My Photo

Bulletin Board

December 2008

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31      

Cartoons

  • The NIH Keeps Up With The Times: 1, 2, 3. David Baltimore Has A Flashback: ***. The NY Times Keeps Up With Times: ***. The Faith of Anthony Fauci: ***. Anthony Fauci Explains How HIV Causes AIDS: ***. Robert Gallo on The Force of Ejaculation: ***, on HIV Theory: ***, Lectures in Marseilles: ***. David Ho Does The Math: ***. John Mellors Sets the Record Straight: ***. Bono, el Magnifico, Holds (Another) Press Conference: ***. Anthony Fauci Explains Journalism in the Age of AIDS: ***. Anthony Fauci and David Ho Disprove an Old Adage: ***. Anthony Fauci Explains ICL and AIDS: *** The CDC Can't Keep Up With The Times:*** The Method of the "Small Inquisitor" Moore:*** The Co-Discovery of a Nobel-Worthy Enzymatic Activity:*** The Revenge of the "Very" Minor Moriarty:*** Julie Gerberding and Anthony Fauci Learn Arithmetic:*** Osama Obama Has a Message for Africa:***

Bad Manners and Good Gossip

« Views from the Southern Front: In Today's Argentina, We Believe in Justice | Main | What's Wrong With HIV Now? »

November 03, 2006

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Otis

NB: Former NY Times editorial contributor and one time well pharma-funded "HIV/AIDS researcher" prof. John "Macaque" Moore, Nick Bennett, DT, Trrll, Dale, very asst. prof. Tara "Gone with the Wind" Smith, Orac, PharmaWhatever, Chrisopher Noble, et al.

Comments are open on this one.

Feel free.

Dan

I may not be one of the distinguished people above, but I'd still like to comment.

This is a great piece by Dr. Culshaw.

In an often terse thread at NAR, we've been discussing the need for getting back to the basics as far as terminology. It gives us all much-needed common ground, and cuts through the mesmerizing fog of current "AIDS language".

One of the more mind-warping phrases used lately (in an "AIDS" ad) is "HIV is a disease". Whether one is orthodox or rethinker, we both know this is simply false. HIV is supposedly a retrovirus, a microbe. A microbe is not a disease.

Dr. Culshaw points out that HIV doesn't cause a disease. She's correct. This isn't a point about whether HIV has anything to do with "AIDS". This is a simple point about the most basic terminology.

Walter Renko

Great essay, Dr. Culshaw.

To disentangle this mess, you have to go back to the first stories in 1981 by Larry Altman in the NY Times.

Here's "Rare Cancer Seen in 41 Homosexuals" in July 1981.

http://www.nytimes.com/1981/07/03/health/03AIDS.html

You can see the shoddy reporting with 20-20 hindsight:

1. These are all gay men, not lesbians
2. They are relatively young (median age 40)
3. They are predominantly from NY and Cal
4. They are in poor health from herpes, cytomegalovirus, hep B, amebiasis and giardiasis
5. They took antibiotics
6. They used amyl nitrites and LSD

Although the 41 DID NOT KNOW each other (let alone sleep with each other) Altman still raises the boogeyman of an unspecficied viral disease:

"Cancer is not believed to be contagious, but conditions that might precipitate it, such as particular viruses or environmental factors, might account for an outbreak among a single group"

Sorry, Altman -- this is a small segment of young, partying gay men, who are abusing their own health and bodies. They are not representative of the general population, nor the gay community. This has nothing to do with a virus, idiot, nor an "outbreak," of any sort.

This would be like going to a Frat house Sunday morning, seeing all these drunk, vomiting, stoned, disheveled frat boys, blaming it on the "flu" and then imputing this condition on the entire studen body.

How the NY TImes and CDC extrapolated this discrete problem into a world-wide epidemic originating in Africa, truly is both tragic and mind-boggling.

Otis

Well, well, well. It does appear that maybe this time the pod squad does have nothing to say.

And thanks to the sophisticated traffic analysis software that is available today, there isn't a one of them who cannot be triangulated in at most a dozen mouse clicks so "Gee, we never knew because why would any of "us" read your dumb ass blog, Hank or Otis or whoever you are?", won't fly any more than their pseudo science that makes IDers look rational does.

So how about it guys and gals and initials with fake advanced degrees, don't any of you have anything to say to the out of her depth Dr. Culshaw?

Or barring that, maybe DT or Trrll or Nick himself could comment on whether they prefer Glue or Loops, and of course why?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Comments

  • Comments are regarded as letters to the editor. They are subject to the same policies as the NY Times and Nature, and are not published until after editorial review.
Blog powered by Typepad

Contact