributions right. I didn't write the above.
>

And When I checked I find you are right. It was gary stein who
did. I apologize for ever even thinking you called yourself such
a thing. Must have been the other self deprecating things you
have admitted to. Anyway, I apologize for the error.

And to Gary I would say it is always worth admiring the best in
people, even when there is so little of it to find.


> But let's pause and talk about your favorite topic for a moment, shall
> we?
>


> So what are YOU doing wrong? How about some self-criticism? To hear you
> tell it, you've never wrote a ill-conceived post since you've been here.
> Now that's been years and in all that time you've not once admitted any
> error on your part in this whole AIDS fiasco.
>

You think I am my favorite topic????? Nah! But OK, here are 2
paragraphs for you.

Now, now, having just written an ill concieved post and
apologized for it it is clear that your statment is at least a
little out of date. I have been posting in this group since its
inception and have apologized two or three times (not counting
today) to people for errors made in attribution or in my
recollection of facts. I have made and corrected arithmetic
errors too.

As far as the AIDS "fiasco", as you term it, you can find my part
in it by reviewing aidsline. The only error I can think of in
association with that body of work was the observation -- made at
the 1981 ICAAC and in the December 1981 New England Journal
Article that reported some of the original cases -- that
responses to pneumococcal vaccine were normal. That error was
due to the use of an insufficiently sensitive test. The error
was corrected by others subsequently, just as the idea that HIV
was the etiologic agent of AIDS would have been if it had been
wrong.

> Well, something's wrong and if I must use unorthodox means to bring it
> out, then so be it. Five more years of you, Bennett and Bosch larding on
> about what fine fellows you are will take us no closer to the cure than
> the past five years. You see, there are people like Fauci and Gallo who
> read this group. People a little higher up the food chain than you. > These
> people can't afford to participate, but nobody knows it when they read
> my posts, so that's all right. Well, it's these people I'm here to
> rattle; the ones who led us down this road of no return in the first
> place. You know about the shenanigans going on in this thing, but wise
> politico that you are, you daren't speak out. That's where I come in.
>
> See how it works?
>

No, I don't. Don't you think this just a bit grandiose? Perhaps
if you could defend your assertions with some facts it might get
some attention, at least from those of us "lower on the food
chain". Unfortunately you have indicated a weak grasp of the
facts and an unwillingness to study them.

Anyway, I am indeed sorry for the misattribution.

Marnix Bosch

unread,
Jan 5, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/5/00
to
In article <3873E794...@med.nyu.edu>, Robert S. Holzman
<holz...@med.nyu.edu> wrote:

> SPARTACUS wrote:

> No, I don't. Don't you think this just a bit grandiose? Perhaps
> if you could defend your assertions with some facts it might get
> some attention, at least from those of us "lower on the food
> chain".

As it is, he's already getting way too much attention.

Marnix Bosch

SPARTACUS

unread,
Jan 6, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/6/00
to

"Robert S. Holzman" wrote:

> No, I don't. Don't you think this just a bit grandiose? Perhaps
> if you could defend your assertions with some facts it might get
> some attention, at least from those of us "lower on the food

> chain". Unfortunately you have indicated a weak grasp of the
> facts and an unwillingness to study them.
>
> Anyway, I am indeed sorry for the misattribution.

This reminds me of our generals bemoaning the fact the Viet-Cong weren't fighting
a conventional war. I suppose you no longer remember the "Yippies" either? And
how stupid do you think I am, anyway? Do you really expect me to stand here and
play AIDS trivia with you? No, sir, I'll pass. I don't like your terms.

Spartacus


SPARTACUS

unread,
Jan 6, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/6/00
to

Marnix Bosch wrote:

> In article <3873E794...@med.nyu.edu>, Robert S. Holzman
> <holz...@med.nyu.edu> wrote:
>
> > SPARTACUS wrote:
>

> > No, I don't. Don't you think this just a bit grandiose? Perhaps
> > if you could defend your assertions with some facts it might get
> > some attention, at least from those of us "lower on the food
> > chain".
>

> As it is, he's already getting way too much attention.
>
> Marnix Bosch

Geezuz! Watch your attributions! I didn't write the above.

