I'm not defending Montagnier, but your criticism indicates you haven't read his
study. Mu Metal is essential to the study. The highly sensitive PCR
environment is essential too. The world you mention is not encased in Mu
Metal, nor is it a test tube in a PCR study.
Re cell-phones: by themselves, perhaps they don't cause cancer, but the risk
of many diseases including cancer, are substantially increased by cell-phone
towers, relay stations, etc., adjacent to some residences 24/7. These are
inextricably part of the cell-phone discussion. Those radiative stressors are
then also compounded by other chemical pollutant levels in air, water, food.
Cell phones, as an isolated topic, is myopia. Industry promotes myopic
science, as your previous quote of the NY Times article demonstrates. This is
also exemplified by the EPA limits for water pollution which are set on individual
poisons, not the sum of those poisons.
On Fri, 22 Jul 2011 11:00:03 -0700, Michael H Goldhaber <[log in to unmask]>
>It seems to me also that pseudo-science and non-science-related political
topics have dominated too much. I think a less argumentative and more
reasoned approach to both would help prevent the incessant back and forth
that often makes this happen. If someone presents what you suspect is
pseudo-science, try not to rise to the bait so fast, but wait to see whether
there is either no further response or a reasoned one. We must be a bit careful
here, because the scientific establishment and its power to determine what is
considered pseudo-science sometimes is corrupt. Much of the topics of interest
here can strike others as pseudo. I myself very much doubt the cell-phone
leads to cancer hypothesis, for instance.
>As to water, I think the success of public hygiene methods such as water
purification or filtration demonstrate quite clearly that water doesn't have the
type of "memory" Montagnier and others suggest, for if it did, filtered water
could still cause contagion, and public health wouldn't have improved nearly as
much as it has in places with safe water.
>On Jul 22, 2011, at 8:54 AM, Eric Entemann wrote:
>> Just to chime in here: I think the list has had a disproportionate amount of
space devoted to discussions of what most of us, I think, believe is
pseudoscience. I would include homeopathy in that category, as well as other
topics that have repeatedly come up.