Jim West is a liar. This discussion was begun by "Peyton Farquhar" on July
25 and my posting of the link was in response to his post, as anyone
checking the archives can see. I would ask our moderator to throw anyone who
continues to debate whether HIV causes AIDS off of this list, and to insist
that "Farquhar" either post under his real name or leave the list too.

While we are on this topic, the following link is very accessible and has a
long section about the isolation issue. It is the last post I am going to
make on this subject and I would ask the moderator to throw ME off the list
too if I post any more on this.

http://www.avert.org/evidence.htm

MB





On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 5:44 PM, Jim West <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> 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
>



-- 
******************************************
Michael Balter
Contributing Correspondent, Science
Adjunct Professor of Journalism,
Boston University

Email:           [log in to unmask]

Website:       michaelbalter.com
Balter's Blog: michael-balter.blogspot.com
******************************************