home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Xref: sparky alt.folklore.urban:31959 talk.politics.medicine:420 sci.skeptic:21627
- Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban,talk.politics.medicine,sci.skeptic
- Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!linac!uchinews!ellis!thf2
- From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
- Subject: AIDS risk/Duesberg
- Message-ID: <1992Dec23.005116.29281@midway.uchicago.edu>
- Followup-To: talk.politics.medicine,sci.skeptic
- Sender: news@uchinews.uchicago.edu (News System)
- Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
- Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
- References: <JTCHEW-211292065104@b50-afrd4.lbl.gov> <1992Dec21.151840.21605@midway.uchicago.edu> <BzoG7o.3p6@umassd.edu>
- Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 00:51:16 GMT
- Lines: 48
-
- In article <BzoG7o.3p6@umassd.edu> pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU writes:
- > You should have read my AIDS post. Duesberg says there is no peer-reviewed
- >paper which proves the HIV-AIDS _hypothesis_. Is he right?
-
- Didn't see your post (my site just got t.p.med), but Duesberg's been discussed
- in sci.skeptic, and I defer to the expertise there.
-
- > He says modern AIDs is caused by the hard drug lifestyle of malnutrition,
- >sleeplessness, and chronic tension, classic causes of immune deficiency.
-
- Of course this alternative theory doesn't explain why hemophiliacs and
- infants and blood transfusion recipients get AIDS. Or why it's so
- prevalent in Africa. My first guess would be to reject Duesberg's
- theory as having less explanatory power than the current theory.
-
- > I say scientists are morally intimidated by egalitarianism and so claim
- >that all groups are equally at risk. Duesberg says homo. druggies.
-
- Well, all groups that get exposed to HIV *are* equally at risk. But some
- behaviors more likely to spread AIDS are more prevalent in some groups than
- others. But between the religious right and the activist left, the
- educational message conveyed has been less than fully accurate.
-
- > Also, the Am. Psychiatric Assoc. permitted itself to be lobbied and intimi-
- >dated by homo. activists around 1970 and, without new science, changed their
- >public judgement about the psy. unhealthiness of homo.
-
- Of course the original judgement of the APA was hardly based on "science"
- to begin with, but rather on Christian social norms. There's no reason
- to think that either of their public judgements are accurate.
-
- I'm more concerned about the hijacking of fetal tissue research, despite
- the multitude of controls to prevent it from being used to encourage
- abortions, than I am about what the APA considers "normal" this week.
-
- > I am not a scientist but a person who recognizes that science is a tool of
- >survival and that it is being corrupted by political correctness.
-
- Would Popper call psychiatry "science"? Probably best not to discuss
- this here. I certainly wouldn't.
-
- >[advertising plug and Ayn Rand .signature deleted]
-
- Followups out of a.f.u.
- --
- ted frank | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu
- standard disclaimers | void where prohibited
- the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
-