 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / AIDS / October 2005The many faces of George M. Carter
Mr. Carter, In my unending quests all over the Web, I found this: "Carter, George M. ACT UP, The AIDS War & Activism. Open Magazine Pamphlet Series, P.O. Box 2726, Westfield, NJ 07091. 1992, 22 pp. An examination of medical and political aspects of AIDS, critical of "corporate, high-tech" medicine and the "single-viral cause, 'magic-bullet cure' approach." Strange how your past can catch up with you... What changed your mind? Money? >Mr. Carter, > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >Strange how your past can catch up with you... >What changed your mind? Money? When did you stop beating your wife? They paid you to stop? What makes you think I've changed my mind? A) That's a review: I didn't write it. Read the original document. B) In 1992, it was still reasonable to look for cofactThe ors. By now, it's clear there ain't much need for one. But co-infections can clearly have an impact on HIV disease progression. By contrast, I'm sure your mind hasn't changed about anything since 1938. George M. Carter "B) In 1992, it was still reasonable to look for cofactThe ors. By now, it's clear there ain't much need for one. But co-infections can clearly have an impact on HIV disease progression" Can you say "doublespeak"? >"B) In 1992, it was still reasonable to look for cofactThe ors. By now, >it's clear there ain't much need for one. But co-infections can >clearly have an impact on HIV disease progression" > >Can you say "doublespeak"? Can you understand the distinction between a cofactor and a co-infection? Perhaps not. A co-factor would be REQUIRED for HIV to cause AIDS. Like Mycoplasma or syphilis. There is no evidence that either of these latter infections are necessary for AIDS to develop. By contrast, a co-infection may have an impact on progression. Some data suggests that hepatitis G virus may SLOW progression. Herpes viruses of various kinds, mycobacterial and parasitic infections may accelerate progression. George M. Carter >"By contrast, a co-infection may have an impact on progression. Some data suggests that hepatitis G virus may SLOW progression. Herpes viruses of various kinds, mycobacterial and parasitic infections may accelerate progression." Hm... I understand: All these coinfections are needed to explain the various pathogenic effects that HIV could not possibly cause. "By contrast, a co-infection may have an impact on progression. Some data suggests that hepatitis G virus may SLOW progression. Herpes viruses of various kinds, mycobacterial and parasitic infections may accelerate progression." >Hm... I understand: All these coinfections are needed to explain the various pathogenic effects that HIV could not possibly cause. Iconoclaster, you've got to give him credit for *trying* anyway. Dear god, I don't know how I was able to not be taken in by all of this bullshit for so many years. I suppose *that* was the reason...it smelled like bullshit. >>"By contrast, a co-infection may have an impact on progression. Some data >suggests that hepatitis G virus may SLOW progression. Herpes viruses of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Hm... I understand: All these coinfections are needed to explain the >various pathogenic effects that HIV could not possibly cause. Clearly, you do not understand. >"What makes you think I've changed my mind? " I recognize an opportunist when I see one. I see leftist talk in 1992, and rightist actions in 2005. You give the impression you do't like this government (btw, neither do I). So why are you participating in this government's sponsored genocide project? >"In 1992, it was still reasonable to look for cofactThe ors. By now, it's clear there ain't much need for one. But co-infections can clearly have an impact on HIV disease progression." Oh, sure. For .357Magnum Virus infections, the cofactor (the bullet) has a definite impact. That may also be the case with HIV. I think, after we've found those cofactors, there may be no need anymore for the virus itself. >"By contrast, I'm sure your mind hasn't changed about anything since 1938" Not so. In 1938 I still thought people were basically good, with a few exceptions. Now I know better. >>"What makes you think I've changed my mind? " > >I recognize an opportunist when I see one. I see leftist talk in 1992, >and rightist actions in 2005. Describe what is "rightist" about anything I've written? >You give the impression you do't like this government (btw, neither do I). > So why are you participating in this government's sponsored genocide >project? So why have you CONTINUED to beat your wife? >>"In 1992, it was still reasonable to look for cofactThe ors. By now, it's >clear there ain't much need for one. But co-infections can clearly have an [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >That may also be the case with HIV. I think, after we've found those >cofactors, there may be no need anymore for the virus itself. Then you have failed to look at the research. >>"By contrast, I'm sure your mind hasn't changed about anything since >1938" > >Not so. In 1938 I still thought people were basically good, with a few >exceptions. Now I know better. That clarifies a lot. And sounds like the worldview of a capitalist conservative repugnican. George M. Carter > That clarifies a lot. And sounds like the worldview of a capitalist > conservative repugnican. I can't remember where I saw it, and I can't remember if it's someone from the DC think tanks or an economist or both--but the comment was that it's an error to think of them as 'capitalists.' Halliburton, etc. is a throwback to 'mercantilism,' and the examples given were the East India Company or Standard Oil. B/ >"Describe what is "rightist" about anything I've written?" I didn't mention anything rightist you've written. I mentioned "rightist *actions*" Don't you see, yes, doesn't everybody see you're playing their game? You propagate the view that