LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives


SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives


SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE@LIST.UVM.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Home

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Home

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE  August 2008

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE August 2008

Subject:

Re: Censored topics: Clarification requested

From:

Mitchel Cohen <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Science for the People Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Tue, 5 Aug 2008 12:29:35 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (161 lines)

Michael,

The question of "isolation" of a virus, and then of this particular 
retrovirus, is at the core of the HIV = AIDS causality.

You can feel free to write to me (and to Jim, I spoze) off list about 
this, but I certainly would appreciate it. Please note that I HAVE 
read through several scientific treatises on this, and I apply the 
same skepticism I have towards most other "official" pronouncements 
to this science as well.  There are internal contradictions and key 
unanswered questions in the texts I have read thus far, that have led 
me to where I now am, questioning whether what is being portrayed as 
"isolation" is consistent, and sufficient to produce non-contaminated 
samples -- the idea being that something else in that isolate, and 
perhaps not the retrovirus itself -- is culpable for the immune 
system breakdown.

There are several other major "core" issues here, but having a 
consistent definition of and protocol for isolating viruses would be 
extremely helpful. Frankly, I don't think it (the protocol) exists 
consistently, universally, but I'm open to learning otherwise.

Mitchel



At 11:57 AM 8/5/2008, you wrote:
>Mitchel,
>
>If I and other scientifically trained people on this list patiently 
>explained to you what it means to isolate a virus, would you take it 
>seriously or would you insist that we didn't know what we were 
>talking about and that only you and Jim West had the proper 
>definition of virus isolation and that our definition was an evasion 
>by the phamaceutical industry that wants to sell drugs to HIV 
>infected people? I ask because this is pretty much where we are on 
>this "debate," and why I consider continued discussion of it to be 
>unfruitful. I have posted material time and time again that does 
>just what I suggest above, but it has been pretty much ignored by 
>the AIDS denialists here--thus the frustration of many of us that 
>the discussion continues to go on.
>
>MB
>
>On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 5:48 PM, Mitchel Cohen 
><<mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>Hi Mandi,
>
>I, too, have witnessed similar problems to those you describe on 
>various lists. But there are also long-established lists such as 
>SprayNo, where most everyone on it is actively involved in fighting 
>against pesticides spraying, and which has generally not been faced 
>with the kind of abusive behavior you describe.
>
>I, for one, have raised several items on this list that have turned 
>out to be controversial. My intention is NOT to disrupt, and I find 
>it hard to see how my own posts, or the relatively few posts by Jim 
>West, for example, can cause disruption here, as frustrating as some 
>people on this list may find those controversial ideas which -- 
>please remember -- were writtten as legitimate queries in response 
>to assertions that others were making. I write here because on this 
>list are scientists of high quality and radical politics. Not being 
>involved with a university or research institution myself, this 
>listserve is one of the few resources available to me to discuss and 
>to come to understand the nature of certain debates. Please 
>understand that the controversial issues I raise here concerning 
>HIV, Gardasil, 911 Truth, etc. are coming out of and influencing 
>social movements with which I am involved (I could throw in 
>Palestine and a few other issues as well, but that one I'm pretty 
>much able to handle on my own), and for which I seek deeper 
>scientific understanding. I have learned a great deal from this 
>list, especially in those instances when list members have seriously 
>addressed concerns raised. As such, I have refined my views on a 
>number of matters. The feedback I've received has helped me in my 
>various organizing projects. I've also forwarded items and ideas 
>from this list to other bulletin boards I'm on, particularly the 
>Green listserves, and those have helped guide us in our work.
>
>Just as much as this list has helped me, I think it is very 
>important to keep scientists connected to social and ecological 
>movements. While everyone here is, I'm sure, involved in those 
>movements -- some more than others -- the danger has always been for 
>academics, experts, scientists to become isolated from the nitty 
>gritty of those movements. The same is true for many of us 
>regardless of profession as we get older. We need to remember the 
>import and intensity of those arguments within movements, the often 
>wrong interpretations as well as the right ones, and strengthen our 
>connections to them, which is especially difficult now that so many 
>revolutionary groups that were nourished on grassroots democracy in 
>addressing issues have been replaced by Not-for-profit corporations 
>prizing the trust-the-expert and top-down approach that feeds the 
>individual, with nowhere else to turn, back into the system even as 
>we seek to remedy a particular aspect of it.
>
>Dana Bramel and Ron Friend wrote a crucial article back in 1981 on 
>"The Theory and Practice of Psychology," printed in Ollman and 
>Vernoff, "The Left Academy: Marxist Scholarship on American 
>Campuses." (I typed and critiqued that essay for the authors, who 
>were also my teachers at Stony Brook, and as part of my job I was to 
>run it into the editors in New York City, which is how I first met 
>Bertell Ollman -- the beginning of our provocative friendship.) 
>Their short review of psychology and Marxism is still fascinating to 
>me, and their general conclusion can productively be made to reflect 
>on other areas of science, including the Science for the People 
>listserve. It is worth posting here:
>
>"Discussion of the organized efforts of left or Marxist 
>psychologists brings us full circle in our attempt to answer the 
>question: "Psychology for whom?" [We might here ask, "Science for 
>whom?"] The primary function of psychology as a bourgeois science in 
>North America has been to reduce society's problems to individual 
>problems. Psychology is applied at both ideological (images of human 
>nature) and practical levels for purposes of social control, but 
>always with the individual as the unit of analysis. This handicaps 
>psychologists in viewing the world as Marxists do. Therefore, if 
>they are to take an anticapitalist role in society, we believe it is 
>insufficient to organize as an alternative psychology. In addition 
>they should consider joining together with those outside of the 
>discipline in Marxist organizations, where their psychological work 
>can be put to direct use. This may be the only way to overcome the 
>narrowness of the professional's point of view, in its theory and in 
>its practice."
>
>I agree with that assessment, still, after all these years. One 
>should, in my opinion, take into consideration not only the view or 
>question or challenge itself, but from whence it springs. The 
>challenges to the official HIV = AIDS paradigm, for example, emerged 
>among People With AIDS themselves in ACT UP and HEAL, who may not 
>have had every scientific nuance nailed down but who knew (and still 
>do) from experience that something was awry and who were being 
>killed by the pharmaceuticals they were being told to take, and so 
>the quest for information became (and still remains) a desperate and 
>immediate need. Others can disagree, they can refine, they can argue 
>-- but the exhibition of *contempt* by some on this list for those 
>who collectively were (and still are) raising challenges to the 
>dominant paradigm further speaks, in my opinion, to Bramel and 
>Friend's insights and supports their conclusion -- one that I feel 
>many on this list, as elsewhere, have for too long ignored or 
>forgotten in our everyday lives.
>
>Mitchel
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>--
>******************************************
>Michael Balter
>Contributing Correspondent, Science
>Adjunct Professor of Journalism,
>Boston University
>
>Email: <mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]
>
>Website: <http://michaelbalter.com>michaelbalter.com
>Balter's Blog: <http://michael-balter.blogspot.com>michael-balter.blogspot.com
>******************************************

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
May 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LIST.UVM.EDU

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager