[ IMAGES: Images ON turn off | ACCOUNT: User Status is LOCKED why? ]

OT: Taking down Obama with the race card
Forum Index  ›  Off-Topic Forum
Page 13 of 18 « First‹ Previous 11  12  13  14  15 Next ›Last »
« Reply To Topic
Author Thread
bitty41
Posts: 22316
Alba Posts: 5
Joined: 12/3/2006
Member: #1215
3/22/2008  5:11 PM
First off, the Syphilis experiment/crime. Obviously this is a terrible thing. But to make the jump from that to developing HIV and then infecting blacks with it systematically is a jump from sanity to complete paranoia. I don't even know how anybody who is not looking to simply light up some racial tension can make claim that "white people" infected "black people" with HIV. That is equivalent to the dark ages claim that witches infected Christians with the black death. Or that Jews drink the blood of Christian newborns. And the list goes on.

Thelonius, I'm not sure why you're missing the point here. You're fabricating the notion that some are acting like Wright invented those theories. The argument I've put forth is simple. The HIV conspiracy theory is false, by almost any reasonable scientific standard (I can get technical here, if you'd like). At the very least, Wright, an educated man, couldn't have been sure about its truth value. Thus, it is highly irresponsible and, in fact, racist to disseminate such hate-inciting fiction. Remember, Wright didn't say he "wouldn't be shocked" if the US government did this or that, he said that they did conduct a mass genocide against people of color through HIV. There's no way to spin that
.

Simrud and Codeunknown


The documentary I mentioned in my above post I assume you both haven't seen it. But I thought some value could be gained by me giving a quick run down about the film's hypothesis.

Basically the film theorized that the Orgin of the AIDS virsus began in the 1950's by western scientists in Africa. These scientist were trying to create another polio vaccine. The scientist used chimpanzee bone marrow in order to make this vaccine which was infected with a form of HIV. After the vaccine was created an entire African village was forced submit to tests. Fast forward to about 50 years later. Oxford Zoolgist Bill Hamilton yes Simrud a OXFORD ZOOLIGIST (though I don't know if you consider Oxford Academics left-wing radicals lol) but in any event Hamilton went into the Congo to test this radical theory but died suddenly before he could submit his evidence to the Royal Society so the theory has never been officially proven. The Philadelphia lab that has the samples that could answer most of these questions will not release the samples. Now anyone can draw whatever conclusions they want from their actions. But this theory of AIDS being man-made is not something that only kooks, conspiracy theorist, or total wackjobs believe these theories have actually been tested by respected Scientist.


So I think you both could benefit from a little more research into these theories before totally dismissing them. Because Mr Hooper the man who developed this documentary and wrote the River is white and a former United Nations offical and BBC Africa correspondent.


Here are some other publication related to this theory. These reviews give a much more eloquent and detailed explanation of the theory and about the book/documentary.

http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/dissent/documents/AIDS/River/DailyTelegraph.html

http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/dissent/documents/AIDS/River/Economist.html


Also wanted to put out there that this idea of black genocide being executed by the American government is not something that only (black racist believe in) but Rev Rod Parsley the man that John McCain refers to as his "spritual adviser" has many times spoken about black genocide in America. However his opponent is "Planned Parenthood". I don't agree with any of this pointing to Planned Parenthood and abortion as a form of genocide but it just goes to show you that you don't need to be some parnoid black person. Here's a few of his comments.


"If I were call for the sterilization or the elimination of an entire segment of society, I'd be labeled a racists or a murderer, or at very best a Nazi," says Parsley. "That every single year, millions of our tax dollars are funding a national organization built upon that very goal -- their target: African Americans. That's right, the death toll: nearly fifteen hundred African Americans a day. The shocking truth of black genocide."

