There you go projecting again Paul, there is no doubt in anyones mind who
has read your posts to MHA that it is you who endevors to "disrupt and
insult" rather then engage in real debate.

Gary Stein

When "nonsense" is proper scientific facts, I suppose your definition
fits.

Still doesn't explain why you deleted the Beltz posts once it became
obvious he really didn't say that AZT was toxic.  AME isn't for debate,
it's full of self-congratulatory nonsense and perpetuation of every
psuedoscientific myth about AIDS that exists.  Ask Chris Tyler if my
comments on the Briggs paper, in an attempt to find a middle ground,
was disruptive or insulting...or merely rejected because it came from
me.  I personally found it rather amusing, that the censors found it
more appropriate to stagger blindly around the paper than to actually
discuss its (real) relative merits and shortcomings.  I suppose Rob
made a half-explanation in that he said he didn't want duplication of
the debate...but I can't the AME readers asking the same questions at
the BMJ.  I'm in this for education remember, so long as people are
willing to listen.

As for disruption and insulting - one could say the ongoing spamming of
MHA by your good self falls into that category ;-)

I will however tip my hat for the recent Glaxo posts.  However biased
the reporting may be, the stories were informative enough.  Roll on
Michael Moore... ;-)

Bennett

To help you justify f.cking without a condom and the itch in your
conscience when you know you're doing something horribly wrong.

That's correct. The truth is they don't have much information on
their side, just generally speaking. Nor do they seem very inclined
to think for themselves.

Alex