Spartacus


Carlton Hogan

unread,
Jan 6, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/6/00
to
In article <3873A971...@mindspring.com>,

SPARTACUS <spart...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
>Carlton Hogan wrote:
>
>> In article <38738802...@mindspring.com>,

>> SPARTACUS <spart...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >Carlton Hogan wrote:
>> >
>> >> In article <387281B0...@mindspring.com>,
>> >> SPARTACUS <spart...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >"Robert S. Holzman" wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> SPARTACUS wrote:
>> >> >> >


No, it's about discussing HIV/AIDS, which, except for a couple of provocative
canned phrases, you appear unable to do.

>It's not about spending endless bandwidth going back and forth playing
>trivial pursuit. I'm certainly not qualified to present the dissident argument and
>you're even less qualified to present the Orthodoxy side.


Which dissident argument? Are you advocating the ideas of Duesberg,
or of Root-Bernstein? The Perth group, who believe that HIV doesn't
exist, or Jay Levy, who thinks current use of antiretroviral drugs is
excessive? You have loudly pronounced your advocacy. What exactly are
you advocating. And as to my being competent to present the "orthodox"
side..well, that should just make your rhetorical victory easier, no?

Carlton


SPARTACUS

unread,
Jan 6, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/6/00
to

Carlton Hogan wrote:

> Carlton

It's really very simple, Carltoon:

Everything you're for, I'm against.

Spartacus


Carlton Hogan

unread,
Jan 6, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/6/00
to
In article <3874B734...@mindspring.com>,


Great. It looks as if this debate has finally devolved into your reflexively
saying "is not", with little comprehension of what that entails. You
become more convincing and thoughtful by the moment.

Can you articulate what specifically you are against? I personally disbelieve
both Duesberg and the Perth group. You can't believe both simultaneously.
One says HIV exists, the other denies it. Which of the two do you believe?


Carlton

SPARTACUS

unread,
Jan 6, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/6/00
to

Carlton Hogan wrote:

Why even delve this deep? My response says it all: whatever you believe in I reject out of
hand.

The reason should be clear: you're a liar and a shrill for the drug companies. Fred has made
this case and a convincing case it is. For years you led us to believe you were HIV positive.
Stupidly, you believed this gave your arguments the moral imperative it lacked. You also
strung us on about your sexual orientation. As Fred points out you're as straight as a crease
in a televangalist's $1000 suit. So you lied about that too. Amazing, when you think about it.
You're such a moral chameleon you lie about the two things that have caused people so much
pain. You're as empty of ethics as you are of an adequate education -- and on this last point
you are routinely bashed from pillar to post whenever you do try to lock horns with someone
like Fred or provocateur -- laughable really how with all your saber rattling you can't even
get your fists up before they've got you on the pavement eating boot leather.

In other words, your need to know what we dissidents think isn't genuine. Fred's "Fuci Files"
are here for your perusal but you haven't read them, and everyone has seen how you run from
provocateur like a vampire from daylight whenever he as much as grins your way. But looking at
you make a spectacle of yourself demanding I duel with you -- me, a guy who doesn't know
beans about AIDS science -- is yet more proof of your intellectual spinelessness.

But go ahead, continue yelling at me to come wallow in the mud with you. Oink until you're
blue in the face you pig, see if I give a fig.

