|
Home > Archive > HIV Aids > October 2005 > To DavidT from worried us
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
To DavidT from worried us
|
|
| jean013 2005-10-10, 8:51 am |
| --talkabouthealthnetwork is back on-line so I repost my last message--
Friends,
Last week I wrote on this board :
[vbcol=seagreen]
Why did I write that ? I figure it would be a terrible blow to modern
society if we were to realize that aids-dissidents were right after all
and to me the result would be a total disillusion I cannot cope with.
After all, I recently discovered that all criticism has been brutally
shovelled under for more than twenty years already and if the critics were
to be right in the end, it would imply that politics, science and media
are totally rotten and corrupt on a planetary scale.
I think you're wrong, DavidT. You wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
I object. Dissenting voices get NO attention. You may say that it's
smeared all over the web, and that's true, but even if those dissident web
pages were read by the thousands every day, the hundreds of millions get
their information from the leading newspapers and TV shows exclusively and
AIDS deniers are absolutely unknown to the masses.
DavidT, some days ago you wrote in an answer to one of my messages:
[vbcol=seagreen]
OK, let's restart from there. I'm looking for information and you gave me
some. For instance, you provided me with some links. I read them and one
of my reactions was:
[vbcol=seagreen]
Now, if this isn't a crying example of a sheep loosing the herd. Where is
your reaction?
You wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
I conclude that you've put on the boots of the sheepherder. So then, do
the job. There must be something you can write to stop me from reading
that article as a piece of hilarious nonsense while drifting away to
another shore from where I will never be able again to think of science
and journalism otherwise than totally crippled and crooked.
Take good care, all of you,
Very worried Charles Hoy and Joan of Arc
| |
| DavidT 2005-10-10, 8:51 am |
| I'm not clear exactly what you are getting at. My intentions are for
the best. If you've had kids, you will appreciate the frustration of
having arguments when each one thinks he knows best. Sometimes we sit
and discuss rationally, sometimes not.
You think viruses cannot have long term effects? There are many
examples outside the retroviral field. What about lymphomas, some
leukaemias, chronic hepatitis, hepatocellular carcinomas, encephalitis,
cardiac damage, cervical cancer etc. These are all diseases arising
from long term virus carriage/infection.
I agree- infections are not the only cause of some diseases. Ask a
microbiologist what causes tuberculosis and he will reply Mycobacterium
tuberculosis. Ask a social scientist and he will reply poverty. The
diseases are inextricably linked, but the organism merely uses us and
our underlying circumstances to its own advantage. If the bacterium did
not exist, it would not matter how poor someone was, he would not get
TB.
Medical scientists concentrate on tackling the pathogen - its what they
do best.
So no, I don't think HIV is the only "cause" of the "disease", but let
us address the undelying primary problem - HIV, and not get too
confused with co-factors for disease progression, transmission and
expression.
Finally, why exactly are you worried?
| |
| Brian Mailman 2005-10-10, 5:49 pm |
| jean013 wrote:
>
> I object. Dissenting voices get NO attention.
You mean "dissenting voices don't get the only attention."
> ...Joan of Arc
We know how THAT turned out.
B/
| |
| GMCarter 2005-10-24, 12:55 am |
| On Thu, 20 Oct 2005 21:12:40 -0400, "Iconoclaster" <wgods@xs4all.nl>
wrote:
>outside the retroviral field. What about lymphomas, some leukaemias,
>chronic hepatitis, hepatocellular carcinomas, encephalitis, cardiac
>damage, cervical cancer etc. These are all diseases arising from long term
>virus carriage/infection."
>
>In your dreams, Master David! If a virus has a long-term effect (I said
>IF), then it also has an immediate effect, right after infection.
Ah, yeah. HIV has a set of symptoms associated with acute infection.
In some people, there are virtually none. In others, it can be
extreme.
Yet again: you evince an ignorance of staggering proportions.
snip dither
>Yes, let's address the underlying problem. And that's NOT HIV.
Well, yes it is. But what is the problem from your perspective?
George M. Carter
|
| |
|
|