Wordsmith.org: the magic of words

Wordsmith Talk

About Us | What's New | Search | Site Map | Contact Us  

Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 11 of 11 1 2 9 10 11
#60479 03/18/02 11:18 AM
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385
P
veteran
OP Offline
veteran
P
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385
There are urgent implications either way
That may be widely assumed, TFF, but that does not appear to be the case.

Those engaged in the fight against AIDS believe they are fighting a global pandemic, one which can be contained by the practice of safe sex. As I understand it, Duesberg believes that safe sex is a non-issue because HIV has nothing to do with AIDS. As far as I know, he doesn't propose a solution for the spread of AIDS, apart from terminating the use of one AIDS medication, AZT, which he believes actually causes the disease, and apart from discouraging the use of drugs like cocaine which are already illegal.

Let us suppose Duesberg is right. What are the "urgent implications" of his thesis. We should spend less time and effort on the campaign for safe sex, less time and effort finding a cure for AIDS because most of us aren't druggies, and perhaps more time and effort fighting illegal drugs (altho I'm not sure he has taken an active interest in this). If there is more to Duesberg's 'value proposition' than this, I would love to hear it.

Ranged against all the money to be saved if we follow Duesberg's evangelical message, is the risk that Duesberg is wrong and we will disengage our most effective weapon against the disease, namely, safe sex, which is a good idea in any case considering the epidemic of sexually-transmitted disease in our society.

I understand the safe sex message has already been muted by the news that "drug cocktails" are effective in managing the disease and this optimism has led directly to an increase in unprotected sex and AIDS in some homosexual communities. Duesberg's message, itself only a theory, will obviously engender further optimism in this direction, in direct proportion to the visibility of his theory, with a corresponding increase in victims of AIDS.

Can it truly be said that "there are urgent implications either way", TTF? If we remove Duesberg's personal vanity from the equation, there is almost nothing here to weigh in Duesberg's favor. Duesberg's science may be sound, I really can't say, but his mission is bunk.

If Deusberg's "crusade" results in a single new victim of AIDS, his crusade is more than reckless. It is deadly ... and some might say criminal.




#60480 03/18/02 11:51 AM
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526
While Duesberg may be the most vocal critic, he's not the only one. Kary Mullis (nobel prize winner) wrote the forward to his book and agrees (or at least agreed) that HIV doesn't cause AIDS. I still wouldn't risk it. I don't feel comfortable defending the actions of a person whose views I don't agree with.

If Duesberg disagrees with current research, what should he do? Should scientists state their opinions based on social consequences? I notice there doesn't appear to be much new on either his site or the virusmyth.org site. They're exactly as I remember them from years ago. Makes me wonder if he's even still active or if these are just vestigial pages expressing something even he no longer believes.

Let me ask you this: if doctors give advice to patients that turns out to be wrong, are they being criminal?

I think the urgency of his message (if he were correct) would be obvious. The importance of avoiding the use of certain drugs, like cocaine. That it's illegal doesn't mean that people aren't using it. Maybe if people recognized that it was so dangerous, they might not do it. (No more unreasonable than expecting that people would be more likely to use a condom if they thought not using one was dangerous.)

I'm getting a bit off the track. I'm not arguing that he's right. I'm only questioning whether one ought to apply the term 'bunk' to what he's saying, even if he's wrong.


k


Edit:
I was reviewing a little of his site just now and it's not clear he would view the view the situation as urgent. I retract that part of what I said (it was a guess anyway), but maintain the rest of what I said.

My main point has nothing to do with Duesberg (who was just an example), but with how we as lay people can be justified in using words like "bunk" to describe things that we (most of us) may not completely understand. (I wonder if there is a term for those of us who defend views that we don't competely understand.)


#60481 03/18/02 12:23 PM
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385
P
veteran
OP Offline
veteran
P
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385
Is it bunk or controversial science?
I'm not saying his science is "bunk", TFF. I'm saying his mission, the evangelization of his theory, is bunk. If Duesberg's arrogant appropriation of the mantle of certainty endangered only himself, no-one would care ... and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Is Duesberg making a meaningful contribution to the fight against crack-cocaine? Considering the billions that are already being spent on that crusade, it does seem unlikely, doesn't it?

Is Duesberg still active in the crusade? The French publication "Sciences et Avenir" reported that he and his fellow "HIV-refuseniks" gathered for a media event in January 2002.

Should doctors be liable for prescribing a course of medication which turns out to be wrong? You know the answer to that one, TFF. Not if the doctor, having examined his or her patient thoroughly, is acting responsibly in accordance with the weight of current medical practice and opinion. How can we compare this with Duesberg's crusade?

Again, its the mission which is bunk, TFF, not the theory.

Unfortunately, there is no necessary correlation between celebrity and social responsibility, nor between genius and social responsibility.


Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 104
M
member
Offline
member
M
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 104
Findhorn international community and garden
I visited Findhorn.org. I see they are plannng to launch a "virtual tour" of the garden. I'll go back when its up. Thanks for the tip, Whitman.


#60483 03/24/02 08:20 PM
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 104
M
member
Offline
member
M
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 104
superabundance of plant growth
There is an announcement on the Findhorn web site saying a major movie about the Community is planned (with Sean Connery). Title: "the Garden of Angels". Your curator friend is not the only one who is taking the garden seriously.


#60484 03/24/02 08:40 PM
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,189
Carpal Tunnel
Offline
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,189
There is an announcement on the Findhorn web site saying a major movie about the Community is planned (with Sean Connery). Title: "the Garden of Angels". Your curator friend is not the only one who is taking the garden seriously.

Thanks for that great news, moss! Good to hear that the story of Findhorn is finally getting the attention it deserves. And if Sean Connery signed-on the project, it must be a pretty good script. Perhaps something reminiscent of his role in Medicine Man (a highly underrated film I thought).






Page 11 of 11 1 2 9 10 11

Moderated by  Jackie 

Link Copied to Clipboard
Forum Statistics
Forums16
Topics13,912
Posts229,283
Members9,179
Most Online3,341
Dec 9th, 2011
Newest Members
TRIALNERRA, befuddledmind, KILL_YOUR_SUV, Heather_Turey, Standy
9,179 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 442 guests, and 3 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Top Posters(30 Days)
Top Posters
wwh 13,858
Faldage 13,803
Jackie 11,613
tsuwm 10,542
wofahulicodoc 10,510
LukeJavan8 9,916
AnnaStrophic 6,511
Wordwind 6,296
of troy 5,400
Disclaimer: Wordsmith.org is not responsible for views expressed on this site. Use of this forum is at your own risk and liability - you agree to hold Wordsmith.org and its associates harmless as a condition of using it.

Home | Today's Word | Yesterday's Word | Subscribe | FAQ | Archives | Search | Feedback
Wordsmith Talk | Wordsmith Chat

© 1994-2024 Wordsmith

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5