"AIDS dissidents"

57 posts / 0 new
Last post
coffeemachine
Offline
Joined: 31-03-06
Nov 22 2006 09:50
"AIDS dissidents"

Admin - thread being split from Radicals and science thread

John. wrote:
coffeemachine wrote:
you could do no better than start with Martin J Walker. Written many books on the medical science industry and the politics of modern day science. It may come as no surprise he takes a very critical view of the concept of science as a neutral or natural form.

But he, like you, appears to one of those nutters who doesn't believe HIV causes AIDS. Which is the kind of barmy thing you get if you start to ignore science.

The problem with living your political life exclusively on the internet John, is that real people attain the status of two dimensional caricatures while your assumptions are presented as a fully formed practical presense. Understandably in the real world the opposite is true.

For those who are a little more politically aware, or spend at least part of their life in the real world, may know Martin Walker as the adviser to the yorkshire miners during the miners strike, briefing pickets and documenting police police tactics and strategies, worked for yorkshire num in collecting statements and who wrote 'State of Seige: Politics and Policing of the Coalfields, Miners Strike 1984', who set up National Organisation for Miners in Prison and Supporters campaigning to get all those imprisoned during the strike released.

Others may know him from 'With Extreme Prejudice: An Investigation in Police Vigilantism in Manchester' the story of the sustained campaign of harassment by manchester police against two students (who threw eggs at Nigel Lawson during his visit to the university) or 'Frightened for My Life: An account of deaths in British Prisons' [the title says it all].

Hackney residents may know him as the founder of Hackney Community Defence Association (HCDA), an anti-racist group which worked on the defence of people assaulted, fitted up and wrongfully arrested by the police in north east London.

Some may know him from his famous political posters of the time, now residing in the Victoria and Albert museum.

Indeed he is the kind of genuine libertarian marxist [his description] that makes his internet progeny seem utterly void.

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Nov 21 2006 18:42
coffeemachine wrote:
John. wrote:
coffeemachine wrote:
you could do no better than start with Martin J Walker. Written many books on the medical science industry and the politics of modern day science. It may come as no surprise he takes a very critical view of the concept of science as a neutral or natural form.

But he, like you, appears to one of those nutters who doesn't believe HIV causes AIDS. Which is the kind of barmy thing you get if you start to ignore science.

The problem with living your political life exclusively on the internet John, is that real people attain the status of two dimensional caricatures while your assumptions are presented as a fully formed practical presense. Understandably in the real world the opposite is true.

For those who are a little more politically aware, or spend at least part of their life in the real world, may know Martin Walker as...

So he didn't write this article then?

http://www.altheal.org/toxicity/aztbiz.htm

Martin Walker wrote:
The idea that an HIV is the cause of AIDS-associated illnesses, is just that — an idea — there is, even now, no evidence but only supposition to support it.....‘HIV is not the cause of AIDS’

coffeemachine
Offline
Joined: 31-03-06
Nov 21 2006 18:51

no catch martin walker wrote:

When we look closely at the science of AIDS, and particularly at Gallo’s hypothesis, we realise quite quickly that we are not dealing with scientific truth in the normal sense of the expression. The idea that an HIV is the cause of AIDS-associated illnesses, is just that — an idea — there is, even now, no evidence but only supposition to support it.

This idea, however, has achieved a materiality of considerable proportion, and it has spurned an industry. An understanding of how this happened is important - important because in understanding it, we understand not only how knowledge is reproduced in our society, but also how power is mediated. Without this information we can not know how to dissent. We have to have this intimate understanding of the way in which the power relations of orthodoxy shape the world in order that we can resist it.

We do not believe power resides in slogans and our dissent does not become real when we say ‘HIV is not the cause of AIDS’. Nor does our dissent become real if we simply argue the opposing scientific perspective. We have to dissent with who we are, with our acts; this is why the intimate knowledge of the orthodoxy’s power is important to us. To oppose them we must behave differently, resist their social and institutional relations and the way in which they produce and make material knowledge.

