Medieval superstition in modern society

3 views
Skip to first unread message

zOz

unread,
Jan 7, 2001, 1:15:49 PM1/7/01
to
While persons trying to construct a mechanical perpetuum
mobile or to transform cheap metals into gold have become
outsiders, those who spread the belief that money and
wealth can be increased by repeatedly buying and selling
the same more or less real things (i.e. by playing on
stock markets) belong to the most respected castes of
modern society.

The AIDS and BSE hysterias show better than anything else
that apart from technological progress we are still more
or less the same we were centuries ago.

The annihilation of millions of healthy cows like hazardous
waste with expensive 'detoxification' may be viewed as
something amusingly grotesque.

The fact however that at least tens of thousands of healthy
persons with HIV have been driven to death and that
millions are terrorized with (normally) harmless microbes
having co-evolved with mankind is rather tragic.

The medieval belief in bewitchings and possessions by
evil spirits is deeply rooted in human nature and have
been transformed into 'scientific' variants, e.g. HIV and
prions.

Modern technology enabling the detection of previously
undetectable microbes and substances, and of extremely low
quantities of already known pathogens or toxic substances,
has opened a new door into science and medicine as a
playground for scaremongers with special interests.

The scientific and medical elites of today play the role
of the theological elites in medieval times. The AIDS
establishment could be considered a counterpart of the
Holy Inquisition.

The Holy Inquisition was a highly respected institution
and many of its members were intelligent, hard-working
and honest persons. The same is valid for the AIDS
establishment. It is only a small minority which is
misleading their honest fellows and ultimately society.

Because much more than billions of dollars are at stake,
I do no longer exclude the possibility that participants
of AIDS studies have intentionally been poisoned to death
in order to convince honest researchers of the negative
effect of HIV. There has always been a huge discrepancy
between the death rates of HIV infected persons
participating in such studies and those not participating.

If we take into account what happened in the Third Reich
in Germany, and the obvious fact that human nature cannot
have changed a lot since then, my allegations become less
absurd.

One reason that such allegations are not taken seriously
results from the fact that "dissidents" working for the
AIDS establishment regularly make such allegations in
easily refutable contexts. "Dissidents" also spread claims
similar to this one: "All members of the AIDS establishment
are much too stupid to carry out a conspiracy of any kind".

The most efficient mechanism by which the conspirative
core of the AIDS establishment has neutralized the genuine
dissidents can be considered a further stage in the
evolution of censorship.

The genuine dissidents have not only efficiently been
fought by scientific power politics with the help of the
(scientific) mass media, but also drowned by the noise of
fake dissidents and by the promotion of honest dissidents
advocating untenable theses.

Apart from "AIDS dissidents" actually working for the sake
of the AIDS estlishment, the establishment has also created
several fictitious newsgroup posters in order to defend
HIV/AIDS orthodoxy and to promote AIDS treatment.


In http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=709940269 I wrote:

| Anyway, it would be very easy for Don Lucas to definitively
| remove any doubt about his existence, because he "served as
| the education and information chair of the national hemophilia
| foundation". (Unfortunately even in this case we could still
| assume that he exists, but someone else is posting under his
| name.)
|
| Also the story* with his brother seems a bit strange to me.
| Whereas Don started treatment in "plain" health in 1987, his
| brother allegedly died WITHOUT THE BENEFIT of anti-virals in
| Oct. 1989, despite suffering from PCP already in the summer of
| 1987. Does this make sense?
|
| * http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=569668770
|
| Imagine: Your brother suffers from cancer. You take anti-cancer
| drugs and your brother does not. Two years later your brother
| dies from cancer and you do not. After this you tell everybody
| that you know from personal experience how helpful these
| cancer-drugs are.

"don lucas" replied to the last two paragraphs:

"i'm not sure what your point is."
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=710133074

How probable is it that "don" would respond in this way, if
he actually existed as an honest and obviously intelligent
and educated person?


Wolfgang Gottfried G.


Modern science comparable with medieval theology:
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=629574710


Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/

Bobby D. Bryant

unread,
Jan 7, 2001, 5:47:59 PM1/7/01
to
zOz wrote:

> The scientific and medical elites of today play the role
> of the theological elites in medieval times.

How quaint: use internet technology to convince the world that science
is just a bunch of superstition.

