HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nyeda@cnsvax.uwec.edu (David Nye)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.medicine
Subject: Re: The future of medicine
Date: 12 Jan 93 14:24:03 -0600
Organization: University of Wisconsin Eau Claire

[reply to jlove@ivrit.ra.itd.umich.edu]
 
 
>>>While my suggestions are not quite as radical as shooting all the
>>>lawyers and destroying all the insurance companies, they would result
>>>in some additional unemployment in both professions. :-)
 
>>If they contribute nothing to the quality of health care, they have no
>>right a slice of the pie.
 
>But they do contribute something.
 
I didn't make myself clear.  Both perform services but they are
financial ones which don't directly affect health care quality.  Perhaps
the public, when apprised of the costs of having multiple payors and of
the right to sue for malpractice, will feel that they are worth what we
are paying for them, but I'll bet they won't.
 
>I'm not sure why you are specifying that the panel be composed of
>physicians. Any such panel would have to have the public's trust, and
>this would seem to me to mandate a more diverse composition.
 
Because medicine is complicated enough that someone who is not trained
as a physician will have trouble telling when malpractice occurred.

David Nye
nyeda@cnsvax.uwec.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.medicine,alt.activism,misc.headlines
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: AIDS risk/Duesberg
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 01:32:43 GMT

In article <C05MH4.Mur@umassd.edu> pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU writes:
}SG	This is seriously bizarre. An alleged scientist claiming that faith 
}leads to proof while science leads to...? As Kant, the leading modern 
}intellectual influence said, "I have limited knowledge therefore, to make from 
}for faith." Weiner is obviously a student of Kant.

Look, this is nonsense!  If indeed the best evidence is the correlation between
AIDS and HIV, then we have to operate on it in order to try to save lives.
Noting the absence of controlled study doesn't make Weiner a Kantian.

Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Francois Marie Arouet Voltaire
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.medicine
Subject: Re: AIDS risk/Duesberg
Date: 6 Jan 93 19:13:14 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)

In article <1993Jan6.014315.1914@genie.slhs.udel.edu>, starr@genie (Tim Starr) writes:
>}		  Of course this is ridiculous--there simply are no uniform
>}standards of proof in science.  Each individual scientist has his turning
>}point regarding when the mass of accumulating evidence is convincing.  And
>}usually a somewhat higher point that is considered incontrovertible proof.

>No uniform standards?  That seems too wide for me.

It may seem too wide to you, but it's a fact of scientific life.

>						     I thought that controlled
>studies were the standard for all theories with predictive potential.

You thought wrong, not that this would matter.  Even controlled studies
are subject to all sorts of debate. 
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.medicine
From: bhjelle@hydra.unm.edu ()
Subject: Re: AIDS risk/Duesberg
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 93 19:42:13 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

In article <103726@netnews.upenn.edu> weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
>In article <-tsrq8b@lynx.unm.edu>, bhjelle@carina writes:
>>In article <C01DJ3.5DF@umassd.edu> pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU writes:

>>>asked if D's claim that there is NO peer-reviewd paper proving HIV
>>>causes AIDS can be contradicted. No has identified any such paper.
>
>>The 3 back-to-back Science papers by Gallo's lab in 1984 proved
>>that HIV causes AIDS.
>
>I want to disagree, but first a diversion.  We find here an interesting

Your disagreement doesn't help. The Gallo papers were highly convincing,
and proved that HIV causes AIDS to the satisfaction of the
community of biomedical scientists. By citing these papers, the
burden is placed on the uninformed poster who "threw the gauntlet".

>A creationist once asked in talk.origins when was the "fact of evolution"
>considered proven.  He got numerous answers, and thought that this range
>of answers clinched the case that scientists don't know what they're
>talking about.  Of course this is ridiculous--there simply are no uniform
>standards of proof in science.  Each individual scientist has his turning

Of course this is true. I repeat, however, that the vast majority
of biologists and physicians were convinced by Gallo's 1984 papers
beyond any reasonable doubt. As with evolution, higher levels of
convinction occur as study after study support the underlying
premise in innumerable large and small ways.

