From: Pat Fallon (pfallon@noln.com)
Date: Wed Mar 05 1997 - 09:28:09 MST
Hal Finney <hal@rain.org> wrote:
> "A story will appear in Science, Nature, or the New York Times, stating
> that biologist Peter Duesberg is receiving increased respect in the
> scientific community for his view that AIDS is not caused by HIV."
>
> To keep it interesting I'd like to make the cutoff date around 2000 or 2001.
>I'd be curious for the people arguing about HIV and AIDS here to say what
>they think about the proposed claim.... (We have had
>a lot of problems on FX with claims which turned out to be hard to judge.)
I've been thinking about this problem also. If the government is wrong about
HIV=AIDS, and the news 'gets out', it may convince many people that the
whole concept of public health [which is based on the notion that a healthy
lifestyle is not just a matter of personal responsibility, but also a government
management imperative to be achieved with the tools of mass immunizations,
control of food and water supplies, aggressive family planning programs,
expensive "wars" against cancer and AIDS, and regulating or restricting
access to alternative health therapies or dietary supplements] is flawed.
To some degree, the governments stand vis a vis medical marijuana
initiatives points up their resistance to the idea of giving up the 'nanny state'
idea. As Inventing the AIDS Virus (pg 390) points out:
"On April 28th, less than a month after Duesberg's first paper on
the HIV question appeared in Cancer Research, the secretary of Health
and Human Services sent out a memo titled "MEDIA ALERT".
Describing the situation created by Duesberg's paper, the staff member
ominously noted that "the article apparently went through the normal
pre-publication process and should have been flagged at NIH." The
staffer than pointed out the threat to the government:
>This obviously has the potential to raise a lot of controversy
>(if this isn't the virus, how do we know the blood supply is safe?
>How do we know anything about transmission? How could you all
>be so stupid, and why should we ever believe you again?).."
Together with the sudden cancellations of Duesbergs appearances on
network news at the 11th hour, I conclude that the state has and will
marshaled considerable resources to keep that very story that you
predict from appearing. You may be aware of the actions of John
Maddox, the editor of a publication you cite, Nature, to censor
Duesberg and others [J Maddox, "Has Duesberg a Right of Reply?"
Nature, 363 (1993): 109] However, I think that because the theory
that HIV=AIDS violates SO many established principles of virology
this challenge to the accepted dogma may and has bypassed the lack
of major media attention through the internet and alternative press
back door [Many thinking people that I know don't watch the
nightly news anymore for anything other than a hoot].
So maybe by 2000 or 2001 the media you cite will get around
to acknowledging that many scientists question the governments
version of how AIDS is caused.
Perhaps another indirect measure of public perception would be
the price of the stocks of Boroughs Welcome (sp?) and other
pervayors of toxic therapy on the financial futures exchanges.
I hope your prediction is born out.
Best Regards,
Pat Fallon
pfallon@bigfoot.com
PS: How do I get to this Foresight Exchange online prediction game?
I found several pages related to Foresight Exchange, but nothing
about predictions. Thanks.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:44:13 MST