I hope this was a troll, because then I can credit you with introducing
a clever twist. (You *do* realize that your post would never have been
possible without several hundred years of hard work from that despised
"scientific elite", don't you?)

Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas


ad...@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca

unread,
Jan 7, 2001, 6:28:22 PM1/7/01
to
In article <3A58F219...@mail.utexas.edu>,

"Bobby D. Bryant" <bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
> zOz wrote:
>
> > The scientific and medical elites of today play the role
> > of the theological elites in medieval times.
>
> How quaint: use internet technology to convince the world that science
> is just a bunch of superstition.
>
> I hope this was a troll,

Nah, this bloke actually believes what he posts. He's a well known
proponent of the idea that HIV does not cause AIDS.

tim gueguen 101867

redrum

unread,
Jan 7, 2001, 6:57:36 PM1/7/01
to
In article <3A58F219...@mail.utexas.edu>, bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu
says...

It IS true that every age has its elite, and that elite is usually
viewed as possessing knowledge unavailable to the masses. In the middle
ages priests were viewed as possessing a direct line of communication to
God, and were therefore worthy of veneration. Today software engineers
possess knowledge that is viewed as arcane and difficult to master by
the masses, and they are rewarded accordingly. This doesn't mean that
medieval priests and software engineers can be equated; it simply means
that they serve the same social function because they have knowledge
that is viewed in their own time as important as well as difficult to
obtain.

Robert Templeton

unread,
Jan 7, 2001, 9:13:47 PM1/7/01
to
"redrum" <na...@na.da> wrote in message
news:t5i0jgm...@corp.supernews.com...

What's so "difficult to obtain" about software engineering knowledge? Go to
your nearest large bookstore, library, or computer store with large book
section and tell me that the knowledge is inaccessible to the masses.
Anyone can learn to engineer software as long as they have the patience,
equipment, and drive. Same goes for any technical or scientific field.
From where did Einstein receive his formal Physics education? Not from a
select "elite", but from reading readily available books and pondering the
omniaccessble world existing around him.

The reason that the knowledge of the priests was so difficult to obtain was
that it was kept secret by them in many forms, some of them ritualistic and
some cryptic. The ritualistic ones involved the ordaining of individuals
into the group whereupon they were given the knowledge, in parts, as they
became more knowledgeable and trustworthy, resembling a secret society in
ways. The cryptic part is that these priests collected and controlled most
of their world's knowledge as it existed in the form of books. This wasn't
much necessary either, as much of it was written in Greek and Latin,
languages only privy to those priests at that time.

And, unlike the priests who had hidden away all of the knowledge at that
time, the knowledge today is so diverse and specialized that noone could
ever hope, in a hundred simultaneous lifetimes, to know in great detail the
vast amount of it available today. As a software engineer, I cannot and
donot expect to ever have great knowledge of, for instance, bioengineering
or genetic sequencing. It takes many years of schooling and experience to
master such knowledge. So one must realize that, unlike the priests of old,
there is a necessity and utility in having "specialists" who have their own
knowledge and language, but that they are willing, in most cases, to divulge
that knowledge or explain it to others without it in more lay terms.

This is the main difference. Where priests usurped their inside knowledge
to their benefit for power and control by restricting it from the masses
(the RC mass was still being given in Latin up until the 1960's),
scientific/technical knowledge, no matter how highly it seems to be held
above the masses' understanding, can still be reached by anyone willing to
grasp for it.

Robert Templeton

Frank Wustner

unread,
Jan 8, 2001, 12:01:21 AM1/8/01
to
"Bobby D. Bryant" <bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
> zOz wrote:

Well, you know, it's just like George Carlin said. Humanity is made up
of a few winners, and a whole lot of losers. And many of the losers
resent the winners.

Even while they pay homage to those same winners. Read: zOz.

