Mycoplasma, AIDS, Gulf War

[David Johnston]

On Thu, 06 Jan 2000 10:54:30 GMT, "Thomas Keske" <TKeske at mediaone.net>
wrote:

>If anyone here wants to make an intelligent critique for a change,
>here is a question:

The irony is sickening. 

>
>I've barely started to look into "mycoplasma", after having seen
>references to mycoplasmas relating to AIDS and Gulf War.

Sorry, that's not a question.

>
>I initially had an impression that "mycoplasma" was something new or
>exotic.   After looking a bit more, I'm getting the impression that it is
>something old and commonplace.


>
>I'm also getting the impression that "mycoplasma", apparently long known
>most as a cause of a type of pneumonia, might be too broad of a category for
>it
>to meaningful to evaluate the state of "general" knowledge about them.
>
>To what degree are different mycoplasmas tied together with similar
>properties that distinguish them as a unique type of pathogen?

Here's a question!  Answered adequately by the preceeding post.  
The answer is yes.  They are bacteria that lack cell walls. 

>
>Or is this so broad of a grouping, that the only fruitful course of
>investigation
>would be to look at  the history of experiments with very specific
>mycoplasmas,  not mycoplasmas in general?

Another question!  
I would say both. 

>
>By the way, I am not trying here so much to be "expert witness"
>microbiologist, as I am trying to be a lawyer for the prosecution,
>with a specific goal of influencing the jury for a conviction.
>
>If I had an OJ Simpson jury, I would probably try to put every
>bit of research in its worst possible, most suspicious light.  If there
>is research related to "infectious infertility", I would remind them
>of the South African scientists trying to sterilize blacks, etc.
>
>I'm sure that you hate lawyers (so do I).  So sue me.  Actually,
>don't try to sue me- I'm a "lawyer," and you'll get burned.  It is a lesson
>of why your society should not make their job so easy, with
>the racist hate of authority figures.
>
>It is inevitable that there is a degree of "advocacy".  You are
>hypocritical to pretend that your profession does not exhibit
>the very same thing.    You try to make profit, please your sponsors,
>get new funding, etc.
>
>In a way, it is not so bad.  You have two advocates, on two sides,
>trying to frame everything as best they can to persuade a jury.
>Truth can tend to fall out even from mutually biased presentations
>(excluding instances like the OJ trial, where resentment and
>suspicion carry the day).
>
>I have a bottom-line conclusion of probable guilt in human
>actions precipitating the AIDS epidemic.  I will pursue aggressively,
>like a prosecting attorney, giving no benefit of doubt, trying to make
>the case as incriminating as possible.  No apologies for that- the
>propaganda power of our government is tremendous compared
>to mine, and they have all the advantages.    What will give me
>advantage is the fact of a toxic-waste dump of a right-wing
>GOP, brimming with outright hate-mongers:    may the
>OJ phenomenon carry the day, but this time for a truth instead
>of a travesty.
>

Complete hogwash. 

>Tom Keske
>

David
dmj7 at bellsouth.net