August 2008


Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Mitchel Cohen <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Science for the People Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Tue, 5 Aug 2008 01:56:23 -0400
text/plain (194 lines)
Censorship is always tricky business. Those who claim to know the 
Truth have generally asserted the right to impose that Truth on 
dissidents. I beg to differ.

It's one thing if we had a belligerant, single-topic miscreant 
posting frequently to this list. Then we might consider limiting his 
or her posts, putting them on "Moderator" status, and/or banning them 
outright -- NOT for the content of their posts but for their abuse of 
the stated process or list rules.

But it's quite another thing when someone like Jim West, who has done 
a lot of solid work with the No Spray Coalition and has helped us win 
a number of concessions in negotiations from the NYC government 
concerning pesticides spraying, is told arbitrarily that his posts on 
a particular subject are Out of Order and open to censorship.

Given that Jim West posts infrequently and usually courteously, it 
makes me highly suspicious when those who make their living in the 
very fields that Jim is critiquing rationalize moves to censor him, 
rather than simply hit the delete button if they don't like what he's saying.

Next, you'll find the same people moving to censor me for my comments 
against the Gardasil "vaccine" -- because, in their minds, the Truth 
about vaccines and viruses is already established. A very dangerous game ....


At 10:16 AM 8/3/2008, you wrote:
>but c'mon Mitchel!  Lets say this list was "Geography for the 
>People" and there was some guy who was insisting the world is flat 
>and trying to debunk the evidence that the world is round.  There 
>would be something of a consensus in the world that the world was 
>round, but of course there is some fraction of people who will 
>insist otherwise.
>Why should a list allow that conversation about round or flat when 
>its such a colossal waste of time?
>What meaning would an argument have about having open minds on that topic?
>In my book, 1) that issue is a not worth the bandwidth 2) the issue 
>of open minds is not germane to established fact.
>>One reason not to ban information on this list is because people -- 
>>well, I for one -- learn from the information  presented, even when 
>>I disagree with portions of it.
>>It's not about the "convincing" or attempts thereof. It's about the 
>>process of keeping an open mind. Those who do have not foreclosed 
>>learning. This list is not only for those who already have closed 
>>their minds. It would be a terrible shame to impose that 
>>methodology on the rest of us.
>>Mitchel Cohen
>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: Michael H Goldhaber <[log in to unmask]>
>>>Sent: Aug 2, 2008 2:46 PM
>>>To: [log in to unmask]
>>>Subject: Re: Censored topics: Clarification requested
>>>Basically (3): criticizing the view  that infection with HIV is a 
>>>necessary precursor to AIDS. Most of us have no doubt of the 
>>>correctness of that view, and we are not at all likely to be 
>>>convinced otherwise by any of the panoply of arguments you and 
>>>others have advanced or might in the future. You have fought the 
>>>good (?) fight. Why waste more breath on this?
>>>On Aug 2, 2008, at 6:09 AM, Jim West wrote:
>>>>  So that I don't break forum rules,
>>>>  Which topic is censored?
>>>>  1) Missing references in HIV papers.
>>>>  2) Semantics of "virus isolation".
>>>>  or
>>>>  3) Any criticism of HIV theory.
>>>>  Jim West
>>>>  ====
>>>>  On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 12:02:18 -0700, Michael H Goldhaber <[log in to unmask]
>>>>  > wrote:
>>>>>  Jim,
>>>>>  I asked you and others to stop posting on this topic. It is quite
>>>>>  clear to me that no evidence will persuade you. Likewise, you will  not
>>>>>  persuade most of us. If you post again on this, unless other list
>>>>>  members object, I will moderate all your posts and remove those on
>>>>>  this topic. That will delay all your posts, as I cannot be constantly
>>>>>  monitoring.
>>>>>  Michael
>>>>>  -------
>>>>>  Michael H. Goldhaber
>>>>>  SftP list moderator
>>>>>  On Aug 1, 2008, at 11:06 AM, Jim West wrote:
>>>>>>  Michael Goldhaber;
>>>>>>  You write:
>>>>>>  "Isolating an bioactive agent merely means being able to culture it
>>>>>>  from infected tissue, that is grow it in more or less pure form,  then
>>>>>>  detect the agent , say by electron microscopy and then use it to
>>>>>>  transmit the infection in some way."
>>>>>>  My response:
>>>>>>  "More or less pure" ??  That would mean the resulting observations
>>>>>>  would be
>>>>>>  "more or less pure".   In the case of many viruses, the virus is
>>>>>>  virtually
>>>>>>  undetectable in the "pure strain".
>>>>>>  Inspired by definition of "isolating a bioactive agent", I have
>>>>>>  looked up a
>>>>>>  standard definition for "isolate" and it is contradicts you, unless
>>>>>>  you are
>>>>>>  accenting your phrase, "less pure".
>>>>>>  "Isolate: A sample from a defined source." -- Roger Hull, Fred
>>>>>>  Brown, Chris
>>>>>>  Payne, Virology: Directory and Dictionary of Animal, Bacterial, and
>>>>>>  Plant
>>>>>>  Viruses (1989)
>>>>>>  Not very precise.  That could mean "mud from a pond".
>>>>>>  Virus "isolation" seems to be a great... semantic achievement.
>>>>>>  Jim West
>>>>>>  =====
>>>>>>  On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 23:26:31 -0700, Michael H Goldhaber 
>>>>>> <[log in to unmask]
>>  >>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>  1. Isolating an bioactive agent merely means being able to  culture it
>>>>>>>  from infected tissue, that is grow it in more or less pure form,  then
>>>>>>>  detect the agent , say by electron microscopy and then use it to
>>>>>>>  transmit the infection in some way. For anyone genuinely
>>>>>>>  interested,
>>>>>>>  I am sure any textbook on infectious diseases would explain this.
>>>>>>>  Such
>>>>>>>  books can be found in any medical library, and probably in any
>>>>>>>  hospital library.
>>>>>>>  2. Likewise there are books and journals devoted to HIV/AIDs by now
>>>>>>>  that surely would provide numerous references to the isolation of  the
>>>>>>>  virus in many different laboratories.
>>>>>>>  3. If you read further down the reference Michael Balter provided  you
>>>>>>>  will see citations related to isolating HIV from AIDS cases.
>>>>>>>  4. Therefore, I think it is pretty clear that the people  questioning
>>>>>>>  the HIV hypothesis do not want to be enlightened on this subject,  and
>>>>>>>  are  finding utterly fake reasons to  continue to argue.
>>>>>>>  5. So please drop the subject. It is phony.
>>>>>>>  Best,
>>>>>>>  Michael
>>>>>>>  -------
>>>>>>>  Michael H. Goldhaber
>>>>>>>  SftP list moderator
>Jose Morales Ph.D.