Spartacus


Carlton Hogan

unread,
Jan 6, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/6/00
to
In article <3874D791...@mindspring.com>,

SPARTACUS <spart...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Which dissident argument? Are you advocating the ideas of Duesberg,
>> >> or of Root-Bernstein? The Perth group, who believe that HIV doesn't
>> >> exist, or Jay Levy, who thinks current use of antiretroviral drugs is
>> >> excessive? You have loudly pronounced your advocacy. What exactly are
>> >> you advocating.
>> >
>> >> Carlton
>> >
>> >It's really very simple, Carltoon:
>> >
>> >Everything you're for, I'm against.
>>
>> Great. It looks as if this debate has finally devolved into your reflexively
>> saying "is not", with little comprehension of what that entails. You
>> become more convincing and thoughtful by the moment.
>>
>> Can you articulate what specifically you are against? I personally disbelieve
>> both Duesberg and the Perth group. You can't believe both simultaneously.
>> One says HIV exists, the other denies it. Which of the two do you believe?
>>
>> Carlton
>
>Why even delve this deep? My response says it all: whatever you believe in I reject out of
>hand.
>
>The reason should be clear: you're a liar and a shrill for the drug companies. Fred has made
>this case and a convincing case it is. For years you led us to believe you were HIV positive.
>Stupidly, you believed this gave your arguments the moral imperative it lacked. You also
>strung us on about your sexual orientation. As Fred points out you're as straight as a crease


The fact that you are using Fred as your reference does more to discredit
you than I could ever hope to. If you read my posts on deja, you will see
that I have consistently and truthfully given the same answers ever
since I started posting. If you buy Fred's insane view, I am "covered
with tattoos head to foot" something that can be debunked with a casual
glance. I don't need Fred to point out that I am straight. I already
had an inkling.

But I fear this is all diversion on your part, and I won't bite. The simple
fact is, you made statements about the quality of AIDS science. In the
literally dozens of posts since then, you have not offered a single
example or argument in support of your claim. Just admit you can't justify
your claim, and we will move on.

Don't like the rules? Try a different playground.

Carlton

SPARTACUS

unread,
Jan 6, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/6/00
to

Carlton Hogan wrote:

> In article <3874D791...@mindspring.com>,
> SPARTACUS <spart...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >> >>

> >> >> Which dissident argument? Are you advocating the ideas of Duesberg,
> >> >> or of Root-Bernstein? The Perth group, who believe that HIV doesn't
> >> >> exist, or Jay Levy, who thinks current use of antiretroviral drugs is
> >> >> excessive? You have loudly pronounced your advocacy. What exactly are
> >> >> you advocating.
> >> >
> >> >> Carlton
> >> >
> >> >It's really very simple, Carltoon:
> >> >
> >> >Everything you're for, I'm against.
> >>
> >> Great. It looks as if this debate has finally devolved into your reflexively
> >> saying "is not", with little comprehension of what that entails. You
> >> become more convincing and thoughtful by the moment.
> >>
> >> Can you articulate what specifically you are against? I personally disbelieve
> >> both Duesberg and the Perth group. You can't believe both simultaneously.
> >> One says HIV exists, the other denies it. Which of the two do you believe?
> >>
> >> Carlton
> >
> >Why even delve this deep? My response says it all: whatever you believe in I reject out of
> >hand.
> >
> >The reason should be clear: you're a liar and a shrill for the drug companies. Fred has made
> >this case and a convincing case it is. For years you led us to believe you were HIV positive.
> >Stupidly, you believed this gave your arguments the moral imperative it lacked. You also
> >strung us on about your sexual orientation. As Fred points out you're as straight as a crease
>

> The fact that you are using Fred as your reference does more to discredit
> you than I could ever hope to. If you read my posts on deja, you will see
> that I have consistently and truthfully given the same answers ever
> since I started posting. If you buy Fred's insane view, I am "covered
> with tattoos head to foot" something that can be debunked with a casual
> glance. I don't need Fred to point out that I am straight. I already
> had an inkling.

Oh, no you don't. I distinctly remember putting the question to you any number of times last year
without a forthright answer. Without any answer at all in fact. I distinctly remember getting
disgusted with your evasiveness on the issue. Why would anyone carry on like this, I wondered.
Either you're gay or you're straight, what's the big deal,? I couldn't understand it. Either way,
most people are proud of what they are. All of which speaks to the man behind your net persona,
I'm afraid.

So, don't even try to shove it off on Fred. Again, as I say, you're a liar and a rather bad one at
that.

