tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post7891659648391369375..comments2020-04-11T03:30:02.282-05:00Gary R. Welshhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15185079937305083438noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post-63223537522498233082008-08-05T10:56:00.000-05:002008-08-05T10:56:00.000-05:00More interesting report about mainstream media AIDS reporting:<BR/><BR/>http://liamscheff.com/daily/2008/08/03/journalism-ethics-101-my-conversations-with-new-york-times-reporter-janny-scott/Manuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03735551145549081599noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post-36223248461778630782008-08-04T00:29:00.000-05:002008-08-04T00:29:00.000-05:00Shofar, I couldn't agree more. That's why I have so much problem with the global warming people. They from the outset try to shut down any debate whether man is actually causing, to any signficant degree, global warming...and whether the consequences of that are actually bad. It's an approach that is completely anti-intellectual.<BR/><BR/>The minute a scientist dares stick his head out and question the orthodoxy on global warming, his motivation is called into question and invevitably there will be an attempt to connect him to "big oil." But in actuality it's the scientists on the other side who are seeing a financial windfall from the global warming hysteria. Keeping the hysteria going is good for government grants and other funding for their research. It's a major cash cow to these global warming scientists. <BR/><BR/>Many people don't know that Al Gore has his own company set up that cashes in big time on the global warming hysteria. Yet his motives never get questioned.<BR/><BR/>Sorry to hijack the discussion, AI. I'll be quiet now.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08899023066910200507noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post-81479248305384286062008-08-03T23:59:00.000-05:002008-08-03T23:59:00.000-05:00I was pleased to see this article and I went to the source and read the entire report (it is indeed long).<BR/><BR/>I had been aware that, basically, federal AIDS research dollars were not given to anyone not doing HIV specific research. However, it is long accepted that one can get HIV but never develop AIDS and I have always felt a more open mind in the government/scientific community was needed on this subject.<BR/><BR/>I'm not one to wholly embrace conspiracy theories of any sort, but one does have to wonder when the door to open dialogue is so harshly slammed shut.<BR/><BR/>In talking with several people during the special election cycle I didn't find anyone, including in the LGBT community, that had a lot of information or a strong opinion on HIV only research funding and it was something I was specifically curious about leading up to the Indiana Equality debate.Sean Shepardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04784017076656340302noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post-68972028639581085312008-08-03T22:39:00.000-05:002008-08-03T22:39:00.000-05:00Whenever scientists says that any further discussion is unwarranted or unneeded, and that "their" science is true I automatically doubt what they have postulated.<BR/><BR/>This goes for global warming, evolution vs. intelligent design, and HIV/AIDS. The only way for science to progress is for right minded versus like minded people to have a open, honest discussion, and allow all the facts to come to the surface.<BR/><BR/>Anything else is intellectual dishonesty.Shofarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10797039592108775302noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post-35605094841259364242008-08-03T21:44:00.000-05:002008-08-03T21:44:00.000-05:00Hmmm, exaggerated claims so scientists could get more grants and other research dollars. That sounds exactly like the man is causing global waring hysteria.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08899023066910200507noreply@blogger.com