"Right now our own government is allowing organizations like Planned Parenthood to legally take the innocent lives of precious baby girls and baby boys and even footing the bill for it all with our tax dollars, turning every single one of us into accessories to murder," he says. "You know who their biggest fans must be, that must be the Klu Klux Klan, because the woman who founded this organization detested black people.... African Americans were number one on Margaret Sanger's list. So this 'Lady MacDeath,' as I like to call her, studied the works of Englishman Thomas Robert Malthus, and embraced his plan of eugenics."
AUTOADVERT
codeunknown
Posts: 22615
Alba Posts: 9
Joined: 7/14/2004
Member: #704
3/22/2008  5:13 PM
Posted by TheloniusMonk:

I never said it was right for him to do so. I said it's conceivable when others say it's ignorant or whatever word people have used. But my question to you is are the white men who introduced this theory about AIDS injected into the men in the Congo racist as well? Or is it just Rev Wright for repeating them that's racist? I just need to know what seperates Rev Wright (as a racist) from the guys who hypothesized this thing? Are they considered "self-haters"? Anti-American? I just want to understand the racist thing when this isn't Wright's theory. That's my point. Do you consider Ed Hooper (a white man) a racist for being a pioneer in this theory? How about W.D. Hamilton from Oxford? People have latched on to the "racist" thing as it pertains to the HIV accusation. But is Wright the racist? Or these men (and many many many other white men who developed and support these claims)? Or are they ALL racists because of it? That's where the theory falls apart.

Again, I am not an advocate of the theory at this point.

No, unfortunately, the theory doesn't quite fall apart. Everyone has a fundamentally different set of values and motivations that give rise to a more specific subset of positions; the convergence at "HIV genocide" among a handful of people neither legitimizes nor discredits a presumptive etiology. Hooper has his varied motivations for believing what he does, but there is a reason he is in a very miniscule minority in the scientific community. He may be a self-hater, a money lover, a conspiracy fanatic, and misinformed, among other things. Given the context of Wright's sermons, however, his motivations are more readily apparent. The progression of his distortions is really quite impressive. Again, Wright claims that the US government "injected" black men with syphillis at Tuskegee, that "people of color" were the target of a goverment sponsored HIV genocide, and that white politicians are like the "Romans" who persecuted Jesus, "a poor black man." By deliberately mixing elements of the truth with egregious distortion in his usual frenzy and projecting those distortions as proof that the black-white dichotomy is equivalent to the dichotomy between good vs. evil, Wright has designed a resonating rhetoric, couched in a rather convincing, albeit false, historical and religious context. The most discouraging aspect to all of this is that his lies probably won't be scrutinized by his titillated audiences and they are likely to continue the exaggeration of the racial division. Its clear that neither truth nor science are of particular importance to Wright; what was of exclusive interest to him was generating an anger, although to what specific end is still somewhat obscure to me.
Sh-t in the popcorn to go with sh-t on the court. Its a theme show like Medieval times.
bitty41
Posts: 22316
Alba Posts: 5
Joined: 12/3/2006
Member: #1215
3/22/2008  5:25 PM
This is what I don't understand about some people. Who the hell cares what some Reverend said about the AIDS or any other scientific theories. If someone throws a theory out there then if your think they are dead wrong then bring some evidence to the table. Or if you believe it do some fact finding on your own see what experts or people who specialize in that field have to say about it.
codeunknown
Posts: 22615
Alba Posts: 9
Joined: 7/14/2004
Member: #704
3/22/2008  5:31 PM
Posted by bitty41:



Simrud and Codeunknown


The documentary I mentioned in my above post I assume you both haven't seen it. But I thought some value could be gained by me giving a quick run down about the film's hypothesis.

Basically the film theorized that the Orgin of the AIDS virsus began in the 1950's by western scientists in Africa. These scientist were trying to create another polio vaccine. The scientist used chimpanzee bone marrow in order to make this vaccine which was infected with a form of HIV. After the vaccine was created an entire African village was forced submit to tests. Fast forward to about 50 years later. Oxford Zoolgist Bill Hamilton yes Simrud a OXFORD ZOOLIGIST (though I don't know if you consider Oxford Academics left-wing radicals lol) but in any event Hamilton went into the Congo to test this radical theory but died suddenly before he could submit his evidence to the Royal Society so the theory has never been officially proven. The Philadelphia lab that has the samples that could answer most of these questions will not release the samples. Now anyone can draw whatever conclusions they want from their actions. But this theory of AIDS being man-made is not something that only kooks, conspiracy theorist, or total wackjobs believe these theories have actually been tested by respected Scientist.


So I think you both could benefit from a little more research into these theories before totally dismissing them. Because Mr Hooper the man who developed this documentary and wrote the River is white and a former United Nations offical and BBC Africa correspondent.

Sorry Bitty, you are off the mark. I'd say I've done enough research on HIV to put me on anyone's short list of experts. That 50s Congo vaccine has been screened by PCR and there isn't a trace of HIV in them. There's a 1998 Nature piece by Simon Wain-Hobson that quite effortlessly crushes that theory. Its never a good idea to see Oxford, Harvard etc. and get too overly excited. Trust me, I've lead work and collaborated at both places.
Sh-t in the popcorn to go with sh-t on the court. Its a theme show like Medieval times.
simrud
Posts: 23392
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 10/13/2003
Member: #474
USA
3/22/2008  5:33 PM
There are plenty of white idiots who started most of the conspiracy theories that are going around, going all the way back to Karl Marx and beyond. These people fall into 2 categories, parasites or morons. Parasites promote the conspiracy theories because they stand to profit from it somehow, and morons do it because they are duped.

Every one of these crazy theories does not stand a chance at close scientific and common sense scrutiny, and that is exactly why they remain the beliefs of a radical fringe, that simply likes these theories because they are antagonistic to the norm of the society.

There is plenty of racism in this country, and black people have plenty of problems, but these problems are not the government infecting them with HIV or the government blowing being responsible for 9/11 or any other conspiracy theory crap.

The problem is that the black family has broken down, children are not being raised, they don't get proper education, and a lot end up in the prison system. Drugs play into that same problem. Why has the black family broken down? Because upon desegregation, the few elites who managed to win despite the odds simply left. Past years of racism have created the conditions for the inner city ghettos that we have today where there is simply no leadership because it has nowhere to come from but the outside. The question is how do we break that cycle? That is what we should be talking about. Not about the ridiculous crap we are arguing about in this thread right now. And no, affirmative action does not do **** if the kids are ruined starting at birth, how are they supposed to take advantage of college and jobs?
A glimmer of hope maybe?!?
bitty41
Posts: 22316
Alba Posts: 5
Joined: 12/3/2006
Member: #1215
3/22/2008  5:42 PM
Codeunknown,


You missed the point. It wasn't about one theory being correct or whatever your theory is being correct. It was about showing that you don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to conceive that the generally accepted theory has been contested by other scientist. I'm not scientist by any stretch but Simon Wain-Hobson's theory has also drawn major questions about its validity.

http://www.virusmyth.com/aids//news/mumdurbdec.htm
[Edited by - bitty41 on 03-22-2008 5:42 PM]

[Edited by - bitty41 on 03-22-2008 5:46 PM]
codeunknown
Posts: 22615
Alba Posts: 9
Joined: 7/14/2004
Member: #704
3/22/2008  6:03 PM
Bitty, please read the link you provided more carefully. Do you know why they are dissenting? They are arguing that HIV is not the sole cause of the AIDS epidemic. That has remote relevance to the phylogeny and origin of the HIV virus. I realize you're not a scientist but you're really reaching here.

You can always find a dissenting scientist - that scientist fits the description of a conspiracy theorist if the evidence flies squarely in the face of evidence.
Sh-t in the popcorn to go with sh-t on the court. Its a theme show like Medieval times.
bitty41
Posts: 22316
Alba Posts: 5
Joined: 12/3/2006
Member: #1215
3/22/2008  6:09 PM
Posted by codeunknown:

Bitty, please read the link you provided more carefully. Do you know why they are dissenting? They are arguing that HIV is not the sole cause of the AIDS epidemic. That has remote relevance to the phylogeny and origin of the HIV virus. I realize you're not a scientist but you're really reaching here.

You can always find a dissenting scientist - that scientist fits the description of a conspiracy theorist if the evidence flies squarely in the face of evidence.

I'm not saying I think they are correct but I repeat my point is that there are other theories that are not only held by kooks. Wait nevermind because your basically saying that anything this is contradictory to the accepted opinion is a conspiracy theorist is there is no point in bothering continuing this conversation.

[Edited by - bitty41 on 03-22-2008 6:15 PM]
codeunknown
Posts: 22615
Alba Posts: 9
Joined: 7/14/2004
Member: #704
3/22/2008  6:17 PM
I'm struggling to say this without sounding condescending and I'm not trying to throw my knowledge in your face, Bitty. But the point remains that those scientists are kooks/conspiracy theorists - they disagree with evidence based medicince and they cost lives. Just because they wear a white coat doesn't necessarily exempt them from irrational prejudice, superstition and the like.

If you're arguing a theoretical that no knowedge is absoute, then I'd agree with you. But, given the incredible odds against the AIDS genocide theory, I think its a poor defense of Wright's comments. Having a minority view doesn't automatically make you wrong - but you sure can be and Wright sure was.
Sh-t in the popcorn to go with sh-t on the court. Its a theme show like Medieval times.
codeunknown
Posts: 22615
Alba Posts: 9
Joined: 7/14/2004
Member: #704
3/22/2008  6:21 PM
Posted by bitty41:
Posted by codeunknown:

Bitty, please read the link you provided more carefully. Do you know why they are dissenting? They are arguing that HIV is not the sole cause of the AIDS epidemic. That has remote relevance to the phylogeny and origin of the HIV virus. I realize you're not a scientist but you're really reaching here.

You can always find a dissenting scientist - that scientist fits the description of a conspiracy theorist if the evidence flies squarely in the face of evidence.

Wait nevermind because your basically saying that anything this is contradictory to the accepted opinion is a conspiracy theorist is there is no point in bothering continuing this conversation.

[Edited by - bitty41 on 03-22-2008 6:15 PM]

No, I definitely have not said that.
Sh-t in the popcorn to go with sh-t on the court. Its a theme show like Medieval times.
bitty41
Posts: 22316
Alba Posts: 5
Joined: 12/3/2006
Member: #1215
3/22/2008  6:27 PM
I am not defending Wright's theory. My posts weren't even about him but rather about the idea that not every scientist's beliefs are uniform. Meaning that two very respected scientist can be at two different sides of a spectrum. This all relates to you and Simrud assertation that anyone that would believe any theory other then the "generally accepted" belief is a kook. Which I disagreed with.

But if the AIDS virus was man-made in some lab I don't think it was created for genocide purposes. It might have been created accidentally and then just got out of hand from that point on. I know this probably sounds silly to you. But seriously what scientist do you know that would have the guts to stand up and say "hey I created AIDS virsus" I doubt many.

Also the man you mentioned Simon Wain-Hobson wrote a review on Hooper's book the River. Even he acknowledged that Hooper made some valid points.
Is there an issue, given that the AIDS pandemic is far from abating? After all, there are no vaccines or cheap drugs. Furthermore, it comes at a time when, thanks to OPV, there is much talk of pushing polio into the past tense, along with smallpox. Point taken. Yet the breadth of opinion in the current glut of books on virus evolution, or on emerging viruses, is showing us that we do not have a "unified field theory" of virus evolution and that nasty things can, and occasionally do, come out of the woodshed.
In contemplating the OPV thesis, many of those interviewed by Hooper considered the hypothesis tantamount to a disservice to medical science. Many stressed that past events could not be properly judged, or understood, under the blinding spotlight of today. Point taken - to some extent. But this is tantamount to saying that the history of an epoch stops with the death of its last contemporary chronicler. Furthermore, there is a world of difference between judging and wanting to learn what happened. Although this may be painful to some, it seems to me that the origin of AIDS is a story that will not go away - not until we have a solution consistent with the epidemiology and phylogenetics of the immunodeficiency viruses. The OPV/AIDS thesis is not inconsistent with the phylogenetics.
The downside, as opposed to the 'sad side', is that the hypothesis is seven years old. A wall of hostility or litigation has confronted almost every exponent - say no more. Although a scientific committee was set up to investigate, it seems that its report did not cover all aspects, essentially leaving the issue open. Sure, we all have more immediate things to do. Yet that is no licence for hostility. In the last chapters, Hooper describes the dangers of not facing up to difficult scientific and medical questions, from whatever quarter. With the mad cow debacle, to name but one example, there is some easy ammunition around. As Hooper has made a huge effort to document his thesis, it would be fitting if it had a sanguine hearing. If the suggestion is incorrect, then surely someone out there can dismiss it without too much fuss, with clear arguments supported by a modicum of data and references.

Hooper has upped the ante by a log. The search for the origins of HIV will not go away. The OPV hypothesis is formally testable, something which cuts both ways - Hooper could end up with 1,000 pages of egg on his face. But if reaction to The River is dismissive, or derogatory, then we shall see how hard it is for scientists, medics and institutions to address extremely difficult, sometimes painful, questions. Again.

[Edited by - bitty41 on 03-22-2008 6:28 PM]


I grew mostly hating science lol so I know pretty much next to nothing except for a few things. But I do believe that there is still a lot of unanswered questions on the AIDS virus from obvisiously its cure to its beginnings.

[Edited by - bitty41 on 03-22-2008 6:33 PM]

[Edited by - bitty41 on 03-22-2008 6:41 PM]
misterearl
Posts: 38786
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 11/16/2004
Member: #799
USA
3/22/2008  6:36 PM
Why has the black family broken down?

simrud - the Black family was destroyed the instant it entered this country in chains and was forcibly broken apart by selling members to different so-called owners. Where do you think "the dozens" originated?

you gotta be kidding about desegregation being the start of the problem.

Right?
once a knick always a knick
codeunknown
Posts: 22615
Alba Posts: 9
Joined: 7/14/2004
Member: #704
3/22/2008  6:44 PM
Posted by bitty41:

I am not defending Wright's theory. My posts weren't even about him but rather about the idea that not every scientist's beliefs are uniform. Meaning that two very respected scientist can be at two different sides of a spectrum. This all relates to you and Simrud assertation that anyone that would believe any theory other then the "generally accepted" belief is a kook. Which I disagreed with. Also the man you mentioned Simon Wain-Hobson wrote a review on Hooper's book the River. Even he acknowledged that Hooper made some valid points.

Is there an issue, given that the AIDS pandemic is far from abating? After all, there are no vaccines or cheap drugs. Furthermore, it comes at a time when, thanks to OPV, there is much talk of pushing polio into the past tense, along with smallpox. Point taken. Yet the breadth of opinion in the current glut of books on virus evolution, or on emerging viruses, is showing us that we do not have a "unified field theory" of virus evolution and that nasty things can, and occasionally do, come out of the woodshed.
In contemplating the OPV thesis, many of those interviewed by Hooper considered the hypothesis tantamount to a disservice to medical science. Many stressed that past events could not be properly judged, or understood, under the blinding spotlight of today. Point taken - to some extent. But this is tantamount to saying that the history of an epoch stops with the death of its last contemporary chronicler. Furthermore, there is a world of difference between judging and wanting to learn what happened. Although this may be painful to some, it seems to me that the origin of AIDS is a story that will not go away - not until we have a solution consistent with the epidemiology and phylogenetics of the immunodeficiency viruses. The OPV/AIDS thesis is not inconsistent with the phylogenetics.
The downside, as opposed to the 'sad side', is that the hypothesis is seven years old. A wall of hostility or litigation has confronted almost every exponent - say no more. Although a scientific committee was set up to investigate, it seems that its report did not cover all aspects, essentially leaving the issue open. Sure, we all have more immediate things to do. Yet that is no licence for hostility. In the last chapters, Hooper describes the dangers of not facing up to difficult scientific and medical questions, from whatever quarter. With the mad cow debacle, to name but one example, there is some easy ammunition around. As Hooper has made a huge effort to document his thesis, it would be fitting if it had a sanguine hearing. If the suggestion is incorrect, then surely someone out there can dismiss it without too much fuss, with clear arguments supported by a modicum of data and references.

Hooper has upped the ante by a log. The search for the origins of HIV will not go away. The OPV hypothesis is formally testable, something which cuts both ways - Hooper could end up with 1,000 pages of egg on his face. But if reaction to The River is dismissive, or derogatory, then we shall see how hard it is for scientists, medics and institutions to address extremely difficult, sometimes painful, questions. Again.

[Edited by - bitty41 on 03-22-2008 6:28 PM]


I grew mostly hating science lol so I know pretty much next to nothing except for a few things. But I do believe that there is still a lot of unanswered questions on the AIDS virus from obvisiously its cure to its beginnings.