HIV is a dangerous virus causing AIDS. You are in favor of getting tested. You advocate the use of ARV's. You are in favor of the scare tactics in Africa, leading to systematic genocide. You go strictly along with George W. Bush, President of the Christian Republic of America. >>"Describe what is "rightist" about anything I've written?" > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >genocide. You go strictly along with George W. Bush, President of the >Christian Republic of America. To the absolute contrary. First, I recognize that the HIV pandemic exists. This is where we diverge and that has nothing to do with left or right wing thinking. I know scientists from the far left to the far right who see this. It is an apolitical position. Next, as a result of that recognition, I believe that people need to talk about sex. Celebrate it. Whatever the form: gay, straight, queer, bisexual. Feel free to have it or not, to be in a monogamous relationship or not. Then, know how to reduce the risk of infections and unwanted pregnancies through proper use of male or female condoms. Particularly during anal and vaginal sex. I support the right of women to have abortions. I support access to clean needles and other harm reduction approaches. I think the "war on some drugs" is utter bullshit. I support the rights of drug users to care. I support the rights of sex workers. I support programs to end stigma and discrimination against people with HIV/AIDS, whether they are repugnican mothers or young gay men, sex workers, coke snorters, teachers, military personnel or any and all of the above. And I believe that HEALTHCARE IS A RIGHT. That means full access to care. Whether it is a multivitamin or botanical intervention or a liver transplant. I recognize the clinical data show that ARV WORK. Whether you like that idea or not. And I utterly oppose the pharmaceutical industry. The more I look at the f.cked up mess they've created in so many ways, the more I think drug development should be undertaken publicly. NOT privately. That the costs to do so can be brought down while discovery for treatments for RANGE of diseases and conditions can be fostered well; without ever needing a patent. Thus, I believe people in Africa, Asia, Europe, the US have a RIGHT to access to treatment--including but not limited to ARV. That we have the capacity, wealth and ability to make that potential a reality. If people choose NOT to do ARV--they ALWAYS have that right. Just as here in the US. Just like David Pasquarelli exercised that right and died for it. As did LeRoy Whitfield. I say that without any animosity; to the contrary. So--once again: you're wrong. George M. Carter Well, at least you take a firm stand. And the strange thing is: I support most of the same things you do. I also believe health care is a right, and everybody who wants a certain treatment should have access to it, even if it is somethig infernal such as ARV's. But I alo believe everybody should have access to *all* the information about the available therapies, dispensed in an evenhanded manner. And in that respect, I am the bringer of good news: There is very little danger in sex, so it can be enjoyed in all its forms. The danger lies only in the excesses in which a minority indulged during the seventies. The human body can stand some abuse, but chronic abuse will bring it down. That should be the mesage. Not joy-killing condoms and scare stories about nonexisting infections. There are enough STD's to go around without any magic supervirus named HIV. Yes, people everywhere in the world have a right to take or not take medications. So I think the pressure that's being exerted in the U.S. to start treatment when a (probably useless) marker goes below a certain level (talking bout CD4 counts) is improper. In other countries the AIDS specialists are not as fanatic. But the fact that babies are separated from their mothers if they don't comply with a drug regimen, and mothers are not allowed to breastfeed, is an outrage and a crime against nature. That really makes me angry and a rabid enemy of this shitty government that has turned a great country into a gulag. >Well, at least you take a firm stand. And the strange thing is: I support >most of the same things you do. I also believe health care is a right, >and everybody who wants a certain treatment should have access to it, even >if it is somethig infernal such as ARV's. But I alo believe everybody >should have access to *all* the information about the available therapies, >dispensed in an evenhanded manner. I do too. Neither whitewash of potential troubles nor hysterical handwaving. >And in that respect, I am the bringer of good news: No--you're the bringer of distortions. >There is very little danger in sex, so it can be enjoyed in all its forms. Danger can happen with all sorts of normal, healthy activities. Walking, running: one can be hit by a bus, inhale toxic pollutants. Doesn't make walking or running a bad idea! Same with sex. Great fun! Unless things like unwanted pregnancies or infections occur. Precautions like a condom on a penis or using a female condom can limit that risk substanially. That's the news I believe people should have. > The danger lies only in the excesses in which a minority indulged during >the seventies. The more partners, the higher the risk something will happen. The more often one jogs, the more likely one may be exposed to car exhaust or being hit by a cab. Doesn't mean running is bad. And indeed--for many, it may be that very FIRST run that results in trouble. >The human body can stand some abuse, but chronic abuse >will bring it down. That should be the mesage. Not joy-killing condoms >and scare stories about nonexisting infections. There are enough STD's to >go around without any magic supervirus named HIV. There ARE enough STDs--but sadly, HIV is one of them... George M. Carter >"Same with sex. Great fun! Unless things like unwanted pregnancies or infections occur. Precautions like a condom on a penis or using a female condom can limit that risk substanially." Aw, that takes all the fun out of it! >"The more partners, the higher the risk something will happen. The more often one jogs, the more likely one may be exposed to car exhaust or being hit by a cab. Doesn't mean running is bad. Yeah, running is bad, all right. Just this week I read an article saying the old slogan "No pain, no gain" was probably not true, after all. Too many bum knees and worn-out joints... Glory be! *Now* they come with that conclusion! I already wrote in "The Moronic Majority" in 1996 that this slogan was totally off the wall. Am I so many year ahead or are the other people so far behind? >>"Same with sex. Great fun! Unless things like unwanted pregnancies or >infections occur. Precautions like a condom on a penis or using a >female condom can limit that risk substanially." > >Aw, that takes all the fun out of it! Not necessarily. And the fun of it can be compromised by the discovery of an infection or just the fear of it. Which sucks. Because most people on the planet that even pause to think about it realize there's this nasty thing called AIDS out there. >"And the fun of it can be compromised by the discovery of an infection or just the fear of it. " Not for me. I went right back to whomever I got it from, with th words: "I got something. You got it too. Let's first have sex and see the doctor too." And the hell with HIV. Even if it is found one day, it still won't have anything to do with STD's. > >"Describe what is "rightist" about anything I've written?" > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > genocide. You go strictly along with George W. Bush, President of the > Christian Republic of America. What wonderful logic you have. Can I borrow some? You think condoms are bad. The Pope thinks condoms are bad. Therefore you go strictly along with the Pope. QED Chris Noble >"You think condoms are bad. The Pope thinks condoms are bad. Therefore you go strictly along with the Pope." Yes! Isn't that something! Never thought I'd ever agree on something with the Pope. Ohboy, was that a surprise! But it happens all the time: The temperance Union thought alcohol should be outlawed. Al Capone thought alcohol should be outlawed. And they went strictly along together. So alcohol was outlawed. Do you see the connection with Mr. Carter? > Mr. Carter, > Strange how your past can catch up with you... > What changed your mind? Money? Is this another case of "There were no accusations. It was just a simple question."? Are you trying to smear people who disagree with you with allegations of corruption? I am in no way accusing you of using smear tactics! It was just a simple question. Chris Noble snip >Are you trying to smear people who disagree with you with allegations >of corruption? Yes. He is. Because he's too f.cking stupid to argue on the basis of the data. George M. Carter >"s this another case of "There were no accusations. It was just a simple question."?" You should know me better by now, Mr. Noble. I am not the one asking simple questions. I'm a lot more assertive than that. I was just recalling a facet of Mr. Carter's past. Why do you call that "smear tactics"? I was not even accusing him of anything illegal or improper. But 1992... Who was it again being elected president that year? Mr. Carter's comments fit in well with the spirit of that time. And who occupies the White House now? Again, Mr. Carter is in step with the health policies of this government. Why shouldn't I call this opportunism? >>"s this another case of "There were no accusations. It was just a simple >question."?" [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >the health policies of this government. Why shouldn't I call this >opportunism? Because it's a despicable misrepresentation of who I am and what I do and what I believe. Clearly, you didn't actually READ the Open Magazine piece. It was written during Bushit I. And there was a LOT that Clinton did that I fought against with some of the most incredible, passionate and beautiful people I've ever had the privilege of knowing through ACT UP. Far too many of whom have since died. That's what motivates me. The ones that died. The ones still here. The people doing the real work. Not two-bit, second rate jackasses like you that try to pass themselves off as "scientists" when it's clear you don't know your a.s from a hole in the ground. You dishonor science even more than the mythologist nutjobs that promote "intelligent design." George M. Carter > >"s this another case of "There were no accusations. It was just a simple > question."?" [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > "smear tactics"? I was not even accusing him of anything illegal or > improper. You implied that his views had changed after accepting money from unnamed person or body. By all reasonable criteris this constitutes smear tactics. Chris Noble >"You implied that his views had changed after accepting money from unnamed person or body." Did I really? What I clearly implied was that his views changed with the political climate of the country. I said nothing about money. But do I, deep down, think that Mr. Carter is or has been making money off the AIDS circus? Yes, I do. AND NOW THAT WE'RE ON THE SUBJECT, Mr.Noble: You said you are not being paid a penny by the pharma industry. AND I BELIEVE YOU. But... did you know there are individuals in Academia who are not paid by Big Pharma, but who did have their entire study paid for by grants from the pharma boys? >>"You implied that his views had changed after accepting money from unnamed >person or body." > >Did I really? What I clearly implied was that his views changed with the >political climate of the country. I said nothing about money. You said: "What changed your mind? Money?" http://groups.google.ca/group/misc.health.aids/msg/ca791cf1c89862a5  SignatureDavid Canzi "I am not denying anything." -- Celia Farber
|
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.