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Nov 21 2006 18:57

Hence my "..." in the snip, quite standard when quoting someone, especially when you link to a full article. The surrounding text doesn't change the meaning of the phrases I quoted at all.

coffeemachine
Offline
Joined: 31-03-06
Nov 22 2006 01:18
Joseph K. wrote:
coffeemachine wrote:
Indeed he is the kind of genuine libertarian marxist [his description] that makes his internet progeny seem utterly void.

and therefore John. must accept his view on science :?

not at all joseph. I would love John to give his considered and well thought out critique of Martin Walkers position on azt, its relevance to the aids industry and the corporatisation of public health (as expounded in Dirty Medicine). Maybe he could put his critique in the libcom library?

What is alarming is that a young anarchist whose only political activity, its seems, is based solely in cyberspace should call someone who has spent the last 30 years on the front line of working class struggle as nutter. It is at best naive, insulting and disingenuous, at worst the very compound of political bulletin boards.

Let me put in more succinctly, if John, or any other young anarchist, were to go to certain working class mining communities and call Martin Walker a "nutter" they wouldn't leave south yorkshire with their ribcage intact. [edit: this is because of the level of regard he is held in and is in no way an insinuation of any violent tendency]

Martin Walker approached his work on azt as he has done with all his actvities with diligence, sincerity and a fearless disregard for the prevailing orthodoxy. May some of us learn some lessons from that.

That said i think this thread is far better without mine or John's interventions.

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Nov 21 2006 18:29
coffeemachine wrote:
Indeed he is the kind of genuine libertarian marxist [his description] that makes his internet progeny seem utterly void.

and therefore John. must accept his view on science :?

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Nov 22 2006 10:02

Leaving aside your attempts at personal insults, and insinuations of violent tendencies of "working class mining communities" who would apparently break my ribs roll eyes

It's clear from his writings on the subject that he, like you, does not believe HIV causes AIDS. To me this means that his writings on science are irrelevant nonsense. And contain very dodgy passages like this:

Quote:
Joan Shenton is the only person in the country who has been allowed to voice dissenting views about ‘AIDS’ on British television. The orthodox view, on the other hand, with the lionisation of physicians and medical research workers, together with martyred gay men, and still more innocent homosexual victims, is dripped into our consciousness, in ways as disparate as major news programmes, science documentaries, Sunday morning radio appeals, documentary soaps, domestic soaps and Hollywood feature films.

(Totalitarian science and media politics)

Jason Cortez
Offline
Joined: 14-11-04
Nov 22 2006 10:27

John, i have no wish to join this bunfight but it is quite possible to believe that hiv dosen't cause AIDS without being a nutter. Indeed the standard explanation changed quite considably in responce to critisms from these same so-called nutters.

powertotheimagi...
Offline
Joined: 24-06-05
Nov 22 2006 10:35

I dont know anything at all about this HIV/AIDS thing but what proof do the opponents have? On a totally different note i've seen many pro-viv's arguements based on the 'irrationality of the anti-viv's', its an easy form of dismissal. Some writers' theories do seem very far of the wall, such as the 'bombs in the WTC' or aliens starting humanity, because in reality there is very, very little evidence to support them- factually or from experts in various fields. However, how much of the no link between AIDS/HIV does have any facts behind it?

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Nov 22 2006 10:44
Jason Cortez wrote:
John, i have no wish to join this bunfight but it is quite possible to believe that hiv dosen't cause AIDS without being a nutter.

I have never seen or heard any explanation that is not nutter-worthy, do you have any?

Some of these "dissidents" don't even believe HIV exists (I believe coffeemachine you fall into this camp don't you?).

Quote:
Indeed the standard explanation changed quite considably in responce to critisms from these same so-called nutters.