>Which brings us to the end of the diversion.  I'd disagree that the 1984
>NCI papers were _proof_, although I agree they were damned convincing.
>Proof, in my mathematical eyes, has been more recent.  Two stand out

[blood banking cases, which definitely constitute major support
for the HIV-AIDS link]

>their donation, puts a bullseye on HIV.  As does the ability of AZT, a
>reverse transcriptase inhibitor, to delay the onset of AIDS.  By a not

Pharmacologic data are very soft indicators of etiology, especially
given AZT's less-than-overwhelming efficacy.

I regard the most convincing evidence that HIV causes AIDS to be
the following:

1. Minimal innoculations such as needlesticks, in people with
no "drug lifestyle" or other risk behaviors, cause AIDS  *only*
when HIV is transmitted. This is the closest clinical counterpart
to:

2. Monkeys, given ultrapurified (ie, molecularly cloned) SIV
(a close relative of HIV) develop AIDS.

>>>The gauntlet has been thrown!
>
>No, just your brain has been hurled against a wall too many times.
>-- 
Your argument appears to be letting Rand off the hook. 
Rather than hurl pointless insults at him while allowing him
to avoid a refutation of his challenge, it would be better to
demand that he show us why Gallo's 1984 papers do  *not*  prove
that HIV causes AIDS.

Brian



Newsgroups: talk.politics.medicine
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 00:23:43 CST
From: <U60001@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.medicine
Subject: Music vs. chemical reactions in the body

Is there any relationship between different kind of music and the
releases of certain chemical substances into the blood causing
different emotional reactions?. i.e. when you listen to crazy style
rock musics due to some chimcal reations you become maybe violent!!?


Anyway I was just thinking about this. Let me know of your views with
scientific facts behind it.---
From: rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Hunter Kills Jogger
Date: 8 Jan 93 21:49:52 GMT
	<RIGG.92Dec31133046@osnome.che.wisc.edu>
	<lkradpINNig1@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>
Organization: University of Wisconsin-Madison, Chemical Engineering
In-reply-to: banta@abingdon.Eng.Sun.COM's message of 8 Jan 1993 16:20:09 GMT

In article <lkradpINNig1@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> banta@abingdon.Eng.Sun.COM (242 lbs before cooking) writes:
   (Tim Rigg) writes:
   >   ...   A Norwich hunter who fatally shot a man he mistook for a deer
   >   in 1988 was sentenced this summer to six years in prison after
   >   being convicted of second-degree manslaughter.
   >
   >This is what should happen to all "hunters" who make such a stupid error! 

   Oh, bravo, Tim.  Your succinct affirmation of United States justice
   strikes fear into the hearts of hunters everywhere.

   I'm quivering in my boots right now.

   Sod off.

I am thoroughly confused by your followup.  What did you want?  an 800
line thesis on why hunters should be responsible for their actions?  a
long post detailing why real hunters do not make such errors?  Your 4
line reply just doesn't cut it.

Perhaps I should have elaborated a little bit for some folks.  Here is
that elaboration.  I am an avid deer hunter and I am very tired of
folks thinking that "typical" hunters shoot at anything that moves and
all other hunters accept and support such actions.  I can imagine
shooting at something running through the woods without properly
identifying it and the background behind the animal.  Anyne who shoots
without checking first should considered to be analogous to someone
who speeds through a parkig lot with his eyes closed because he
thought he saw a parking space at the other end.

tim
--
    ...  Then they came for me,
	   and by that time there was no one
	     left to speak up for me. (Rev. Martin Niemoller, 1945)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach)
Subject: Re: Colorado Hunters under attack
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 03:13:47 GMT

In article <1iaid3INNjkd@agate.berkeley.edu> sherw@ocf.berkeley.edu (Gregory Sherwin) writes:
>In article <1993Jan4.221422.26200@Firewall.Nielsen.Com> jkapson@ad-29.Naitc.Com (John Kapson) writes:
>>Nonsense.  Hunting is a means to put food on my table economically and I
>>don't consider that a sport.
>
>Okay - then if this is the true purpose of hunting for you, then I have no
>complaint.  I think that is a perfectly valid reason.  However, you made no
>claims to some sort of "heritage" nor are you doing it for recreational
>purposes - which I think is true of a good majority of hunters I know.
>That is the sport - the reason for many magazines, for gun sales in sporting
>goods stores (eg. Sportmart), etc. - and the reason I don't find hunting ethical
>for the most part.  By using hunting for a means of sustenance, you
>are an exception to that.
>
>greg