>
>
> But I fear this is all diversion on your part, and I won't bite. The simple
> fact is, you made statements about the quality of AIDS science. In the
> literally dozens of posts since then, you have not offered a single
> example or argument in support of your claim. Just admit you can't justify
> your claim, and we will move on.

You're really a prize moron if you can't tell by now that if I choose to debate you about AIDS
science you'd be sucking wind right from jump. You guys kill me. You see my talents as a writer,
you see how I smack you around at will, yet for some reason as yet unclear, you think the outcome
would be different if we focused on AIDS science. But here's a clue: if you've managed to gain
some skill in it, extrapolate that by a factor of ten to get an idea of how far I'd go beyond
you. As I told you before, if I had a mind to do it,--and the time -- I'd spend a day reading the
dissident view than return here and have you panting from your flews in no time at all.

> Don't like the rules? Try a different playground.

There are no rules.

Spartacus

>
>
> Carlton


Gary Stein

unread,
Jan 6, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/6/00
to

"SPARTACUS" <spart...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3874ED99...@mindspring.com...

>
> You're really a prize moron if you can't tell by now that if I
choose to debate you about AIDS
> science you'd be sucking wind right from jump. You guys kill me. You
see my talents as a writer,
> you see how I smack you around at will, yet for some reason as yet
unclear, you think the outcome
> would be different if we focused on AIDS science. But here's a clue:
if you've managed to gain
> some skill in it, extrapolate that by a factor of ten to get an
idea of how far I'd go beyond
> you. As I told you before, if I had a mind to do it,--and the
time -- I'd spend a day reading the
> dissident view than return here and have you panting from your flews
in no time at all.

Empty boasts are just that, empty. I repeat yet again, your posts may
be well written yet they are entirely with out substance thus in any
debate they are valueless. Style without substance is in my opinion
simply public masturbation.

Robert S. Holzman

unread,
Jan 6, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/6/00
to

SPARTACUS wrote:
>
> This reminds me of our generals bemoaning the fact the Viet-Cong weren't fighting
> a conventional war. I suppose you no longer remember the "Yippies" either? And
> how stupid do you think I am, anyway? Do you really expect me to stand here and
> play AIDS trivia with you? No, sir, I'll pass. I don't like your terms.
>
> Spartacus

I certainly don't expect you to play trivia. And you are right,
that the errors I confess to are trivial. The problem I see is
that you consider all factual argument to be trivial. You make
an analogy to the generals. I don't consider what you are doing
to be a "war". You came here as a troll and provocateur, have
engaged in empty rhetoric and failed to support any of your
positions with data. You seem to believe that the dissident
postion is adequately exposited on virusmyth.com, but sit on the
fence at 50:50 when you ask the question of whether or not HIV
causes AIDS. Clearly if that is an honest estimate of your
belief there is room for argument. If you talk to
Eleanopolus-Papadopulus you won't find such uncertainty and if
you talk to me you won't either. One of us is flat wrong. I
think it is her. If you want to discuss the evidence in a way
that will convince you or others one way or the other you will
need to address evidence. Simply eliciting flames and responding
to them in kind and deliberately being in bad taste is not likely
to convince Fauci, Gallo or any other you consider "higher on the
food chain" who may happen to see your posts. You certainly
won't convince an expert on the meaning and implication of Kochs
Postulates (me, for example)that the evidence regarding HIV in
some way fails to meet them without clarifying why you believe
this. If you want an engagement it has to be on the level of
scientific data. Trivia to you.

In any event, I do hope you will be able to keep your resolution
on civility. It will make a big difference.

fred

unread,
Jan 6, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/6/00
to
On Thu, 06 Jan 2000 18:43:54 -0500, in <387528BA...@med.nyu.edu>

"Robert S. Holzman" <holz...@med.nyu.edu> wrote:

>
>
>SPARTACUS wrote:
>>
>> This reminds me of our generals bemoaning the fact the Viet-Cong weren't fighting
>> a conventional war. I suppose you no longer remember the "Yippies" either? And
>> how stupid do you think I am, anyway? Do you really expect me to stand here and
>> play AIDS trivia with you? No, sir, I'll pass. I don't like your terms.
>>
>> Spartacus
>

> I don't consider what you are doing to be a "war".
> You came here as a troll and provocateur, have
> engaged in empty rhetoric and failed to support any
> of your positions with data.

