>> Yes, many of the drugs in question are toxic, and alternative approaches
> should be tested. However, for *some people*, treatment with some drugs
> works.
it is VERY important to note that there is NO scientific that they any of the drugs work. one need not be an AID dissident to reckognize that all of these drugs undermine the body over time. AZT is widely, if not universially, considered a failure. i will not be shocked when all of the current drug therapies are similiary judged in time; yes, these drug therapies do indeed "work" for some people but the obvious question should be, "why do they work for some and not others?" why they help some people get through the day and not others may easily have nothing to do with HIV.
Since this is the case, *all people* should be given the *option*
> to use whatever treatment is available (including access to a decent
> diet, which is also denied to most South Africans).
as much as i think that mbeki is moving in the right direction on this particular issue, no one person should have the kind of power that mbeki has, at least in this arena, over the distribution of goods and services.
> >
> Sorry, I'm not on your wavelength here - are you saying that growing
> number of scientists are questioning the existing of retro-virii? That's
> news to me, and I work in genetics - so I'd be interested in who these
> scientists are, and where there articles have appeared.
i spoke a little too fast, here. there are several scientist who have rejected the notion of retro-virii, most notably stefan lanka. three years ago, in an effort to better understand retro-virii, i came upon the writings of several genetecist and cancer researchers who challenged the retro-virii assumption but i don't recall their names. i apologize for not being able to pull them out of my hat. i've got copies of the articles on my computer in DC but since i'm in france...i'll make an effort to dig those up and send them along.
(BTW. while I am
> quite familiar with the problems posed by peer-review, etc. I tend to
> distrust WWW sites as a source for information
your skeptecism is well placed but i have found, with a few exceptions, the writing at virusmyth.com to be of the highest journalistic caliber. by the way, the web is not the only place to find alternative opinions on AIDS. there seems to be an assumption out there that this is all the work of bored, slightly malevolent conspiracy theorists who have nothing better than to do than to hawk wacky theories over the internet
- I find it very difficult
> to get a sense of the honesty of data published on the WWW)
yes, much of the time this is true.
>
> Well, the people in question are suffering from a collapsed immune system
> and opportunistic infections. Whether that is a symptom of AIDS or not is
> not the issue - they need treatment for those opportunistic
> infections.
yes, yes, but we are talking about AIDS. the treatment for AIDS these days is a drug regimen that is significantly less toxic than before but very toxic nonetheless. when treating sick people, we need as much precision as possible. it is worth repeating that there is no SCIENTIFIC evidence that these drugs work, only anecdotal evidence that they help "some" people get better.
Again, why call the effort to provide that option 'biological
> warfare'.
because mbeki is a politician who is trying to use words that resonate with his constituency in order to win support for this policy. its clearly opportunistic--but not totally off the mark.
> one of the ways to make people
> healthier is to sell a successful product.
yes. aspirin "works". but how many people know how much aspirin screws with digestion? how many people have any basic understanding of the bio-chemistry of side effects? how many people even understand the basic notion underlying the prescription of drugs? a successful product often depends on ignorance, too. there is also the fact that folks health is often so bad that the only thing that can provide them with any relief is a prescribed drug, none of which are particularlly bio-chemically elegant. AIDS drugs are certainly no exception.
If anadin headache tablets
> didn't work for me, I'd not buy them. Also, while I distrust the
> pharmaco-industrial complex deeply, they do have to go through various
> certification processes to get drugs on the market.
which are seriously inadequate...
I have a hard time
> believing that all those processes are corrupt -
in the sense of conspiracy, no; structurally corrupt,in the sense of consistently underinforming americans about prescription and otc drugs, absolutely.
> I agree with you to some extent on the "black paranoia" bit, and view
> the media coverage of the HIV issue to be more than a little bit skewed
> by the predominantly white owned and run media's willingness to use the
> veil of 'science' to beat Mbeki on the head (and promote shitheads like
> Tony Leon of the DA (main white party in South Africa)).
>
yes...
> I am not, however, convinced that the "paranoia" on offer is
> genuine.
well, as i noted above, mbeki is a pol...
I saw Mbeki last week at an awards ceremony, and his happy
> relationship with the doyens of white business is cause for
> disgust.
i would certainly agree...
So, I'm faced with a problem of judgement: am I more sceptical
> about Mbeki and co.'s honesty, or am I more sceptical about HIV
> dissidence?
>
i would go with the latter. but skeptecism in all critical matters is a healthy habit.
> After all, both sides of the coin - the HIV orthodoxy and the HIV
> dissidents - are part of the same Western scientific complex.
yes, indeed...
>
> [snip]
> > > again, i am no mbeki fan but i really don't see this. you'll have to
> > elaborate.
>
> Mbeki is promoting GEAR, the Growth, Employment And Redistribution
> policy.
this part i understood...
This is the ANC's home-baked Structural Adjustment Programme,
> which demands reduced spending on social services, including health. There
> are strict budget deficit caps in this policy.
yes...quite nasty from what i've read...
>
suddenly, Mbeki conveniently discovered the AIDS dissidents,
> apparently after browsing the WWW one night. It all sounds a bit suspect.
>
yes, it does. but good causes can be, and have been, used opportunistically by not-so-good politically interested parties. even the CIA saw great marketing value for the u.s. in the civil rights movement; we should not reduce AIDS dissidence to mbeki. people have been dissenting from the standard argument since gallo's announcement.
> >
> > In the end, the debate on HIV and AIDS has been deployed as a delaying
> > tactic in South Africa.
> >
i don't doubt it.
chris niles
Peter van Heusden <pvh at egenetics.com>
> NOTE: I do not speak for my employer, Electric Genetics
> "Criticism has torn up the imaginary flowers from the chain not so that man
> shall wear the unadorned, bleak chain but so that he will shake off the chain
> and pluck the living flower." - Karl Marx, 1844
> OpenPGP: 1024D/0517502B : DE5B 6EAA 28AC 57F7 58EF 9295 6A26 6A92 0517 502B
>
>