Re: Johnson on AIDS

From: George Murphy (
Date: Mon Mar 17 2003 - 12:16:16 EST

  • Next message: Michael Roberts: "Re: Encyclopaedia on Creationists' Fraudulent Claims." wrote:
    > Bob writes:
    > >Here is the latest that Johnson has written on his view of the HIV/AIDS
    > >situation, as far as I know. If you read this you will see that his
    > >criticism is primarily with how HIV is transmitted. I'll let him speak for
    > >himself. And read the two articles, one from Independent (Johannesburg) >
    > >February 20, 2003, and the other from Globe and Mail Editorial (Toronto)
    > >Saturday, February 22, 2003, Page A20.
    > >
    > >Hope this helps.
    > >
    > >Bob
    > Thanks for the update, Bob. Sounds like he's still pals with Duesberg
    > and dishing out the same sort of selective historic revisionism.
    > Although the articles discuss HIV transmission, the early paragraphs
    > strongly suggest that he still denies the relationship between HIV and
    > AIDS. *sigh*
    > Note the following: PJ writes, "This sleight of hand came naturally
    > to the virus hunters at the National Cancer Institute, who had
    > invented the HIV theory of AIDS after they had wasted many billions
    > searching for a viral cause of cancer and needed a new "deadly virus"
    > to justify their huge funding."
    > They "invented" the HIV theory of AIDS, eh? Ha! That stillborn, pathetic
    > claim has been around since the late 1980s (If anyone believes that I've
    > also got the shocking story that Darwin recanted evolution on his deathbed...)
    > Or maybe the true story was that researchers found a previously unknown
    > virus that was not only responsible for killing many homosexuals and IV
    > drug abusers but was also getting into the nation's blood supply system
    > (additionally killing thousands of hemophiliacs and transfusion patients
    > like Arthur Ashe as a consequence).
    > But hey, if one assumes that most of science is little more than a
    > political exercise, who knows what to think? That's kind of a post-
    > modern viewpoint, isn't it?

            Johnson's notion that he's an expert not only on law but also on evolution,
    theology, virology & probably other things reminds me of a story about Wilhelm Reich.
    He was a controversial though competent psychiatrist who had to leave Germany when
    Hitler came to power. He came to believe that he had discovered a new physical force,
    "orgone energy" which was manifested in the orgasm but also in many other phenomena.
    He was able to get a meeting with Einstein because he'd been persecuted by the Nazis,
    and Einstein listened patiently as Reich explained how, after being the greatest
    psychiatrist in the world, he had also become a great physicsist. Finally Einstein
    asked, "What else do you do?"

    George L. Murphy

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Mar 17 2003 - 12:29:50 EST