This is not a debate.

Firstly, this was all started by Michael Balter, who posted a "best link"
against HIV skeptics (-- and now, as usual, Balter wants the discussion ended).

Secondly, I noticed that the thoroughly referenced article omits references
for "HIV isolation".

Thirdly, I asked for these crucial references.  That's ALL.

We now have certainty about "HIV".  And that is, the "best link" doesn't
reference the foundational data for 'HIV', .i.e., 'HIV isolation'.  

This finding is indisputable.

I'm asking that the moderators warn Balter, again, that ad homimen arguments
are off limits.

-Jim West
www.geocities.com/noxot

=======
On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 01:06:36 -0400, Mitchel Cohen
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>Michael Balter wrote:
>>I've already done that dozens of times on this list. It is not my
>>problem if you refuse to read the material I have cited and refuse
>>to consult the literature about virus isolation yourself, rather
>>than simply repeating mantras you pick up on the internet.
>
>
>Michael, I've read through much (not all) of the material you've
>posted, and I have not seen a single clear definition of what you
>mean by HIV having been "isolated" -- let alone "dozens" of them.
>I've seen posts that say that Koch's postulates do not apply to
>viruses, but nothing valid about what DOES apply.
>
>If you don't want to re-type it, then send me the link, please.
>
>Mitchel