I think most of us do it for a variety of reasons. Sport, food, recreation,
or whatever. I don't really know what you mean by hunting being unethical.
Though a hunter, I have what I call a set of ethics that govern my hunting.
Is it hunting in particular, or are you simply against use/killing of other
animals for food or any other reason?
   Although I call it recreation (fresh air, exercise, and not absolutely 
necessary to my survival) I don't feel the term does justice to the range
of emotions experienced. Going into the wild, discovering and deciphering
the ways of the target species, and (hopefully) putting food on my family's
table gives me a sense of accomplishment and pride that I don't get by 
going to work in a research lab and bringing home a paycheck with which to
buy food raised and killed by someone else. Sad to say I lack the skills to
adequately explain this.

Jeff Achenbach
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca ()
Subject: Re: Silver Spring monkeys
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 19:00:45 GMT

In <C0I9p8.Iw5@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

>From article <C0I2L3.GJG@ccu.umanitoba.ca>, by ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca ():
>> In <C0Gytp.9Iy@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>>>> Giving birth hurts too, but surely you wouldn't say that it is wrong.
>>>> Sometimes pain is acceptable, sometimes it's not. What is acceptable
>>>> is determined by convention.

[...]
>>>(Yes, I realize that pain isn't always bad).

>> So you need another example of how facts and arguments tell you 
>> what is wrong and what is right.

>Not really.  Would it be "good" or "bad" if I were to torture you,
>without your consent, of course?   Or, would you say that the goodness
>or badness of such an action would depend upon conventions?

You are (rhetorically) stating that torture is bad, as an axiom. Your
example was supposed to show the 'facts and arguments' that led
to that conclusion.

I would agree that torture by itself is bad (i.e. not acceptable).
But learning piano is good, and to listen to my 8-year old, it
involves a lot of torture.

Werner

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca ()
Subject: Re: Humans on the food chain
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 04:26:29 GMT

In <C0qwws.LBL@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca> farm@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (B. Munroe) writes:

>It seems a common argument for justifying the eating of meat is that
>the animals we eat are lower than us on the food chain and we (humans)
>therefore have the right to eat them.  From what I can tell, we share the
>upper echelon of the food chain with other large carnivores, such as
>lions, tigers, sharks, bears, etc.  Why is it that, when we eat other
>animals on the food chain, it is OK, but when other animals eat humans
>we are shocked and outraged (e.g. "Man Eating Shark Kills Surfer" 
>"Blood Thirsty Bear Ravages Campers").  If we are to accept our place
>on the food chain, doesn't that mean we sometimes have to be food?

I'm not sure what you don't understand.

Is it that we as a species eat other species but resist being eaten?
That seems like a reasonable principle for any self-respecting
species with an interest in propogation.

Is it that you think some people consider eating animals ethical but
consider being consumed unethical. You can rest easy; noone subscribes
to that contradiction.  A shark breakfasting on humans is no more
unethical than an earthquake. But both are feared and both make
sensational headlines.

Or is it that you don't understand the distinction between humans and
other animals that is so obvious to carnivores? Faced with the
alternative of starvation, would you rather kill a human for lunch or
kill a pig?  See, you know the distinction (although you might apply
it differently); you're just playing dumb.

Werner
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: jkapson@ad-29.Naitc.Com (John Kapson)
Subject: Re: Colorado Hunters under attack
Organization: AC Nielsen Co., Bannockburn IL
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 93 22:14:22 GMT

In article <1ia52dINNgdq@agate.berkeley.edu> sherw@ocf.berkeley.edu (Gregory Sherwin) writes:
[snip]
>Hunting has
>lost its relevance to human survival and it only remains for sport.  SPORT.