Gee, Doktor-Professor Holzman, my sentiments exactly ...
as they concern YOUR place on this newsgroup !

> You seem to believe that

When you demonize on the "seem to believe" basis,
it is obvious that you aren't here for the discussion.

So, Dr. Bob, why ARE you one of the leading posters of
the misc.health.aids newsgroup?

Do the drug companies pay you $100 per post?

> the dissident
>postion is adequately exposited on virusmyth.com, but sit on the
>fence at 50:50 when you ask the question of whether or not HIV
>causes AIDS. Clearly if that is an honest estimate of your
>belief there is room for argument. If you talk to
>Eleanopolus-Papadopulus you won't find such uncertainty and if
>you talk to me you won't either. One of us is flat wrong.

Perhaps not. Thing is, HIV is not the lone cause of anything
other than a rich drug industry and its paid boobs getting
richer.

Especially when one learns that treatment-avoiders are
the only ones left to be counted as "Long-Term Non-Progressors"
as much as 15-20 years post-infection.


> I think it is her.

Holzman thinks?

> If you want to discuss the evidence in a way
>that will convince you or others one way or the other you will
>need to address evidence.

I DO address the evidence. LOTS of evidence.

Too bad you aren't dealing with that evidence.

> Simply eliciting flames and responding
>to them in kind and deliberately being in bad taste

No different than your responses to the DNCB research I
posted a while back. Still smarting from that experience,
eh Bobby?

> is not likely to convince Fauci, Gallo or any other you
> consider "higher on the food chain" who may happen to see
> your posts.

Those imbeciles are merely higher in the corruption food
chain. Fauci's minions are monitoring this newsgroup,
of course. If they dare participate, it is under cover
of anonymity or false identities, of course.

> If you want an engagement it has to be on the level of
>scientific data.

Gee, Bob, is that why you fail to "engage" my posts
containing generous amounts of incriminating scientific
data as you scan to reply only to the lamest "easy pickings"?

>In any event, I do hope you will be able to keep your resolution
>on civility. It will make a big difference.

It is God's Will that Sparticus become a permanent fixture here.

You will hate that, of course.

fred


Catherine Jamieson

unread,
Jan 7, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/7/00
to
You know - and really, the style isn't very good
either.
Just an academic point.


Catherine


Gary Stein <ges...@bellatlantic.net> wrote in message
news:8538gi$p5l$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...

DGiunti

unread,
Jan 7, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/7/00
to

>"SPARTACUS" <spart...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:3874ED99...@mindspring.com...
>
>> You guys kill me.

Isn't that how you want to end up: Crucified like your namesake?

David Giunti emil: DGi...@aol.community
What is the question? Gertrude Stein's last words
No one mouth is big enough to utter the whole thing. Alan Watts

On Display in the UK http://www.webgallery.connectfree.co.uk

mcoo...@my-deja.com

unread,
Jan 7, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/7/00
to
In article <3874ED99...@mindspring.com>,
SPARTACUS <spart...@mindspring.com> wrote:
<Snippety-do-dah>

> You're really a prize moron if you can't tell by now that if I choose
to debate you about AIDS
> science you'd be sucking wind right from jump. You guys kill me. You
see my talents as a writer,
> you see how I smack you around at will, yet for some reason as yet
unclear, you think the outcome
> would be different if we focused on AIDS science. But here's a clue:
if you've managed to gain
> some skill in it, extrapolate that by a factor of ten to get an idea
of how far I'd go beyond
> you. As I told you before, if I had a mind to do it,--and the time --
I'd spend a day reading the
> dissident view than return here and have you panting from your flews
in no time at all.

