At 03:56 PM 11/8/2013, Michael H Goldhaber wrote:
I agree with Sam and second his question. Given that you favor needle
exchange in connection with AIDS, doesn't that imply you believe
something transmitted is causative for AIDS?
Yes & No. I believe that SOMETHING (not necessarily a retrovirus) is
a co-factor in AIDS.
And I also admit that I just don't know, so just in case -- clean
needles, condoms, and immune-building nutrients.
I would also like to add another
question. You have given a compelling argument that, at least in some
situations, calling someone a murderer puts that person in danger
and therefore is irresponsible. We all know of abortion doctors who were
called "murderer" and then actually killed. But doesn't that
make it equally irresponsible and dangerous to urge people to beware of
medications that a great deal of evidence shows statistically are much
more likely to save their lives than harm them? If anyone at risk from
influenza or who has the HIV virus chooses to listen to your warnings and
those you pass on, in my view and that of many others, you would be, in
fact, endangering them, quite possibly with death.
Well, now you're lumping HIV and Flu.
In the late 80s and 90s, they made that same argument for AZT, and
denounced its detractors (like me). I agree, things have changed,
hopefully advanced since then. But THEIR ARGUMENT was exactly the same as
today's. MANY people died from AZT at the time.
Since I am not sure, when talking about all of this in public I tend to
put out all the arguments side by side and let the individual decide what
to do. I go to meetings against the HIV hypothesis and raise questions
similar to the ones raised here by the scientists on this list -- but
hopefully without the arrogance and cock-suredness.
It's quite true that taking Protease Inhibitors has extended people's
lives. Whether that's because they inure the body to the HI Virus or for
some other reason, it is nevertheless significant.
My take is that there are so many lies and so much economic self-interest
invested in certain positions taken by the pharmaceutical industry and
their lapdogs that I don't believe anything they say -- just like what
they used to do with AZT, and now with the Flu vaccine. (I wouldn't lump
them together if I were you, Michael.)
Are you not, in other words,
proposing a very different standard for yourself than for those who
criticize your stands? I suggest you need to question your own actions,
and perhaps apologize for them.
Hey, I always question my actions and positions, which is why I cannot be
so certain that HIV causes AIDS -- but advocate taking precautions just
in case I'm wrong. Not sure what you think I need to apologize for, since
until now you have no idea, really, of what I advise people in public. We
can also talk here about what to do for Alzheimers, which many believe to
be preventable with large doses of natural supplements and diet, working
My sense, perhaps mistaken, is
that you never do that. Instead, I have the impression you always seem to
come up with an excuse for whatever you have said or
:-) I can't answer to what your impressions may be. And I can't
answer to whether I always come up with an excuse (for what?) as anything
I say to that, including this, becomes another excuse. ANYTHING.
More broadly, is it reasonable
to take as many contrarian positions as you do on such a variety of
issues, especially medical ones? (By contrarian, I mean contrary to
a great deal of pretty good evidence and the consensus of the scientific
medical community.) I get the impression that you start from the view
that the medical community is virtually always wrong and, however slight
the evidence against the majoritarian position, that evidence must be
You're quite wrong about my starting point and assumptions. However, I
can see how you'd arrive at that view, given that we do not share a
starting point that underlies any investigation. My starting point is
anti-reductionist. If there's a lot of anecdotal evidence for this or
that, I trust people's experience and then try to investigate it further.
I also look to interrelationships between a person and the environment
for many or most of the health issues we're facing today, while many
researchers try to pin it all on one gene, one virus, one
"predisposition", and then use a military-like approach to
visualize and protect against the "invading army of viruses".
Too many scientists start from "the lone gunman" cause for
disease, and absorb all the research dollars into driving out anyone who
thinks differently. So while I don't like the mysticism involved with the
anti-reductionist movement, I am also thankful for Lenin when he observed
that he was much closer to an idealism than to the crash reductionist
materialism that some were trying to pass off as Marxism. But, hey,
Mercury is in retrograde, so perhaps my communications are skewed ....
If my impression is
anywhere near correct, how can you justify such a position? If not, why
not? In the history of science, though objections from the sidelines to
nearly everything are numerous, only very rare objections to established
positions turn out eventually to win out. Always adopting minority stands
is just not very helpful, even to bring about a more humanitarian
Wow, do we have a different reading of the history of "science"
and how progress is achieved!!!