Nonsense.  Hunting is a means to put food on my table economically and I
don't consider that a sport.

>Believe it or not - I am pretty open-minded about these things...so differ
>with me if you'd like.

Consider yourself differed with.

+-----------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
|      John Kapson      | "Americans have a right and advantage of being  |
| NRA               ILA | armed -- unlike the citizens of other countries |
| jkapson@nis.naitc.com | whose governments are afraid to trust the       |
|                       | people with arms."      - James Madison,        |
|                       | The Federalist Papers No. 46 at 243-244.        |
+-----------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
|                  PGP Public Key available via email                     |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken)
Subject: Re: re:rights?
Organization: UNC-CH School of Medicine
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 15:28:34 GMT

In article <C0H0AD.9py@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>From article <mhulsey-060193092610@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu>, by mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey):
>> In article <C0EJun.Gw5@wpg.com>, russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) wrote:
>>> 
>>> From article <mhulsey-050193105134@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu>, by mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey):
>>>[...]
>>> As I pointed out previously, I've discussed this particular incident for 
>>> weeks-on-end on two separate occasions and I truly do not wish to dive
>>> into it without giving the topic a greater "rest".
>> 
>> Yes, you have discussed this topic for months-on-end without providing any
>> references to support your claims.  Before you "give the topic a rest," you
>> should provide these references, or retract your claim.  These are the same
>> standards that you and Bob Black set forth for me in a previous exchange.
>
>Was there a particular claim that you doubted?  
>
>I provided the full text of a reference just the other day, Martin.  When
>do you think you'll get around to posting some references, apart from
>Taub's own claims published in an opinionated newsletter, to support your 
>claims in the Silver Spring Monkey business?
>

The full text of A REF.  Get off it Russell. One ref. using uncited
"professional" critiques of the project is hardly fair.  Would you except
such a ref?

>Incidently, I'm also waiting for answers to my questions concerning your
>claims re: the nazis.
>

Russell, I have given you at least three ref, including a book written by
a German historian in 1939.  By the way I managed to type this info in in
less than a week.  It seems to take you almost three months to give me one
ref. Maybe if you upgraded from an 8088 the typing will go faster.

[...]>> 
>> Did the PI in the cat-shooting experiemnt make altruistic claims about
>> his/her objectives?
>
>Yes.

Oh well, that settles that issue.



-- 
The opinions expressed here are my own.  **   Knowledge goes on forever! 
Which is to say they belong to me.       **   Spelling stops at the 
And these opinions, which belong to me,  **   end of the page.
are mine.                                *******************************
Xref: sparky talk.politics.animals:10778 talk.environment:5356 sci.environment:14333
From: sherw@ocf.berkeley.edu (Gregory Sherwin)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,talk.environment,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Alaska Wolf Killing Suspended / interventionist conservation
Date: 7 Jan 1993 02:07:18 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandstorm.berkeley.edu

In article <1993Jan6.230803.16786@igor.tamri.com> donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin) writes:
>>If we did the same to sick and injured humans
>>in some cases it might be felony kidnapping and imprisonment and involuntary
>>subjection to medical treatment.
>
>And if I squashed a human the way I squash flies, I'd be in jail.  So
>what?

Okay - so legally there are imposed restrictions to doing things to humans
where they aren't as strict in relation to animals.  I think that's
pretty obvious.  So far all all I get out of your posting is that you like
to squash flies and that you can't do so to humans without civil repercussions.
What's your point?  What's your point of even posting altogether?

Enlighten me to what inspired you to share that with us if you please.
If you have an opinion - please state it.

greg
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Silver Spring monkeys was: Re: PETA in hot water
Organization: WP Group
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 22:13:10 GMT

From article <mhulsey-070193090629@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu>, by mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey):
> In article <C0EJD4.Gtw@wpg.com>, russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) wrote:
>> 
>> Did you notice the quotation marks around the phrase, "animal rights"
>> philosophy in the passage above?
> 
> Yes.  If you had done your homework, you would realize that Singer objects
> to the term animal "rights" being applied to him with or without quotes.

Proof?   