Hee hee hee hee, Spartypoo, you slay me. You haven't a chance. A stupid
person's idea of a clever man, you are.

I resist rhetorical fights with you because it is really unsporting to
get into a battle of wits with an unarmed man. I get ever so much more
enjoyment from seeing you twist in the wind.

You've been rode hard and put away wet. Now go away, you boring little
man and don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

SPARTACUS

unread,
Jan 7, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/7/00
to

Catherine Jamieson wrote:

> You know - and really, the style isn't very good
> either.
> Just an academic point.
>
> Catherine

I'm not worried about you.

You can't have too much time left.

Spartacus

>
>
> Gary Stein <ges...@bellatlantic.net> wrote in message
> news:8538gi$p5l$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
> |

> | "SPARTACUS" <spart...@mindspring.com> wrote in
> message
> | news:3874ED99...@mindspring.com...
> | >

> | > You're really a prize moron if you can't tell by
> now that if I
> | choose to debate you about AIDS
> | > science you'd be sucking wind right from jump. You
> guys kill me. You
> | see my talents as a writer,
> | > you see how I smack you around at will, yet for
> some reason as yet
> | unclear, you think the outcome
> | > would be different if we focused on AIDS science.
> But here's a clue:
> | if you've managed to gain
> | > some skill in it, extrapolate that by a factor of
> ten to get an
> | idea of how far I'd go beyond
> | > you. As I told you before, if I had a mind to do
> it,--and the
> | time -- I'd spend a day reading the
> | > dissident view than return here and have you
> panting from your flews
> | in no time at all.
> |

SPARTACUS

unread,
Jan 7, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/7/00
to

DGiunti wrote:

> >"SPARTACUS" <spart...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> >news:3874ED99...@mindspring.com...
> >

> >> You guys kill me.
>
> Isn't that how you want to end up: Crucified like your namesake?
>
> David Giunti emil: DGi...@aol.community

Eh, David, you made a very big production of informing the world you
found my posts so objectionable that you felt forced to not dignify
anything else I wrote with a response. I, and people across cyberspace,
respected you for this. Not that it had any merit, mind you, but that
finally here was someone in this group with the intestinal fortitude to
stand up for what he believed no matter how flat wrong he may be.

Have you reversed your mandate and if so why?

Spartacus

GMCarter

unread,
Jan 7, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/7/00
to
On Thu, 06 Jan 2000 16:14:17 -0800, fred <fred...@primenet.com>
wrote:

snip...


>I DO address the evidence. LOTS of evidence.
>
>Too bad you aren't dealing with that evidence.

Bullshit. You make up a lot of crap then when challenged, run
squealing off into the corner for a nice soak. Or begin to squeal and
screech about how dreadful everyone is that dares disagree with you.

Maybe the Bard will take you out on a date. You two were made for each
other.

George Mary Carter


don lucas

unread,
Jan 7, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/7/00
to
namaste,

SPARTACUS wrote:

> You see my talents as a writer, you see how I smack you around at
> will, yet for some reason as yet unclear, you think the outcome
> would be different if we focused on AIDS science. But here's a clue:
> if you've managed to gain some skill in it, extrapolate that by a
> factor of ten to get an idea of how far I'd go beyond you. As I told
> you before, if I had a mind to do it,--and the time -- I'd spend a day
> reading the dissident view than return here and have you panting from
> your flews in no time at all.

> Spartacus

i doubt it. your attention span is not much more than that of a puppy -
any small distraction is enough to have you scampering off, piddling on
the carpet as you go.

take care, be well.

donpaul lucas
hiv+ 17 years (asymptomatic, stage 2)
12 years anti-viral veteran

(this post sealed with the three-fold law)

SPARTACUS

unread,
Jan 7, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/7/00
to

don lucas wrote:

By the way, Don, how much time do you think you have left?

Ball park it for me.


