On Thu, 06 Jan 2000 10:54:30 GMT, "Thomas Keske" <TKeske at mediaone.net>
>If anyone here wants to make an intelligent critique for a change,
>here is a question:
The irony is sickening.
>>I've barely started to look into "mycoplasma", after having seen
>references to mycoplasmas relating to AIDS and Gulf War.
Sorry, that's not a question.
>>I initially had an impression that "mycoplasma" was something new or
>exotic. After looking a bit more, I'm getting the impression that it is
>something old and commonplace.
>>I'm also getting the impression that "mycoplasma", apparently long known
>most as a cause of a type of pneumonia, might be too broad of a category for
>to meaningful to evaluate the state of "general" knowledge about them.
>>To what degree are different mycoplasmas tied together with similar
>properties that distinguish them as a unique type of pathogen?
Here's a question! Answered adequately by the preceeding post.
The answer is yes. They are bacteria that lack cell walls.
>>Or is this so broad of a grouping, that the only fruitful course of
>would be to look at the history of experiments with very specific
>mycoplasmas, not mycoplasmas in general?
I would say both.
>>By the way, I am not trying here so much to be "expert witness"
>microbiologist, as I am trying to be a lawyer for the prosecution,
>with a specific goal of influencing the jury for a conviction.
>>If I had an OJ Simpson jury, I would probably try to put every
>bit of research in its worst possible, most suspicious light. If there
>is research related to "infectious infertility", I would remind them
>of the South African scientists trying to sterilize blacks, etc.
>>I'm sure that you hate lawyers (so do I). So sue me. Actually,
>don't try to sue me- I'm a "lawyer," and you'll get burned. It is a lesson
>of why your society should not make their job so easy, with
>the racist hate of authority figures.
>>It is inevitable that there is a degree of "advocacy". You are
>hypocritical to pretend that your profession does not exhibit
>the very same thing. You try to make profit, please your sponsors,
>get new funding, etc.
>>In a way, it is not so bad. You have two advocates, on two sides,
>trying to frame everything as best they can to persuade a jury.
>Truth can tend to fall out even from mutually biased presentations
>(excluding instances like the OJ trial, where resentment and
>suspicion carry the day).
>>I have a bottom-line conclusion of probable guilt in human
>actions precipitating the AIDS epidemic. I will pursue aggressively,
>like a prosecting attorney, giving no benefit of doubt, trying to make
>the case as incriminating as possible. No apologies for that- the
>propaganda power of our government is tremendous compared
>to mine, and they have all the advantages. What will give me
>advantage is the fact of a toxic-waste dump of a right-wing
>GOP, brimming with outright hate-mongers: may the
>OJ phenomenon carry the day, but this time for a truth instead
>of a travesty.
dmj7 at bellsouth.net