>Reflectorites
>
>On Tue, 08 Feb 2000 09:49:47 -0600, Susan Brassfield wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>>SJ>[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!]
>
>SB>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.
>
>That there is a connection betweem HIV and AIDS is not disputed. That it
>is the *sole* cause of AIDS is disputed by Duesberg, et. al.
so has Duesberg identified a population that has AIDS but never showed HIV
positive?
>It is not
>disputed by me because I don't know enough about the issue. I do think
>that the AIDS drugs cocktail approach is unfalsifiable.
people are living longer either because the drugs are working or the virus
has mutated a less virulent strain. It would be unethical to withhold drugs
that might help. What's your point here?
>I explained my position is "one of a `devil's advocate' who is "not yet
>convinced of the Duesberg claim that HIV does not cause AIDS":
I think what is confusing me is why you are so interested in it.
>"I should also explain that I am not yet convinced of the Duesberg claim
>that HIV does not cause AIDS. ...So my attitude is one of a `devil's
>advocate'. I am looking at the HIV/AIDS issue as a sceptic would, without
>necessarily being one. I must admit it does start to look shaky when one
>adjusts one's mental spectacles and starts to consider whether the central
>assumption of the HIV/AIDS industry is flawed and that money and
>politics has created a pseudoscientific juggernaut which no one has the
>courage to stop....If it is true that millions of lives have been lost
>prematurely and miserably, and billions of dollars has been wasted which
>could have been put to better health use, then this will be the greatest
>scandal of science - *ever*! That is why I consider this issue on-topic."
>
>If they have got it wrong and HIV is not the sole cause of AIDS, then
>Susan's friend may not have died so soon or so miserably.
how could they have kept him alive? They didn't just treat the HIV they
treated the AIDS as well. When AIDS first appeared the treatment was a
farewell handshake. Now they can keep these people alive with the drugs
that have been developed in the last 20 years. It's doing *something* which
is causing these people to live longer. Which, in my book, makes it worth
the money. There is no cure. Big deal, there's still no cure for a lot of
cancers either, even though billions have been spent on research, but
because of that research a lot of people are surviving cancer that didn't
30 years ago.
>SB>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?
>
>The leader in this is Duesberg who is not a "co-religionist".
I've never heard of him or his controversy and you have. Therefore I assume
literature on this stuff circulates where you read it. I know nothing about
you except your religion.
>And no one is saying that "there is no link between HIV and AIDS".
>The question is whether HIV is the *sole* cause of AIDS or even *a*
>cause of AIDS. A second question is whether anti-HIV drug cocktails
>are worse than the disease.
I'm told they have horrible side effects. If they keep you alive, even for
a while longer, it's worth it, don't you think?
>My interest in this is both from the scientific method point of view and
>from the fact that I am an employee of the Health Department of WA
>and one of my degrees is in Health Administration which included a
>unit in Epidemiology.
Ah! something about yourself I didn't know.
>I am aware from my Epidemiology unit above how easy it is to get
>causal factors wrong in disease.
yes, and?
>Why I am opposed to evolution is because I don't think its *true*.
you *wish* it weren't true
>SB>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?
>
>See above. It would help if Susan saved wasting all our time by finding out
>what her opponents *actually* believe, rather than what she *wants* them
>to believe.
If I know the answers, I don't bother to ask the questions. I'm still
curious why you sound so hopeful that there might not be a connection
between HIV and AIDS. It really sounds like you don't *want* there to be a
connection. I'm curious why.
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 - 17:22:57 EST