Spartacus


don lucas

unread,
Jan 7, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/7/00
to
namaste,

SPARTACUS wrote:

> By the way, Don, how much time do you think you have left?
>
> Ball park it for me.
>
> Spartacus

gee, interesting question. according to some on this newsgroup it's just
a matter of days, weeks or months - of course, most of those predictions
are two years old. funny thing is, the majority of those who
miscalculated my demise no longer post here. i wonder why?

as for an actual figure, i've seen estimates of those who do well on the
anti-virals pushing the envelope to 20-25 years - which gives me another
3-8 years. with continued blessing, i'll be around long after you've
bored with your trolling - happened before, it'll happen again.

SPARTACUS

unread,
Jan 7, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/7/00
to

mcoo...@my-deja.com wrote:

> In article <3874ED99...@mindspring.com>,
> SPARTACUS <spart...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> <Snippety-do-dah>
>

> > You're really a prize moron if you can't tell by now that if I choose
> to debate you about AIDS

> > science you'd be sucking wind right from jump. You guys kill me. You


> see my talents as a writer,
> > you see how I smack you around at will, yet for some reason as yet
> unclear, you think the outcome
> > would be different if we focused on AIDS science. But here's a clue:
> if you've managed to gain
> > some skill in it, extrapolate that by a factor of ten to get an idea
> of how far I'd go beyond
> > you. As I told you before, if I had a mind to do it,--and the time --
> I'd spend a day reading the
> > dissident view than return here and have you panting from your flews
> in no time at all.
>

> Hee hee hee hee, Spartypoo, you slay me. You haven't a chance. A stupid
> person's idea of a clever man, you are.
>
> I resist rhetorical fights with you because it is really unsporting to
> get into a battle of wits with an unarmed man. I get ever so much more
> enjoyment from seeing you twist in the wind.
>
> You've been rode hard and put away wet. Now go away, you boring little
> man and don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.

About 17 years ago it was decided by universal cyberspace referendum that
anyone who used the flame "I'll not battle wits with an unarmed man" was to
be spit on, pelted with dog shit, and peed on from a great height. Here's a
towel and sponge....

Spartacus


SPARTACUS

unread,
Jan 7, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/7/00
to

don lucas wrote:

> namaste,
>
> SPARTACUS wrote:
>
> > By the way, Don, how much time do you think you have left?
> >
> > Ball park it for me.
> >
> > Spartacus
>
> gee, interesting question. according to some on this newsgroup it's just
> a matter of days, weeks or months - of course, most of those predictions
> are two years old. funny thing is, the majority of those who
> miscalculated my demise no longer post here. i wonder why?
>
> as for an actual figure, i've seen estimates of those who do well on the
> anti-virals pushing the envelope to 20-25 years - which gives me another
> 3-8 years. with continued blessing, i'll be around long after you've
> bored with your trolling - happened before, it'll happen again.
>
> take care, be well.

Of course the real question is how long would you have lived without the
meds, but alas, this begs an answer we'll never know-- still, is there any
doubt in your mind that it will be the meds that will eventually kill you?

Spartacus

Gary Stein

unread,
Jan 7, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/7/00
to

"SPARTACUS" <spart...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3875ECEB...@mindspring.com...

While I can not speak for Don, I will say categorically that I would
be dead were it not for HARRT. The last time I had PCP I was
hospitalized for many days and after trying all other approved methods
to fight PCP was put on IV Trimetrexate Glucuronate and Leucovorin .
Trimetrexate was at that time only approved for severe PCP and has
very dangerous side effects (during my out patient treatment the
Trimetrexate is a chemotherapy and had to be treated as a hazardous
chemical by the home health care workers this included them wearing
biohazard clothing, gloves and a full face gas mask when handling this
medication). I was on this treatment for 45 days 28 of which was in
patient. The doctors who were treating me obliviously did not expect
me to pull through during the first 20 days or so. This episode of PCP
reduced my lung capacity by 15% to 20% permanently. Due to this damage
and the fact that it was my third case of PCP in less then 2 years
(even though I was on Dapsone), I am sure that the next time I get PCP
if I ever do so will most likely kill me. Luckily HARRT came along at
just the right time and I have not had a reoccurrence of PCP since
starting it.