--
The Deadly Nightshade
http://deadly_nightshade.tripod.com/
http://members.tripod.com/~deadly_nightshade/

|-----------------------------------|-----------------------------------|
|"Advice is a form of nostalgia. | Atheist #119 |
|Dispensing it means fishing the | Knight of BAAWA! |
|past from the disposal, wiping it |-----------------------------------|
|off, painting over the ugly parts, | Want to email me? Go to the URL |
|and recycling it for more than | above and email me from there. |
|it's worth." Mary Schmich |-----------------------------------|
|-----------------------------------|

Ken Cox

unread,
Jan 8, 2001, 11:50:46 AM1/8/01
to
Robert Templeton wrote:
> What's so "difficult to obtain" about software engineering knowledge? Go to
> your nearest large bookstore, library, or computer store with large book
> section and tell me that the knowledge is inaccessible to the masses.
> Anyone can learn to engineer software as long as they have the patience,
> equipment, and drive.

Especially considering that much of what passes for "software
engineering", even in quite large companies, consists of taking
existing Visual Basic scripts and modifying them to change the
appearance of the GUI.

--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com

don lucas

unread,
Jan 8, 2001, 2:34:08 PM1/8/01
to
zOz wrote:

<snipped re-hash of your theories, speculations and meanderings>

why did you tack this onto a re-hash of one of your old posts, rather
than take the opportunity to respond to me in a forthright manner?
it was suggested by others in this thread that you are trolling. i'm
beginning to wonder if that's not true.

the reason for my "confusion" is simple, your analogy doesn't
work. in the link you provided, i state that my brother and i got
our hiv+ test results back around the same time. you infer that
you are aware of this by using quotes around the word plain
when you describe my health. you then go on to compare that
with two brothers, one with cancer and one without. a proper
analogy would be, one brother with cancer and the other
diagnosed with pre-cancerous cells. this still wouldn't prove
the point you were trying to make, but at least it would have
made sense.

now for your other point:

> Anyway, it would be very easy for Don Lucas to definitively
> remove any doubt about his existence, because he "served as
> the education and information chair of the national hemophilia
> foundation". (Unfortunately even in this case we could still
> assume that he exists, but someone else is posting under his
> name.)

here's how i responded (from the link you provided):

"we've corresponded through e-mail, and although that doesn't
prove anything, in those exchanges you have been civil. you
are welcome to once again e-mail me directly and we can arrange
a means to verify my existence."

if you are interested in verifying my existence, you would have
contacted me by now. of course, it is easier to just accuse
others, isn't it? the standard practice of dissidents is to either
accuse
those of us who are doing well on harrt as lying, crooked minions
of the evil aids empire, or shills being paid handsomely for our posts.
it's getting rather old and boring, don't you think?

take care, be well.

donpaul lucas
hiv+ 18 years (asymptomatic, stage 2)
13 years anti-viral veteran
(this post sealed with the three-fold law)

zOz

unread,
Jan 9, 2001, 1:15:38 PM1/9/01
to
| = don lucas in http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=713381805
|| = Wolfgang G. in http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=712972016

| <snipped re-hash of your theories, speculations and meanderings>
|
| why did you tack this onto a re-hash of one of your old posts,
| rather than take the opportunity to respond to me in a forthright
| manner?

Maybe because I fear losing my credibility when sending too
many private emails to fictitious persons :-(

Anyway, I don't carelessly accuse you of inexistence. I'm
aware that unfounded allegations are detrimental not to your
but to my credibility, which I consider quite important. (That
it is difficult to appear credible and honest in the eyes of
mainstream followers if one seriously deviates from mainstream
opinions is another problem).

As soon as I recognize that I'm wrong I correct my errors.
See for instance:
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=605723038

And if someone puts into question my credibility, I defend
myself. See for instance:
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=653312515

Only because the demonstration that you are a fake could
have a major impact at least on misc.health.aids, I behave
in a way in which I don't feel comfortable myself.

| it was suggested by others in this thread that you are trolling.
| i'm beginning to wonder if that's not true.

Another poster however correctly replied to the "I hope this
was a troll" suggestion: "Nah, this bloke actually believes
what he posts."

| if you are interested in verifying my existence, you would have


| contacted me by now. of course, it is easier to just accuse
| others, isn't it?

If I had been convinced that by contacting you I could easily
find out truth, I would have done it. A public discussion
seems less dangerous to me, because it is more difficult to
deceive a group of quite different persons than one single.

| the standard practice of dissidents is to either
| accuse those of us who are doing well on harrt as lying, crooked
| minions of the evil aids empire, or shills being paid handsomely
| for our posts. it's getting rather old and boring, don't you
| think?