[Edited by - bitty41 on 03-22-2008 6:33 PM]

Its ironic/funny though that you highlighted a portion where Wain-Hobson quite unequivocally states that Hooper is wrong - "The OPV/AIDS thesis is not consistent with the phylogenetics of AIDS." Look Bitty, Wain-Hobson wrote a tempered piece above suggesting that it is alright and even necessary to question. If you re-read my posts above, you'll realize that I agree with that. I wouldn't practice medicine and do research if I didn't feel it to be true. But, the practical nature of debate demands a degree of reasonability. Wright crossed that.
Sh-t in the popcorn to go with sh-t on the court. Its a theme show like Medieval times.
playa2
Posts: 34922
Alba Posts: 15
Joined: 5/15/2003
Member: #407
3/22/2008  6:51 PM
The point to me is why would any goverment or scientist etc... use black men to perform a syphillis experimentation without them fully knowing what was going on if they valued them as equal human beings.

The Syphilis Study did not give informed consent and the black men(mostly illiterate- sharecroppers) were not informed of their diagnosis; instead they were told they had "bad blood" and could receive free medical treatment, rides to the clinic, meals and burial insurance in case of death in return for participating.

Tuskegee scientists withheld penicillin and information about penicillin, purely to continue to study how the disease spreads and kills. Participants were also prevented from accessing syphilis treatment programs that were available to other people in the area. The study continued until 1972, when a leak to the press resulted in its termination.

So what would prevent scientist or goverment officials try anyhing like this after 1972 ?

As a result of public outcry, in 1972, an ad hoc advisory panel was appointed which determined the study was medically unjustified and ordered its termination. As part of a settlement of a class action lawsuit subsequently filed by NAACP, 9 million dollars and the promise of free medical treatment was given to surviving participants and surviving family members who had been infected as a consequence of the study.

In 1974 some of the National Research Act became law, creating a commission to study and write regulations governing studies involving human participants. On May 16, 1997, with five of the eight remaining survivors of the study attending the White House ceremony, President Bill Clinton formally apologized to Tuskegee study participants: "What was done cannot be undone, but we can end the silence ... We can stop turning our heads away. We can look at you in the eye, and finally say, on behalf of the American people, what the United States government did was shameful and I am sorry."


Infamous examples of real racism in the past such as Tuskegee Syphilis Study (1932-1972) have injured the level of trust in the black community towards public health efforts. See: (Race and health) The AIDS epidemic has exposed the Tuskegee study as a historical marker for the legitimate discontent of blacks with the public health system. The belief that AIDS is a form of genocide is rooted in recent experiences of racism. These theories range from the belief that the government promotes drug abuse in black communities to the belief that HIV is a manmade weapon of racial warfare. Researchers in public health hope that open and honest conversations about racism in the past can help.- Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

JAMES DOLAN on Isiah : He's a good friend of mine and of the organization and I will continue to solicit his views. He will always have strong ties to me and the team.
bitty41
Posts: 22316
Alba Posts: 5
Joined: 12/3/2006
Member: #1215
3/22/2008  6:51 PM
Wain-Hobson could have just easily slammed the piece especially for a couple of reasons one being he's an expert in this field and Hooper isn't even a scientist and this theory filies in the face of his own. So he could have very easily spent his entire piece trying to discredit Hooper.

Also where did I endorse Rev Wright's theory in any of my posts? Look I haven't even seen or read most of what Wright' statements. So I can't really speak about the questionable content of his words. But his words if you are bothered by them are having an affect on you because you allow it. Look no black person is going to be breaking into your house tonight to beat you up because of a Wright' sermon. As a women I am very sure that many of our nation's politicians associate with men that have less then a high opinion of women. Now do I sit in my house upset, pissed off, or scared about this no of course not. Because I have my own beliefs, core values, that I trust and no jerk or whatever will change that.

[Edited by - bitty41 on 03-22-2008 7:02 PM]
codeunknown
Posts: 22615
Alba Posts: 9
Joined: 7/14/2004
Member: #704
3/22/2008  7:01 PM
Bitty, you replied to my post - I was talking about Wright. He is the endpoint or at the very least an intermediate in this discussion. If your play in this discussion is merely to state the obvious that minority scientific views can sometimes gain credence - you're preaching to the choir.

