 |
|
Pen Points
Letters to Gay Today |
|
AIDS Denial Isn't Realism
Lauritsen's claim that the media have censored the views of the denialists is laughable. Nightline did a whole show on the subject a few years ago. They've also gotten extensive coverage in, among other outlets, the London Sunday Times, Spin, numerous gay and lesbian publications and--strikingly--key organs of the right-wing, antigay movement in the U.S., including The American Spectator and the Heritage Foundation's Policy Review. After all of this attention it's hard to see how the fact that few take their views seriously can be blamed on censorship. Maybe--just maybe--it's because, after carefully looking at all of the data, intelligent observers have concluded that mainstream science, whatever its flaws, pretty much got it right this time. But the best advice I can give readers is: Don't take my word for it. Look up the references. Read the data--all of it, not just the narrow interpretations of those with an axe to grind--and judge for yourself.
Sincerely,
Bruce Mirken AIDS, Poppers & HIV Theories
However, he totally loses “credibility” when he drags out his old/ancient/never-documented assertion that “poppers=death”. I read his book on that subject and the research simply showed that “if someone was HIV positive, the use of poppers did seem to increase the possibility of their contracting Karposi Sarcoma.” If “poppers really did equal death” I'd be long dead by now. Once, after having a pleasant dinner with John Lauritsen, I actually indulged myself by “toasting him” with a hit of Rush as he looked on in wide-eyed wonder and/or horror. I think the “questions” raised by Lauritsen and others are commendable. He does a great job pointing out how “money flows” behind certain ideas and excludes others. Even if he is totally in error, his criticisms force the “consensus advocates” to prove their case.
Randy Wicker Open to be Convinced Either Way I appreciated your recent articles on both sides of the HIV=AIDS issue. John Lauritsen provided a very brief intro to the scientific points made by the scientists who doubt the prevailing theory. Your more mainstream writers did a good job of casting doubt on about 1% of the points that the dissident scientists make on www.virusmyth.com. I'd like to see the other 99% covered in your magazine, with ample space being given for both sides to make their points. I'm open to be convinced either way. Tom Sponheim AIDS Realism? I am not a scientist. I do not feel I am equipped to defend the position of most of the scientific community on HIV or its rejection by the "AIDS realists". I hope this issue is dealt with directly at the XIII International AIDS conference in South Africa in July.
AIDS denialists from ACT UP/San Francisco interupt a meeting with Sens. Arlen Specter (center) and Barbara Boxer (right)
I am disturbed by the way John Lauritsen frames some of the positions of the "AIDS realists" however. He says the belief that HIV causes AIDS "has never been more than a hypothesis". This betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of science. The Religious Right rejects Darwin's theory of evolution with the same rationale. Despite biological, astronomical, geological, and anthropological evidence all over the universe, the Religious Right rejects evolution because they cannot see it happening in everyday life...and it conflicts with cherished beliefs. Many of Lauritsen's positions seem to be an eclectic choosing of evidence to support a previously adopted position. When you are dealing with as complex a question as the cause of an apparently socially transmitted disease, all kinds of human passions and prejudices enter into the mix. I too am furious at the way the drug companies are gouging the victims of AIDS. I am sure South African President Mbeki reflects the concern of the underdeveloped world that multinational corporations stand poised to reap huge profits from human suffering. But this does not translate into proof that HIV does not cause AIDS and its victims should deny themselves treatment.....if it is available. Shouldn't our attention be directed at the drug companies expecting to profit off of the disease? Lauritsen and "AIDS realists" claim that the cause of AIDS in the United States is related to "lifestyle", i.e. promiscuous sex and drug use (medical and recreational). Once again, it disturbs me that this is similar to the Religious Right position that AIDS is God's judgment for homosexuality and promiscuity. Sexual promiscuity and drugs are probably the cause of the disease spreading so rapidly in the gay community in the early eighties, but couldn't this be because these activities spread the HIV virus, not the activities themselves caused AIDS? Not everyone who died in the early eighties, before medications were available, was promiscuous or using drugs. I would hope all involved are genuinely concerned about finding the true cause of AIDS. Sadly, after twenty years of loss there still seems to be a large element of not wanting to accept that this is happening. Ken Derstine An Asshole by Any Other Name…
Dr. Laura attacks an enormous group of people with her hate: gays and lesbians. I attacked one person: Laura Schlessinger. Her hate is spread far and wide with the implicit approval of mainstream media organs. My hate is confined by the smaller audience of badpuppy.com visitors. I will not pretend it is not hate; it is. The difference is between righteous indignation and self-promoting provocation. Dr. Laura, by any standard, deserves hateful speech. One does not greet Satan with kind words and a bouquet of posies. She is an evil woman, and her evil is the worse for being self-aggrandizing. Laura Schlessinger, I strongly maintain, doesn't really believe most of the filth she spews against gays. She simply is pandering to the lowest-common-denominator, with an eye towards ratings and cashflow. Give the yahoos what they want, and the money will roll in - that is clearly Dr. Laura's modus operandi. Like the unlamented Anita Bryant, Laura Schlessinger deserves to be driven from the airwaves. She is an opportunist of the lowest sort. By pandering to pathetic prejudice in her own financial interest, she has opened herself and her message to attack which is richly deserved. "Asshole" is mild, compared to some of the things I might accurately have called her. Let me suggest that Mr. Battiston and those who might agree with him are missing the point, rather egregiously. One does not confront a greedy enemy with kindness. People understand an admittedly-insulting attack, and are prone to respect a fellow who spits in his opponent's eye. Dr. Laura Schlessinger is bad news, right to the core, and for the worst of all reasons -- money. It ill befits any gay or lesbian to even suggest that this vile woman is being treated too-harshly. BuckcuB |
John Lauritsen covered the AIDS crisis for the New York Native 
Mr. Battiston takes exception to my characterizing Laura Schlessinger as an
"asshole," albeit tangentially, suggesting I am committing the same hate as
Dr. Laura.
© 1997-2000 BEI