>
> >Chris writes:
> >
> >> > Apparently, Kaposi (an opportunistic infection) was quite prevalent in
> >>> AIDS patients in the 1980s (60% or so), but has since declined
> >>> significantly, to 20% or less:
> >>
> >>So the question is, why did it decline and why did it never show up in more
> >>than 60% of the affected population? And I might add: why did it never show
> >>with gay "white" men?
>
> >One more in a series of patently false pieces of misinformation. The problem
> >is that when one refutes one, we just move on to another one, so the
> >discussion goes nowhere. This is why people begin to express immense
> >frustration with the thread.
>
> Still the work is worth doing, no?
>
Final Note on this matter:
It's typical of Brad that he chose to attack me for my obvious mis-statement that Karposis Sarcoma never showed up in gay men which, in my very next email (sent no less than three minutes later) I both acknowledged as a goof and apologized for. Brad, calls me a liar but I, in fact, find Brad's kind of argumentation disingenuous, not to mention childish.
It is a sad comment on the status of the "left" that at least a significant number of people on this list are comfortable with hurling around nasty, show stopping epithets like "idiot," "dangerous," "lyar," etc., with such commanding ease. I could give a flying fuck about what some folks on this list think about me; and there is certainly nothing wrong with these kind of words per se. But I find that white male lefties are much more likely to deploy them much faster than others who identify as leftist(For the trigger happy reactionaries among you you who feel a denouncatory urge coming on, I guess I need to emphasize that NO, that is not, in fact, a scientific observation, just one based on many years of agitation). This is not simply a by-product of "racial" arrogance among people who presumably "mean well," it is an obstacle to building the disciplined honest and creative intellectual discourse that is a necessary component to nourishing and sustaining a serious freedom stru! ggle.
If in fact I am wrong to question the logic and assumtions of mainstream AIDS research--and I don't think that I am--than the debate should be about how I am wrong, not about my character or the character of anybody else who dissents from the mainstream lines on AIDS--unless, of course, you really have evidence that what I really desire is the extermination of all Africans, gay men, sexual libertines, drug abusers, etc. Thankfully, there are some people on this list who, despite disagreeing with me, managed to make productive and useful commentary (Chuck Grimes and Doug come to mind immedietly).
As I said several times during both phases of this "discussion," I don't buy the standard AIDS line, but because I am not a molecular biologist or a medical researcher, and because I cannot possibly keep up with all of the bizarre twist and turns of mainstream AIDS research (who could?), I do NOT consider myself the best person to argue for the dissenters, which is WHY I referred people to useful resources from jump. I did this because I was hoping to get a healthy discussion about the status of AIDS science off the ground but instead a lotta folks became outraged that I would even question AIDS science (as if it was as well grounded as the theory of evolution or quantum thoery). Yes, people are dying, all the more reason that the assumptions and logic underlying "AIDS" and its "treatments" should be checked, double checked and triple checked. When serious, well-established, highly accomplished scientist say that this has NOT been done, serious people should listen carefully a! nd check their own assumptions carefully, no matter what their current beliefs or inclinations. It will not do to make facile associations between AIDS dissenters and "quacks" or shout down AIDS dissenters as the near social equivalent of "holocaust deniers." That, in fact, is lunacy.
And folks wonder why the "left" is moribund.
Chris
>
>
>
>
>
>