Stephen wrote:
> [That HIV is not a reliable indicator of AIDS seems like
>more evidence of a weak causal link between the two. The fact that after
>10-15 years and billions of dollars spent on HIV/AIDS, researchers
>overlooked such an obvious factor as "women...are biologically
>different...`Dingding!'", does not inspire confidence that they know what
>they are doing, to put it mildly!]
I have personal knowledge of a man who contracted HIV which developed into
AIDS and who subsequently died. It is trivially true that people who die
of AIDS are always HIV positive for some time before that. So my question
is this: what is the advantage to your co-religionists to try to persuade
people there is no link between HIV and AIDS? I have to admit this one
stumps me. I mean the evolution thing contraducts the first couple of
chapters of the Bible (or seems to). Most fundmentalists/inerrantists are
anti-modernist, and I can understand that. But *this* I find hard to
understand. Why don't you want HIV to be related to AIDS?
Susan
----------
For if there is a sin against life, it consists not so much in despairing
of life as in hoping for another and in eluding the implacable grandeur of
this one.
--Albert Camus
http://www.telepath.com/susanb/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Feb 08 2000 - 10:51:02 EST