 |
 |
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 >******************************************