I forward this to the group to illustrate some of what has been
happening behind scenes, and because a post of mine was forwarded
(even though I had also sent it in). Axes to grind...!
> Let me see if I can make this more clear. UNLESS you have
> scientific responses to the scientific arguments made in
> the article, there is no need for you to respond.
Let me get this clear: because you and some others don't believe that
HIV is a real retrovirus, let alone one that causes AIDS (like
creationists, you actually go further in your beliefs that you let on
in public), I must not respond to you in the vein in which you
respond to proofs of the existence of HIV and its ability to cause
immunodeficiency? That is, with skepticism??
> There are plenty of scientists from around the world and
> Africa who would take issue with your claims and you know it.
There are plenty of people, yes: scientists not necessarily, and I do
not believe there are nearly as many as the number which are quite
satisfied with the evidence. And do not believe the evidence mounted
by the non-believers. Which, as far as I have seen so far, is
overwhelmingly biased to what causes AIDS in North Americans. That
is, a hefty component of male-to-male sex and intravenous drug abuse,
together with all the accompnying risk factors. Which are NOT part
of AIDS in the developing world - which is something you and like
thinkers seem to be ignoring.
> So for you to use this as an "excuse" is pretty weak. But
> then since you've accepted "HIV->AIDS" without question,
> this is not surprising. God, it sure was lucky "AIDS" didn't
> show its face until the model of "retroviruses" was proposed,
> huh? Think about that one awhile...
I have, Todd - and I am frankly puzzled by what you are implying. In
fact, all sorts of reasons were trotted out at the time AIDS was
first described, nearly all of which had to do with a homosexual
lifestyle, and none of which even mentioned a retrovirus if they
mentioned viruses at all - and CMV and even HSV were implicated early
on. I think people were quite surprised to hear it was a retrovirus
- and later, that it should be a lentivirus. SO I think you are
being unnecessarily obscure.
Right: you are now in the "kill" file, so I shall be hearing no more
from you. Enjoy life. B-)
Ed Rybicki, PhD
Dept Microbiology | ed at molbiol.uct.ac.za
University of Cape Town | rybicki at uctvms.uct.ac.za
Private Bag, Rondebosch | phone: x27-21-650-3265
7700, South Africa | fax: x27-21-689 7573
WWW URL: http://www.uct.ac.za/microbiology/ed.html
"Out here on the perimeter, there are no stars..."