Question: I know you've been going on this thing about the AIDS/HIV connection for some time and you've taken a lot of flack for it. I was wondering; Why do you do it? I mean, what do you care for the debate? Why are you so engaged?
I'm not trying to attack you or anything. I can't recall you ever talking about it.
Kevin: Not Dean, but fwiw, two things make me care for the debate:
1) I studied the physical sciences in my youth and have an idea of what the scientific process (ie, 'scientific method') is supposed to be about. I wouldn't go so far as to say science was my 'religion', but I did have great faith in science due to the (supposed) process. With respect to AIDS research, the process has been flushed down the shitter. Dissent should be embraced. Dissenters shouldn't be blackballed from funding, publication, and professionally. Especially high caliber scientists. This bothers me a great deal.
2) The HIV hypothesis seems to me (after several years of moderately intense research on my part) to be extremely weak. Certainly weak enough to have questions about it addressed. If the hypothesis is wrong, the opportunity cost of the money thrown away researching it is mind-boggling. Thousands and thousands of lives lost. It's so f**king sad and wrong. That bothers me.
I ran across something interesting in the preface to _Road to Serfdom_ recently. Hayek said that some socialist intellectuals, at the time the book was published, took great pride in *not* reading the book and at the same time being very critical of it. Very similar to the HIV/AIDS situation - virtually identical to Moore's (non)response to the Perth group.
In my struggle to answer the question 'how did things go so wrong?' I'm beginning to think that scientists (be they physicists, virologists, economists, or whatever) are incapable of self-governance, especially with respect to their public subsidization. This poses a challenge because it's going to be difficult for 'lay-people' to govern scientists because of the disparity of knowledge. When I come up with a proposal to solve this problem I'll let you guys know ;)
Also consider the precedent that the HIV/AIDS process may be setting for other areas of scientific research, such as climate change. Now perhaps both are independently having the same kinds of functions ('establishment' trying to silence dissent, vindictive review and funding decisions, etc), but is this a trend that we want to continue when the next unknown pops up? Do we want to have the next global issue be dominated by the first idea ginned up and have all other ideas shouted down? Or do we make a stand for a true scientific process here in order to establish THAT as the pattern for the future?
The scientific status quo you have a problem with isn't affecting only this particular question, unfortunately. It's infected something as mundane as forestry science as well. Who knows what all else. (there's a great blog based out of Oregon about forests at www.sosforests.com. Mike is something of a maverick as far as foresters in Oregon go)
The scientific status quo you have a problem with isn't affecting only this particular question, unfortunately. It's infected something as mundane as forestry science as well. Who knows what all else.
::cough::Intelligent Design::cough::
Hmm, what? No, I didn't say anything. What a silly question to ask.
Exactly. I don't think this is just an HIV research issue, and it's not a precedent. This is pretty dry reading (the actual book, not the review) but it addresses the point:
Right. I mean, what's happening in this debate is the same with other unpolular theories like Intelligent Design and anti-global warming proponents.
You can disagee with ID and think global warming science is spot on but it's quite another to accuse the former of trying to get God into the class room and the latter for being big business shills just to avoid the debate!
Kevin, like ckd, not Dean, but here's my reasoning:
I think the principle is "light is the best disinfectant." The claims that are made, whether they be:
"HIV causes AIDS"
"global warming is caused primarily by humans"
"the Catholic Church possesses the authority of Christ"
"the Democratic Party is the party of the little guy"
"the Republican Party is the party of small government"
Should be able to stand up to scrutiny. The proper answer to an apparent contradiction isn't "we don't count that part," but perhaps "I'm sure it works, but let's take a look at it to see how" would suffice.
That's an interesting question: why do I care about this?
There are several answers. But the first and foremost is all the sliming and abuse I've gotten, including from people I once respected and that I thought of (wrongly, obviously) as friends. When people are that irrational and abusive for such an intense and sustained period, generally speaking my instinct is to do the opposite of give up.
Second: after studying this intensely for more than ten years, it's entirely apparent to me that at bare minimum there's something very wrong here, and furthermore, we have spent more billions of dollars and more years studying this tiny little 9-gene virus than we spent putting a man into space and onto the moon. Yet still they cannot answer the most fundamental questions about it like "how exactly does it kill t-cells" and "what are your exact odds of becoming sick from it if you contract it and struggle to live a healthy, drug-free life?" They have no simple, coherent answers for that, and that's a problem.
Third: I've become friends with some of the scientists who are skeptics in this community. Some of them have political views I disagree with, some don't, but few are wildly outside of the mainstream. Few if any of them believe in conspiracy theories. None are racists. None are homophobes to any deep degree.