In what way? And when?

gurrier
Offline
Joined: 30-01-04
Nov 22 2006 12:55

The problem to me, with that paper, is that it mixes up a whole load of very valid criticisms of the way that the pharmaceutical industry works and influences medical research into a great big conspiracy where they control everything.

Quote:
In 1987, the year that AZT was licensed, the British Medical Association (BMA), the professional trade union for doctors and an organisation which had substantial links with Wellcome, set up the BMA Foundation for AIDS. In March 1988, Wellcome gave a covenant to the Foundation, a sum of £36,000 annually for four years, totalling £144,000. This meant that at the very heart of the British medical profession, Wellcome had control of the information flow on AIDS.

You see, the above is a non-sequitur. It assumes that Wellcome's fairly meagre grant bought it total control over the information produced. Not only is this not true, but the author doesn't even provide any evidence in support of the contention that a donation such as this buys control.

This highlights the bigger problem, that the author is well on the road to conspiranoid delusional thinking. It gets conspiranoid points for the following reasons:

* mentions Bilderberg group and Rockefeller (+5 points), despite the fact that they play no obvious part in the story (+10 points)
* does not state a particular hypothesis, just concentrates on picking holes in "the official story" (+20 points). Having read the paper, I don't know what the author thinks - does HIV exist? does AIDS exist? What positive evidence is there for whatever the author thinks?
* conflating influence and connections with control and conspiracy (+20 points). c.f. above.
* the author at several points counterposes some sort of "natural health care for immune system disorders". He doesn't tell us what this is, what's natural about it, what evidence there is to support its efficacy, or indeed anything about it at all, except that's it's somehow 'natural' (like illness and disease are natural). +10 points.

That gives me a total of 65 arbitrarily awarded nutter points, which allows one to classify the author in the nearer fringes of nutterdom. Not completely out to lunch like a 911-anoid, but sharing many of the same characteristics in tamer form.

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Nov 22 2006 13:06
gurrier wrote:
That gives me a total of 65 arbitrarily awarded nutter points, which allows one to classify the author in the nearer fringes of nutterdom.

well thank fuck for your scientific method, now we know the truth! tongue

Thora
Offline
Joined: 17-06-04
Nov 22 2006 13:24
gurrier wrote:
* mentions Bilderberg group and Rockefeller (+5 points), despite the fact that they play no obvious part in the story (+10 points)

Just because it's not obvious doesn't mean they're not behind it.

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Nov 22 2006 13:29

Thora you TOOL, who is behind the bilderbergs then? cui bono? clearly the space lizards, and you are clearly in their pay for distracting the sheeple from the TRUTH!!!.

"the biggest trick the space lizards ever pulled was convincing the world they didn't exist" - KNOW THE TRUTH!!!

grin

note: this generic anti-conspiraloon parody has nothing to do with Martin J Walker who i have never read.

Thora
Offline
Joined: 17-06-04
Nov 22 2006 13:36

the button's picture
the button
Offline
Joined: 7-07-04
Nov 22 2006 14:16

Thora
Offline
Joined: 17-06-04
Nov 23 2006 00:55

After reading this thread and the "Radicals and Science" thread, I'm come to the conclusion that I don't really believe in science.

lem
Offline
Joined: 25-07-05
Nov 23 2006 01:13
Mike Harman wrote:
The surrounding text doesn't change the meaning of the phrases I quoted at all.

