[Marxism] Mythery and Misery: "the clinical" as a category of economic calculation

Frank Lusardi flusardi at panix.com
Tue Feb 17 16:54:32 MST 2004

>>>> Message: 4
>>>> Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 00:34:32 -0500
>>>> From: Frank Lusardi <flusardi at panix.com>
>>>> Subject: Re: [Marxism] RE: The Manmade Origin of AIDS
>>>> To: Activists and scholars in Marxist tradition
>>>> 	<marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu>
>>>> Message-ID: <18055131174.20040216003432 at panix.com>
>>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>> Ah, there's the rub. On the comfortably white continents
>> there is no pandemic, never was, never will be. After twenty
>> years of an incurable plague, the infection rate in the the
>> U.S. is well below 1/2 of one percent, and over 60 percent
>> of U.S. AIDS "sufferers" are perfectly healthy. You'll have to
>> actually read the loopy CDC definition of AIDS to understand how
>> one can have AIDS and be perfectly healthy. Another of the
>> many, many inexplicable anomalies in AIDS "science".

> This is a little wishful (although I have a rule about that).  Firstly,
> it seems to me to be fundamentally unsound to use chauvinistic
> or crypto-chauvinistic concepts like "comfortably white" to
> indicate that large-scale social dynamics do not integrate
> the world system such that judgments of this nature can be
> well-advised rather than happening to be true.

Yes, that was needlessly snippy. Sorry. You know, if you
follow the AIDS stories, you have to wade through endless
racist caricatures of African culture and sexuality, and,
well, it's enough to make one downright ornery.

> Secondly, the loopy CDC definition is more or less "stipulative": that
> is to say, constitutive *globally* of what we are talking about here if
> not a physical illness (compare to African "slim", which could involve
> being unhealthy in other ways).  You're giving a factually
> unsound account of what it is to meet that
> definition (i.e., be very much
> less healthy than you were during an asymptomatic phase of
> infection); in other words, you're allowed to have all these
> thoughts but in general they partake of the psychological mechanism
> of "denial", that is to say anticipation of countervailing results.
> So unhealthy? No.  Not really an indictment of "junk science",
> though.

It is factual that you can be HIV+ (i.e., you have
antibodies) and have a low T-cell count (many "causes", not
all health related) *and* be perfectly healthy. But the CDC
would deem you an official AIDS statistic. No other country
would. No other country has accepted that part of the CDC
definition. And of course the "Bangui" definition, used in
Africa, doesn't even require an HIV test. I guess that's why
I used the word "comfort" above. When medical "definitions" are made
to slip and slide to fit different societies, I get
uncomfortable. I guess I just wish more people would.

>> This AIDS business (big, big business) is on-topic for this
>> list because the left has been woefully AWOL in critiquing
>> what is perhaps the greatest and most destructive blunder in
>> the history of science. Over the years Marx's great respect
>> for science has evolved into an uncritical genuflection
>> before any white-coated member of what is today an immense,
>> and immensely corrupt, state/corporate complex, far, far
>> removed from any form of genuine science.

> This is true, and there is really some question about whether
> recent and fairly substantial shifts in US mores concerning HIV
> infection have quite a bit to do with the
> "medical-scientific complex":
> i.e., that homosexual and bisexual men as well as IV drug users
> (although *not necessarily* other risk groups) are actually being
> interpellated as future triple-therapy *customers* in a way which
> would have been downright shocking to medical professionals of
> an earlier generation, i.e. receive the same prudential advice but
> with collateral discourse which weakens its imperatival force (that
> is, its interactional bindingness as "face" for the patient).  So
> shocking?  Only in its implications for the "standard of care"
> as a concept independent of the profit-motive and other system
> imperatives of the medical field (Personally, my advice today
> is to think twice about anything other than a trip to the emergency
> room -- and aren't you glad you can do that?  Maybe not).

Sound advice. Anyway, I didn't mean to burden the list with
the minutiae of my favorite bete noire. It's a fascinating
debate and one that we "AIDS dissidents" believe is massively
suppressed and I just wish a few more folks on the left
would have a look at it.

The Bangui definition of AIDS:

AIDS Definitions

A variety of causes and their implications to a
multifactorial model of AIDS

The Corporate Take Over of Science, by Mae-Wan Ho

Science Fictions: A Scientific Mystery, a Massive Cover-up,
and the Dark Legacy of Robert Gallo, by John Crewdson

And if you care for a bit of humor -

LAB RAT: What AIDS Researcher Dr. Robert Gallo Did in
Pursuit of the Nobel Prize

More information about the Marxism mailing list