Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!nih-csl!csl-sun3.dcrt.nih.gov!jim
From: jim@csl-sun3.dcrt.nih.gov (jim sullivan)
Newsgroups: sci.bio
Subject: Re: Mosquitoes etc.
Keywords: thanks
Message-ID: <1177@nih-csl.UUCP>
Date: 29 Aug 89 13:53:47 GMT
References: <9397@chinet.chi.il.us>
Sender: news@nih-csl.UUCP
Lines: 124

In article <9397@chinet.chi.il.us>, arf@chinet.chi.il.us (Jack
Schmidling) writes:
> pol/e7 
> From: binkley@boulder.Colorado.EDU (Jon Binkley) 
> Subject: Re: What's the Why and How of Mosquito Bites? 
>  
> > I don't see where Russell changed the subject.  He states   
> >very clearly that the only diseases which mosquitoes can   
> >transmit are ones which also infect the mosquito.  
> >  
> >ARF says:  
> >  
> >I doubt that he said that.  If he did, he is wrong.  Did you   
> >ever see mosquito die of malaria?  
>  
> >I'm amazed by this guy.  How could someone so bloody ignorant be 
> >so arrogant? 
>  
> ARF says: 
>  
> Why don't you try answering the question instead of an inane personal attack?

	Well, jumping in the middle of this would seem dangerous
	after reading this discussion so far but I can't let this
	go by...
	How many infections has ARF had that killed him.  Malaria
	*does* infect the mosquito.  I think (am not sure) that it
	kills it as well.  It does at least become infected when it
	bites a person infected with malaria.  The life cycle of
	the disease has been very well documented for many years.
	I'd outline it here but I do not have my references handy.
	Has ARF even tried to pick up a reference book on this?

> (Russell Turpin) says: 
>  
> >Who, pray tell, is manufacturing data?  The major fabrication I 
> >see is the specious implication that something is scientific 
> >evidence only if it is garnered by controlled experiment, and 
> >that observation and statistical analysis do not count.  
> > 
> >Since Galen....... 
>  
> ARF says: 
>  
> Excellent and persuasive stuff.  Thank you for your input. 

	I don't know what else Mr. Turpin said in the article
	but his statement above is correct in that data is
	gathered in many forms.  Science has determined over the
	many years what is acceptable and convincing and what
	is not.  Statistics is a very good example of science
	defining what data will be considered as evidence
	of a phenomenon and what will not.  Most evidence of
	the AIDS virus at first was gathered as statistical
	data derived from hospital records since, when it became
	first known to be a disease, there was no known cause of
	AIDS.  But, through statistics, it was known how it was 
	transmitted and that it *could* be transmitted *and* there
	was NO evidence of transmission through casual contact
	and that has been supported as more data has become
	available.  AIDS has been around now, at least known
	to be here in the USA, for 10 years.  The number of
	unexplained infections are *very* small.
>  
> >Perhaps it is because ARF is confused about the nature of 
> scientific work that he is so suspicious of the way scientists 
> are studying AIDS.  
>  
> My problem with the scientists is that most of the ones working on
AIDS work  
> for Big Brother and I have monumental suspicions of any information coming  
> out of the government. 

	I have no problem with being suspicious of the government, that
	is part of the America culture.  But, there are thousands
	of researchers working on the AIDS virus.  The virus is
	being grown and is one of the most studied viruses in history.
	To continue this work on such a large scale, and in many countries,
	*and* to put a clamp on the results is at best a stretch
	of a paranoid imagination.  It reminds me of those who propose
	the government is keeping a clamp on a cancer cure.  It
	feeds those whose paranoia needs feeding.  Jezzzz, the govt
	can't even keep things like the stealth bomber secret.
	Get real and calm down.
>  
> Another problem I have with the scientists on this issue is the political  
> nature of it.  There is a politically active group in this country that has  
> succeded in the fight for civil rights of the AIDS virus.  No other deadly  
> disease has ever been coddled and dealt with in the way that AIDS has.   
> Obviously, if the scientist happens to belong to that politically active  
> group, his results are suspect. 

	What is being fought is the paranoia and disinformation campaign
	waged by those who, I believe, really feel that a conspiracy is
	going on, even though there is no evidence to support it.
	Do you really think the lab technicians who are paid meager
	wages and do most of the lab work could keep their mouths shut
	about a conspiracy?  Look at the notariety that Dr. Gallo at NIH
	received when he (ok, and the french :^) isolated the virus.
	Do you think he did it alone in a lab.  He has many technicians
	as well as post-docs who would love to be propelled into
	bigger and better things by making a new discovery.
	If you have concluded that a deception exists, show some
	evidence of it and how the deception is being kept *so* secret.
>  
>                      ......................... 
>  
> I would like to thank everyone who participated in this discussion for
their  
> inputs.  I think the politics probably prevent it from going much farther  
> until or unless the big experiment is performed or simulated.  I certainly  
> learned a lot but will still avoid botanizing in the forest preserves on  
> weekends. 
>  
> The Amateur Radio Forum (arf) 

	I am a little troubled by a signiture which seems to be a group
	of people called the amiture radio forum but speeks in the
	first person throughout this discussion.  Is this really the
	statements of a group of people or of one person.  I'd really
	like to know.  I mean, talk about deceptions and conspiracies!

					Jim Sullivan
					jim@alw.nih.gov