Re: On Our Darker Bioweapons Future
- Hi Linda,
Thanks, and it's amazing what information is out there.
Also, that is a good link you cited from Wikipedia which summarises
the positions on the HIV/AIDS debate.
Yes, absolutely, I would think a careful, objective discussion is needed.
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Linda wrote:
> --- In email@example.com, "kmlightseeker"
> <kmlightseeker@y...> wrote:
> > Hi Diana,
> > You wrote:
> > "[Linda:]
> > >Since neither Karma, New Age cures and infatuations, witch doctors,
> > >nor HIV/AIDS were the topic, but instead genetic modification of
> > >variola---an effort that has sent alarm bells even to smallpox
> > >scientists and *traditional* health experts----do you *think* maybe
> > >it might make more sense to focus on the topic instead of running
> > >like Torquemada on these mouth-foaming, wild-eyed rants? You've
> > >thrown in "astrology" for gawdssakes.......
> > [Diana:]
> > HIV/AIDS came into it because I was explaining why Deborah has no
> > credibility with me when she posts hints that she's found another
> > scientific conspiracy. I have *no respect* for the promotion of this
> > nonsense. Anti-vacc. gets me going as you know, but the "HIV doesn't
> > cause AIDS" stuff is as close as I come to calling something
> > She once provided a link to one of those web sites with the
> > suggestion we check them out, I forget what it was in reference to,
> > it was not her central point, but it apparently did not bother her
> > that that kind of malicious homicidal idiocy was being promoted."
> >[Keith:] Well, the HIV/AIDS subject is complex. I've found a number
> of links
> > both for and against the HIV/AIDS correlation, debated in both cases
> > by scientists/medical professionals.
> And the stakes are huge - making the wrong call on HIV/AIDS has
> What Diana doesn't seem to *get* is that neither Deborah, nor a merry
> band of witch doctors, astrologers, anthroposophical "anti-
> scientists", and over-pampered New Agers are initiating the debates--
> the *traditional* scientists are, award winning scientists who were
> highly respected in their fields until they *ventured off the
> reservation* with their AIDS/HIV theories. Her rebuttal to these
> scientific arguments reads like a page taken from the 16th century's
> religious inquisition. Shreaking at others as if they're pagan
> heretics, accusing them of murder and demon possession, demanding
> they affirm or denounce words she puts in their mouths, as
> in: "[scientists are] not really interested in preventing disease,
> but actually in causing it, perhaps even in smiting massive
> populations", as she did to Deborah--it's Witch-hunting 101 that
> Diana understands so well, and definitely *NOT* the science.
> While Diana conducts her heresy and apostasy trials, you provided
> links which help inform us all to scientific debates within the
> AIDS/HIV disputes. Thanks, Keith. It's interesting to note the
> quality of debate displayed by the NIH and others holding
> the "normative" view. They managed to engage in the debate WITHOUT
> the witch-hunting techniques Diana has resorted to.
> Since science is said to be different than belief and dogma, it is
> odd to find so many of its most fanatic supporters defending it from
> that very standpoint.
> Some years ago, I was watching a TV series that was supposed to bean
> occult soap opera, blending vampires and reincarnations and timetravels
> and witchery and so forth. Pewrhaps the reason why the series foldedwas
> that there were too many comic book ingredients in the same stew.Three cheers for Barnabus Collins!!!