Fifth: It's entirely apparent at this point that quite a few people were unnecessarily killed iatrogenically by inappropriate medical treatments. Indeed, even members of the HIV establishment now admit that this is entirely true--and they just shrug it off as "hey, we were doing our best at the time." Not good enough.
Sixth: Read Out of Control by Celia Farber. Pay particular attention to the stories of Joyce Ann Hafford. Then realize: people like her, and many children as well, are being put in these obscene treatment programs. It's despicable.
What I find hard to believe is how many people DON'T care. This is a horror story.
Question: I know you've been going on this thing about the AIDS/HIV connection for some time and you've taken a lot of flack for it. I was wondering; Why do you do it? I mean, what do you care for the debate? Why are you so engaged?
I'm not trying to attack you or anything. I can't recall you ever talking about it.
1) I studied the physical sciences in my youth and have an idea of what the scientific process (ie, 'scientific method') is supposed to be about. I wouldn't go so far as to say science was my 'religion', but I did have great faith in science due to the (supposed) process. With respect to AIDS research, the process has been flushed down the shitter. Dissent should be embraced. Dissenters shouldn't be blackballed from funding, publication, and professionally. Especially high caliber scientists. This bothers me a great deal.
2) The HIV hypothesis seems to me (after several years of moderately intense research on my part) to be extremely weak. Certainly weak enough to have questions about it addressed. If the hypothesis is wrong, the opportunity cost of the money thrown away researching it is mind-boggling. Thousands and thousands of lives lost. It's so f**king sad and wrong. That bothers me.
I ran across something interesting in the preface to _Road to Serfdom_ recently. Hayek said that some socialist intellectuals, at the time the book was published, took great pride in *not* reading the book and at the same time being very critical of it. Very similar to the HIV/AIDS situation - virtually identical to Moore's (non)response to the Perth group.
In my struggle to answer the question 'how did things go so wrong?' I'm beginning to think that scientists (be they physicists, virologists, economists, or whatever) are incapable of self-governance, especially with respect to their public subsidization. This poses a challenge because it's going to be difficult for 'lay-people' to govern scientists because of the disparity of knowledge. When I come up with a proposal to solve this problem I'll let you guys know ;)
-ckd
Moneyball
We don't need to hear that evolution crap, either. And frankly, we didn't need to know the Earth went around the Sun.
I would just like to add, "unprotected" sexual intercourse.
::cough::Intelligent Design::cough::
Hmm, what? No, I didn't say anything. What a silly question to ask.
book review
Ever since scientists have been sponsored this has been a problem. A problem I don't think has been resolved.
You can disagee with ID and think global warming science is spot on but it's quite another to accuse the former of trying to get God into the class room and the latter for being big business shills just to avoid the debate!
I think the principle is "light is the best disinfectant." The claims that are made, whether they be:
"HIV causes AIDS"
"global warming is caused primarily by humans"
"the Catholic Church possesses the authority of Christ"
"the Democratic Party is the party of the little guy"
"the Republican Party is the party of small government"
Should be able to stand up to scrutiny. The proper answer to an apparent contradiction isn't "we don't count that part," but perhaps "I'm sure it works, but let's take a look at it to see how" would suffice.
I question that one too!
There are several answers. But the first and foremost is all the sliming and abuse I've gotten, including from people I once respected and that I thought of (wrongly, obviously) as friends. When people are that irrational and abusive for such an intense and sustained period, generally speaking my instinct is to do the opposite of give up.
Second: after studying this intensely for more than ten years, it's entirely apparent to me that at bare minimum there's something very wrong here, and furthermore, we have spent more billions of dollars and more years studying this tiny little 9-gene virus than we spent putting a man into space and onto the moon. Yet still they cannot answer the most fundamental questions about it like "how exactly does it kill t-cells" and "what are your exact odds of becoming sick from it if you contract it and struggle to live a healthy, drug-free life?" They have no simple, coherent answers for that, and that's a problem.
Third: I've become friends with some of the scientists who are skeptics in this community. Some of them have political views I disagree with, some don't, but few are wildly outside of the mainstream. Few if any of them believe in conspiracy theories. None are racists. None are homophobes to any deep degree.
Fifth: It's entirely apparent at this point that quite a few people were unnecessarily killed iatrogenically by inappropriate medical treatments. Indeed, even members of the HIV establishment now admit that this is entirely true--and they just shrug it off as "hey, we were doing our best at the time." Not good enough.
Sixth: Read Out of Control by Celia Farber. Pay particular attention to the stories of Joyce Ann Hafford. Then realize: people like her, and many children as well, are being put in these obscene treatment programs. It's despicable.
What I find hard to believe is how many people DON'T care. This is a horror story.