Regarding Wain-Hobson, why would he spent an entire piece discrediting Hooper when he's already done that quite well in a 1998 Nature article. Hobson is making a greater point hostility in science. He's talking about the right to question and objectively evaluate theories.

Wright did not question - he declared genocide. It should be clear that that has been my main issue in this thread.
Sh-t in the popcorn to go with sh-t on the court. Its a theme show like Medieval times.
bitty41
Posts: 22316
Alba Posts: 5
Joined: 12/3/2006
Member: #1215
3/22/2008  7:03 PM
Posted by codeunknown:

Bitty, you replied to my post - I was talking about Wright. He is the endpoint or at the very least an intermediate in this discussion. If your play in this discussion is merely to state the obvious that minority scientific views can sometimes gain credence - you're preaching to the choir.

Regarding Wain-Hobson, why would he spent an entire piece discrediting Hooper when he's already done that quite well in a 1998 Nature article. Hobson is making a greater point hostility in science. He's talking about the right to question and objectively evaluate theories.

Wright did not question - he declared genocide. It should be clear that that has been my main issue in this thread.

I agree with that idea to "question and objectively evaluate theories" that really was my main point about all of this.

[Edited by - bitty41 on 03-22-2008 7:05 PM]

[Edited by - bitty41 on 03-22-2008 7:06 PM]
codeunknown
Posts: 22615
Alba Posts: 9
Joined: 7/14/2004
Member: #704
3/22/2008  7:10 PM
There are several articles.

Here's one abstract:

It has been suggested that chimpanzee kidney cultures may have been used in the preparation of oral polio vaccine stocks used in Africa during the late 1950s, and so could have introduced the primate precursor of the immunodeficiency virus HIV-1 into humans1, 2. Here we analyse frozen samples of the suspect vaccine by using the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) to amplify any HIV-1-related nucleic acids or chimpanzee mitochondrial DNA that might be present, but we have failed to detect either. Our findings do not support the hypothesis that HIV-1 was introduced by oral vaccination against poliovirus.

Sh-t in the popcorn to go with sh-t on the court. Its a theme show like Medieval times.
codeunknown
Posts: 22615
Alba Posts: 9
Joined: 7/14/2004
Member: #704
3/22/2008  7:11 PM
Posted by bitty41:
Posted by codeunknown:

Bitty, you replied to my post - I was talking about Wright. He is the endpoint or at the very least an intermediate in this discussion. If your play in this discussion is merely to state the obvious that minority scientific views can sometimes gain credence - you're preaching to the choir.

Regarding Wain-Hobson, why would he spent an entire piece discrediting Hooper when he's already done that quite well in a 1998 Nature article. Hobson is making a greater point hostility in science. He's talking about the right to question and objectively evaluate theories.

Wright did not question - he declared genocide. It should be clear that that has been my main issue in this thread.

I agree with that idea to "question and objectively evaluate theories" that really was my main point about all of this.

[Edited by - bitty41 on 03-22-2008 7:05 PM]

[Edited by - bitty41 on 03-22-2008 7:06 PM]

Good, then we agree. Wright doesn't though.
Sh-t in the popcorn to go with sh-t on the court. Its a theme show like Medieval times.
simrud
Posts: 23392
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 10/13/2003
Member: #474
USA
3/22/2008  7:14 PM
Earl, of course slavery is the root of the entire problem. And no I'm not saying that segregation was a good thing.

What I'm saying is that before desegregation, the black community, against all odds was able to make incredible progress. Even after, despite the the black elites abandoning the struggling majority and the the struggling majority likewise turning on successful blacks, it took the crack epidemic to completely set progress back to post WWII levels on all measurements of success.

A glimmer of hope maybe?!?
Page 13 of 18 « First‹ Previous 11  12  13  14  15 Next ›Last »
« Reply To Topic
OT: Taking down Obama with the race card
Forum Index  ›  Off-Topic Forum

©2001-2025 ultimateknicks.comm All rights reserved. About Us.
This site is not affiliated with the NY Knicks or the National Basketball Association in any way.
You may visit the official NY Knicks web site by clicking here.

All times (GMT-05:00) Eastern Time.

Terms of Use and Privacy Policy