don lucas

unread,
Jan 7, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/7/00
to
namaste,

SPARTACUS wrote:

> Of course the real question is how long would you have lived without
> the meds, but alas, this begs an answer we'll never know--

there is sufficient evidence that does give me some hints. my brother
being one of them. we got our test results back about the same time -
unfortunately, he progressed rather quickly, with his first case of pcp
coming in the summer of 1987. he died in oct. of 1989, without the
benefit of anti-virals. a study that was done a few years ago showed
that brothers who were infected essentially followed the same course of
disease, given the same circumstances.

i started my first clinical trial in 1987, partly due to my brother's
situation.

> still, is there any doubt in your mind that it will be the meds that
> will eventually kill you?
>

> Spartacus

at this point in time, there isn't just doubt, there's ample evidence to
the contary. my current regimen is doing it's job (viral load
undetectable, blood work steady), there are no major side-effects, and
my health has remained relatively unchanged for 4 years. this after 12
years of anti-viral experience. so, once again i ask, where are the
majority of posters who had me pushing up daisies two years ago?

as i see it, here's the problem - i don't deny the fact that these meds
can be brutal for some people. as with any medication, there are
side-effects (just read the insert for any prescribed drug or pay close
attention to their advertisements). you, and others, want to make it the
rule rather than the exception. this gives you no leeway, so the
standard practice is to either accuse those of us who are doing well on
harrt as lying, crooked, murdering bastards, minions of the evil aids
empire, or shills being paid handsomely for our posts. or you revert to
lame attempts like that above to bait people into your childish games.
or the ever popular, spelling or grammar errors. so trite.

take care, be well.

SPARTACUS

unread,
Jan 7, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/7/00
to

don lucas wrote:

> namaste,
>
> SPARTACUS wrote:
>
> > Of course the real question is how long would you have lived without
> > the meds, but alas, this begs an answer we'll never know--
>
> there is sufficient evidence that does give me some hints. my brother
> being one of them. we got our test results back about the same time -
> unfortunately, he progressed rather quickly, with his first case of pcp
> coming in the summer of 1987. he died in oct. of 1989, without the
> benefit of anti-virals. a study that was done a few years ago showed
> that brothers who were infected essentially followed the same course of
> disease, given the same circumstances.

Odd study... mind citing it? Its sounds like something you made up. Why
would brothers "essentially follow the same course of the disease"? And
where are they finding these enclaves in our society where brothers are
coming down with HIV at the same time -- Philadelphia?

>
>
> i started my first clinical trial in 1987, partly due to my brother's
> situation.

What does this mean? What were your labs?

>
>
> > still, is there any doubt in your mind that it will be the meds that
> > will eventually kill you?
> >
> > Spartacus
>
> at this point in time, there isn't just doubt, there's ample evidence to
> the contary. my current regimen is doing it's job (viral load
> undetectable, blood work steady), there are no major side-effects, and
> my health has remained relatively unchanged for 4 years. this after 12
> years of anti-viral experience. so, once again i ask, where are the
> majority of posters who had me pushing up daisies two years ago?

Where are the majority of posters who started meds 12 years ago?

>
>
> as i see it, here's the problem - i don't deny the fact that these meds
> can be brutal for some people. as with any medication, there are
> side-effects (just read the insert for any prescribed drug or pay close
> attention to their advertisements). you, and others, want to make it the
> rule rather than the exception. this gives you no leeway, so the
> standard practice is to either accuse those of us who are doing well on
> harrt as lying, crooked, murdering bastards, minions of the evil aids
> empire, or shills being paid handsomely for our posts. or you revert to
> lame attempts like that above to bait people into your childish games.
> or the ever popular, spelling or grammar errors. so trite.
>

You're a statistical non-entity. Let's talk meaningful numbers. What's the
percentage of HAART patients still around since '88?

Spartacus

SPARTACUS

unread,
Jan 7, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/7/00