My suspicion is even more serious. It seems probable to me
that you and Sparky work together (i.e. you both are the
output of one group or PR firm) and that fake dissidents
protect the AIDS establishment and fictitious HIV+ posters
by regularly uttering valid allegations in distorted,
exaggerated and easily refutable ways.

If you exist however, then it would even make sense to
make me look foolish by convincing me of your inexistence.
Nevertheless, there could be some real HIV infected persons
reading misc.health.aids who would like to be sure that my
casting suspicion on you is unfounded.

| donpaul lucas
| hiv+ 18 years (asymptomatic, stage 2)
| 13 years anti-viral veteran
| (this post sealed with the three-fold law)

What does "sealed with the three-fold law" mean?


Cheers, Wolfgang


A Copernican revolution which seems as silly to most
scientists of today as heliocentrism seemed to most
contemporaries of Copernicus:
http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/psychon.html

Gary Stein

unread,
Jan 9, 2001, 8:48:14 PM1/9/01
to

"zOz" <wissensch...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:93fkfu$1tp$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...

> | = don lucas in http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=713381805
> || = Wolfgang G. in http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=712972016
>
> | <snipped re-hash of your theories, speculations and meanderings>
> |
> | why did you tack this onto a re-hash of one of your old posts,
> | rather than take the opportunity to respond to me in a forthright
> | manner?
>
> Maybe because I fear losing my credibility when sending too
> many private emails to fictitious persons :-(
>
> Anyway, I don't carelessly accuse you of inexistence. I'm
> aware that unfounded allegations are detrimental not to your
> but to my credibility, which I consider quite important.

Why would you be concerned in this forum were you have no credibility what
so ever?

> (That
> it is difficult to appear credible and honest in the eyes of
> mainstream followers if one seriously deviates from mainstream
> opinions is another problem).
>
> As soon as I recognize that I'm wrong I correct my errors.
> See for instance:
> http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=605723038

Why would you presupose that anyone here would want to take the time to read
what is so unimportant to you that you fail to go to the effort of
reprinting it and instead take the lazy route of pointing to an old one of
your pointless posts in Dejas archives?


>
> And if someone puts into question my credibility, I defend
> myself. See for instance:
> http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=653312515

Well I just questioned your credibility and a Deja reference will not change
my opinion, facts supported by independant studies are what I find
compelling not your never ending rehashes of your completly unsuported
hypothoses.


>
> Only because the demonstration that you are a fake could
> have a major impact at least on misc.health.aids, I behave
> in a way in which I don't feel comfortable myself.

Well I can vouch for the fact that Don Lucas is a real person.

Your espousal of such baseless paranoia makes me doubt your intentions as
well.


--
Gary Stein
ges...@starpower.net
http://www.mischealthaids.org

"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea
massive, difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and
a source of mind- boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it."
(Gene Spafford)


James Cobb

unread,
Jan 10, 2001, 6:52:01 PM1/10/01
to




----------------- THE KNOW-SO SUPERSTITION -----------------



(1)


Excerpts from the 9 January 2001 "Re: Medieval supersti-
tion in modern society" post by half of the Looney-Toon
Duo:

Why would you be concerned in this forum w[h]ere you
have no credibility what so ever?


I KNOW SO.


Why would you presupose that anyone here would want
to take the time to read what is so unimportant to
you that you fail to go to the effort of reprinting
it and instead take the lazy route of pointing to an
old one of your pointless posts in Deja[']s archives?


I KNOW SO.


Well I just questioned your credibility and a Deja
reference will not change my opinion, facts suppor-
ted by independant studies are what I find compel-
ling not your never ending rehashes of your com-
plet[e]ly unsuported hypoth[e]ses.


I KNOW SO.


Well I can vouch for the fact that Don Lucas is a
real person.


I KNOW SO.


Your espousal of such baseless paranoia makes me
doubt your intentions as well.


I KNOW SO.



(2)


NY Times headline:

Heroin, An Old Nemesis, Makes An Encore


The last paragraph of the newsstory:

Matt Dodman is not worried. He is sure he will not
overdose, and certain he will remain free of disease.
Why? "Because," he said, "I know so."


















(NY Times = The New York Times On The Web. The Times
story's datelined 9 January 2001.)






Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages