You are right about that. So why all the scare numbers? Why not say, "there are ways of fighting this, here is what they are, and projections won't help anybody because they will just scare people and if people are careful, they need not be frighteneed."
. The report in fact noted
> that they didn't even reliably know the incidence of
> heterosexual AIDS at the time!
So I gotta ask again? Where the fuck did they get the numbers for all those outrageous projections and why make such dire projections if you can't reliably base them on anything?
>
> Second, the projection was made in anticipation that
> someone would do something about it.
That's apologetics for idiot statisticians. Either make a projection based on very clear variables or state that the projections are worthless and focus on the solution.
It did not
> (because could not) anticipate that the policy
> reaction that it recommended.
More apologetics.
> Third, the projections were made using actuarial
> techniques which were originally designed to make sure
> that life companies were not under-reserved, so it's
> hardly surprising that they erred on the side of
> caution.
Yes, erring on the side of caution is established good habit of federal, state and local bureacracies. Come on. Arrete le betise. When bureaucracies err on the side of caution, it does not usually have anything to do with doing the right thing or facilitating understanding of a problem.
>
> Finally, you and Chris are affecting a wounded-fawn
> surprise at why the reaction to your assertions is so
> vehement. I can't believe that this confusion is
> wholly genuine.
I expected that people would disagree with me. My position is definetly an unusual one but it can be well defended and then some. Nobody asked for evidence. At least several people went on childish tirades. What I did not expect is people lumping me into a category with Nazi holocaust deniers. Now THAT is base and dishonest, not to mention just plain silly: I'm aiding and abetting death because I question a research paradigm. It does not seem to have occured to some people that I have put a lot of time into trying to understand "AIDS" because I, too, have lost people that I love to "AIDS" and was not at all satisfied with the medical establishments convulted fulminations on the subject. And yes, I did expect more a disciplined exchange from folks on this list but oh well. Now I know.
People are pissed off because you are
> asserting that gay men are dying of AIDS because of
> their behaviour rather than because of a disease.
> Which is very close to saying that it's their fault.
There might be other AIDS dissenters "blaming" gay men for their condition but you never heard me come even close to saying anything like that so you can cut that shit out right now. I DID say that if you take massive amounts of recreational drugs, as many gay men did for a long time, you can be sure that your body will buckle under the strain. Add to that outrageously toxic legal drugs that are supposed to help (and no critical dietary advice) and you've got a lot of dead men. You NEVER heard me say that AIDS is a behavorial disease. I don't use that kind of terminology.
> If you don't actually believe that, you've been very
> reckless in not making it clear what you are saying.
> In other words, it's your fault.
Bullshit. You need to read better, think better and cut out the reactioary, presumptious crap. Try pointing the finger at yourself: Learn to ask questions and unlearn the arrogance.
>
> Chris' points I am not engaging with, because his twin
> assertions of "there is no evidence that HIV causes
> AIDS, so it doesn't"
There is not even any evidence that HIV has been isolated. All we've got is a 15 year-old statement that HIV has been isolated from a long-time ladder climber and opportunist who used a highly questionable method for "finding" HIV (and affirmations from colleagues who do not question that method), and who has several times been reprimanded for dishonest claims by his colleagues both pre and post HIV's "discovery.". If you can prove that HIV has been isolated according to standard requirements for determining a new virus do it. Go get the information and post it for everybody. Happy hunting.
and "there is no evidence that
> alternative medicine doesn't work, so it does"
I never said nor implied this. This is just you having to much fun with your wanker.
proves
> to my satisfaction that he is using something more
> than reason as a mechanism for selecting his beliefs
> on this subject.
>
What might that be? Please, enlighten me. You seem to think you are pretty good at that.
Chris
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Get your free @yahoo.co.uk address at http://mail.yahoo.co.uk
> or your free @yahoo.ie address at http://mail.yahoo.ie
>