-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey)
Subject: Re: Silver Spring monkeys
Followup-To: talk.politics.animals
Organization: Dept. Foods & Nutrition, Univ. of GA
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 21:38:13 GMT

In article <1993Jan10.011010.26845@informix.com>, proberts@informix.com
(Paul Roberts) wrote:
> 
> In article <mhulsey-090193145029@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu> mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey) writes:
> >
> >The case of the Silver Spring monkeys was a legal defeat for PETA for two
> >reasons:
> >
> >1) Taub was fully exhonorated.
> 
> No, he just got off on a technicality.

Even if it were not misleading and incorrect to say that Taub "got off on a
technicality, " it would still be correct to say that he was fully
exhonorated.

--
mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin G. Hulsey)
Neuroscience, NRA-ILA, SSIB, NAASO, IASO
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Martin's unanswered questions.  Was Russell's unanswered questions
Organization: WP Group
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 06:24:22 GMT

From article <mhulsey-060193113016@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu>, by mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey):
> In article <mhulsey-040193120816@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu>,
> mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey) wrote:
>> 
>> In article <C07BCL.EA1@wpg.com>, russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) wrote:
> 
> I'm still waiting for some answers Russell.  Why do you continue to evade
> my questions?

I'm still waiting for you to answer some of my questions, Martin. In
particular, let me draw your attention to the following question that
I've posed many times:

-- Is it reasonable for a man to conclude that his opponents are
   "evading" his questions when, after all, it may well be the
   case that his opponents consider his questions to be foolish
   or irrelevant or uninteresting?

Incidently, I think we should make a distinction between an "answer"
and a "response".  You've responded to some of my "unanswered questions"
without answering them.  Rest assured that I'll repost them from
time to time when it suits my convenience.  

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.peeves
From: avdh@dazixco.ingr.com (Alain van der Heide)
Subject: Re: A rat is a pig-headed moron is a ...
Reply-To: avdh@dazixco.ingr.com
Organization: Integraph - Boulder
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 21:31:18 GMT

In article 16374@odin.corp.sgi.com, zursch@whizkid.wpd.sgi.com (Jeffrey B. Zurschmeide) writes:
>I am a committed Fruitarian; I only eat things that can be taken 
>without killing the plant. You senseless and vicious slaughterers of 
>carrots, onions, and rutabagas have the juice of innocent plants 
>on your hands!!

WHAT!?!?  That apple, pear, or grape which you cruelly rip from the loving
grasp of its mother branch is the offspring of that plant, and itself has the
potential, and therefore the right to grow into a productive self-actuallized
adult plant.

You sir, are a foul murderer of plant foetus's.  A plant abortionist as it
were.  You should be ashamed!

Alain "learning to subsist on minerals" van der Heide

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: picou@convex.com (Michael Picou)
Subject: Re: why is hunting ethical? [was Re: Colorado Hunters under attack]
Organization: CONVEX Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx., USA
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 21:03:10 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

nick@skate.cs.washington.edu (Nicholas Kushmerick) writes:

>That you enjoy your hobby does not make it ethical.  Suppose I told you that my
>hobby was throwing bricks into storefront windows.  You'd tell me to stop.  And
>no amount of "But it's fun" or "Well lots of people do it" or "But I get lots of
>enjoyment from make a successful getaway" on my part would make you wrong to try
>to stop me.

>So you should stop trying to convince me that hunting is fun.  I believe you when
>you tell me you enjoy hunting.  Instead, you should try to convince me that it is
>ethical.

Another thing to consider in this is that hunting is legal and destroying
private property is not.  Therefor as a law abiding citizen I would be inclined
to attempt to stop you from doing this.  Hunting is natural... that makes it
ethical...  What makes hunting un-ethical is when you exceed the laws that
govern hunting.  Like going out at night and shooting a deer when it is on it's
bed sleeping, or shooting a bunch of geese off a roost at night or during the
day.

>Let's consider another abuse of animals, cock fights.  Do you think this it is
>ethical for people to stage cock fights? 

Cock fights are un-ethical.  They are for the sole purpose of pleasure and
gambling.  

Mike