No, it does. He say "when" we say that "HIV doesn't..." which could mean that he does not say it at the monet tongue

What fun :rollseyes:

lem
Offline
Joined: 25-07-05
Nov 23 2006 01:21
Quote:
* mentions Bilderberg group and Rockefeller (+5 points)

I can easily think of an e.g. whereby a scientific article does mentaion the Bilderberg group and they are not 5 points nutty for doing so. Granted, you may score nutter points for what research one is involved in - in which case you tacitly admit that researches make choices as to what research to persue. Otherwise you award nutter points simply for being involved with projects that one has no control over - not a sign of madness as no degeneration of rationality is is always involved with such events. Thereby destroying your method. Scientists angry

lol

lem
Offline
Joined: 25-07-05
Nov 23 2006 01:25

Actually, I disagree with alomost all of what Gurrier awards nutter points for. Weird. Not that I disagree with HIV causing AIDS - hwoever much of the evidence is flawed, there must still be more evidence than for the contrary. And when people start talking about conspiracies where huge amnounts of people are in on (I assume that his is the case) I start to ignore what is being said. Learnt that from experience, I did lol.

lem
Offline
Joined: 25-07-05
Nov 23 2006 01:40

Gurrier, I mean, you can't say that something is the definition of being a nutter if someone can do that something and not be a nutter in the least. Simple logic.

And with no conclusive empirical test for being a nutter (you think psyhciatry can reliabely and validly tell one ever so slightly nutty person from one that isn't at all) your method means that some people WILL be passed as nutters who are not. Scientific method roll eyes stick to experiments!

RedHughs
Offline
Joined: 25-11-06
Nov 25 2006 08:43

I say that Peter Duesberg's book "Inventing The AIDS Virus" should receive no "nut points" what-so-ever. It doesn't even claim a conspiracy in the classical sense but instead describes the short-sightedness of science. Indeed, the chapters on other instances of Medical short-sightedness are worth reading in their own right.

Duesberg apparently is politically somewhat reactionary, which naturally proves nothings.

HIV dissent is credible to folks with a full understanding of the biology, chemistry and statistics involved. This doesn't mean its true but I would say that those who believe it aren't necessarily nuts. There are nuts who believe it but there are nuts everywhere. Proves nothing again.

Red

raw
Offline
Joined: 8-10-03
Nov 25 2006 11:24

I agree with coffeemachine regarding martin walker. He is highly respected within many different areas, which is more than I can say for some people here.

I have my doubts whether HIV courses AIDS as there is a wealth of actual scientific knowledge which has been published - mainly in continuum magazine which folded sometime ago. There has also been attemtps by the WHO an UN to portray AIDS in Africa as the result of HIV contamination. There are many reasons why immune systems collapse (poor quality water, unsanatised environment, starvation,...etc) all of which could be picked up as being caused by HIV.

Anyway, calling martin walker "a nutter" is not political debate its childish cuntism - maybe something which John will be remembered for in 30 years time?

ha!

Raw

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Nov 25 2006 11:30
raw wrote:
I agree with coffeemachine regarding martin walker. He is highly respected within many different areas, which is more than I can say for some people here.

but not areas to do with HIV/AIDS, so what? :?

raw wrote:
I have my doubts whether HIV courses AIDS as there is a wealth of actual scientific knowledge which has been published - mainly in continuum magazine

now i'd hate to fetishise the scientific method, but i'd tend to trust peer-reviewed journals over "a unique platform for AIDS rethinkers".

Personally i know fuck all about HIV/AIDS, but your arguments aren't really convincing me there's much to counter mainstream scientific opinion.

raw
Offline
Joined: 8-10-03
Nov 25 2006 12:30

"peer reviewed journals" don't exist in abstract there is a whole politics behind these journals and what and how research is commisioned.

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Nov 25 2006 12:54

yeah i know, they're hardly 100% 'objective' when you consider funding sources etc, but they're still blatantly more reliable than a mag whose purpose is to publish research of a certain opinion, and presumably accepts 'research' according to its conclusions. Yeah that happens with 'respectable' journals too, but unless you're also claiming a vast conspiracy to propagate only official truths on HIV/AIDS then you're on thin ice. and if you are claiming such a conspiracy, you're on thin ice wink

i mean you wouldn't quote an ICC mag to prove decadence theory would you?

