Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.csd.uwm.edu!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!ginosko!uunet!nih-csl!csl-sun3.dcrt.nih.gov!jim
From: jim@csl-sun3.dcrt.nih.gov (jim sullivan)
Newsgroups: sci.bio
Subject: Re: Mosquitos & AIDS
Message-ID: <1187@nih-csl.UUCP>
Date: 5 Sep 89 18:56:08 GMT
References: <26871@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU>
Sender: news@nih-csl.UUCP
Lines: 39

<1989Aug23.144136.27580@utzoo.uucp> <21596@cup.portal.com>
<26867@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU>
Distribution: world

In article <26871@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU>, chinet!arf@att.att.com writes:

> ARF says: 
>  
> In summary, it was agreed that Big Brother's dis-information  
> was necessary to protect the rights of HIV not to be  
> persecuted and to maintain a steady market for AZT. 
>  
> The Amateur Radio Forum (arf) 

	Yea... that's it!  Fool the country so that the big drug
	companies can come in with an expensive cure... no, no, no,
	a treatment... yea... 

	Jezzzzz, where did the ARF, whatever that is, come up with such
	garbage.  I remember the late 70s when AIDS was just breaking 
	into the news.  This kind of garbage was everywhere.  And
	after 10 years, 10 YEARS, this stuff is still being spouted!
	To make such a claim you (ARF) had better have a lot of *good*
	evidence.  So far, all the evidence is against your position.
	ARF has offered nothing convincing, none except the vague government
	conspiracy BS, which is not evidence, just an excuse to push
	the burden of proof off their own shoulders.  If HIV was so
	contagious as you state, where are the people who caught the
	disease in a casual way (non-homosexual, non-IV-drug user, non-
	high-risk-group)?  Why would the Reagan administration *want* to
	protect the rights of HIV infected people when they could have
	infected the rest of the population? 

	In summary, the burden of proof is on ARF to backup his/their/whatever
	claims.  By not doing this, their claims have no validity and
	should be ignored.

						Jim Sullivan
						jim@alw.nih.gov