RedHughs
Offline
Joined: 25-11-06
Nov 26 2006 04:28
Joseph K. wrote:
yeah i know, they're hardly 100% 'objective' when you consider funding sources etc, but they're still blatantly more reliable than a mag whose purpose is to publish research of a certain opinion, and presumably accepts 'research' according to its conclusions. Yeah that happens with 'respectable' journals too, but unless you're also claiming a vast conspiracy to propagate only official truths on HIV/AIDS then you're on thin ice. and if you are claiming such a conspiracy, you're on thin ice ;)

Hmm, you are making a "falacy of randomness". Peer reviewed journals are more reliable than self-published websites. But their unreliable parts aren't random but based on the biases of those involved. Thus you can't assume they are more reliable than a self-published website on this particular topic. To believe otherwise would lead you to abandon revolutionary theory as soon as Nature publishes their editorial against it.

Also, alternative HIV theories are available and have published in peer-reviewed journals other than the self-published one. They haven't been published recently since they lost the intellectual battle in the 80's and 90's and so are considered "outside science" presently. It wouldn't matter what evidence they presented to peer reviewed journals now. Institutional and personal bias is easily sufficient to explain their obscurity.

Red

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Nov 26 2006 08:28
RedHughs wrote:
But their unreliable parts aren't random but based on the biases of those involved. Thus you can't assume they are more reliable than a self-published website on this particular topic. To believe otherwise would lead you to abandon revolutionary theory as soon as Nature publishes their editorial against it.

well there are structrual reasons for a capitalist publication to denounce revolutionary theory - i see no similar cause for bias with HIV/AIDS. I mean presumably self-publishd stuff could still seek independent peer-review etc even outside of the mainstream journals? Basically i'm a non-expert, and so i wouldn't be able to tell a dodgy methodology from a sound one, unless it was really blatant. Therefore i'd tend to trust papers which have had more critical, supposedly independent appraisal - i.e. peer-reviewd journals.

I mean i know mainstream science has all sorts of groupthink, and at any given time certain valid ideas are no doubt excluded. However, i don't have any reason to believe that is the case here, and invoking a fallacy of randomness seems to imply an agnostic relativism, "we can't know which is biased/accurate, so they're all equally valid", which is silly.

pingtiao's picture
pingtiao
Offline
Joined: 9-10-03
Nov 26 2006 11:21

oh my god.

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Nov 26 2006 11:54
raw wrote:
I agree with coffeemachine regarding martin walker. He is highly respected within many different areas, which is more than I can say for some people here.

Thing is raw, insulting me here doesn't help your argument. Walker is not "respected" in the area of HIV and AIDS, which is what we're talking about.

Quote:
I have my doubts whether HIV courses AIDS

You always try to avoid actually saying what you think here. Do you think HIV causes AIDS? Yes/no.
And like coffeemachine do you no even believe in HIV's existence?

Quote:
There has also been attemtps by the WHO an UN to portray AIDS in Africa as the result of HIV contamination. There are many reasons why immune systems collapse (poor quality water, unsanatised environment, starvation,...etc) all of which could be picked up as being caused by HIV.

Would drinking poor water make you develop antibodies to HIV then and show as positive?

What about the 60,000 people who who are HIV positive in this country? Are they malnourished?

Quote:
Anyway, calling martin walker "a nutter" is not political debate its childish cuntism - maybe something which John will be remembered for in 30 years time?

ha!

Grow up, raw.

Jason, any response to my questions above?

madashell's picture
madashell
Offline
Joined: 19-06-06
Nov 26 2006 14:16
RedHughs wrote:
Also, alternative HIV theories are available and have published in peer-reviewed journals other than the self-published one. They haven't been published recently since they lost the intellectual battle in the 80's and 90's and so are considered "outside science" presently. It wouldn't matter what evidence they presented to peer reviewed journals now. Institutional and personal bias is easily sufficient to explain their obscurity.

Is it wrong to be sceptical of something which has been proven wrong repeatedly over the last twenty years then?

raw wrote:
childish cuntism

Need I say it?