Larry, the problem with your proposal is that you are asking both "sides" of
this debate to prepare lengthy (5-10 pages) position papers, something that
I at least with a very busy work schedule do not have time to do. Nor do I
think that is the best way to proceed. I have already put forward my
suggestion, which Mitchel said he thought was a good idea. We now have
Jonathan basically trying to do anything to avoid it. He now poses the
following two questions, which indicate clearly that he has been reading
(uncritically as always) the literature of the Perth group which claims that
HIV does not exist at all, which even Duesberg has taken them to task for.
This is not an argument where Jonathan is putting forth citations of his
own, he wants me to go and get the citations. No need to do so, because the
Perth group's argument, as well as other alternative views, are responded to
in great detail in this long article.

When Jonathan and Mitchel are ready to tell us why the number one argument
against HIV=AIDS, rather than asking questions put into their mouths by
things they have uncritically read--in other words, when they start
examining the evidence themselves rather than regurgitating what they read
on the Web--I will be ready to respond in kind. I doubt very much if they
had read the NIAIDS link I have provided several times, because Jonathan at
least poses these two questions as if he thinks they represent some sort of
serious challenge to the consensus view.

best, Michael

On 4/1/07, Jonathan Campbell <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>  Larry,
>      As much as we would like to wish it so, Science for the People is an
> open forum, not an organization that could take a position on something that
> would have an impact on society. Thus a debate that would create such a
> position is impossible. All we can hope to do here (that is positive) is
> scientific inquiry and spreading the word about scientific issues which have
> an impact on society.
>      And I thought I had responded to your suggestion regarding presenting
> a position paper, though maybe I wasn't clear about doing this explicitly. I
> have reposted my response below (that is, below your post).
>      I've also thought about what has happened during the last several
> weeks of this debate and discussed it privately with some people, and have
> decided that my previous approach to this issue has not been very
> productive.
>       So, restarting from scratch, I would like someone of the HIV=AIDS
> believers to provide:
> 1. primary citations and evidence showing the isolation of HIV itself (not
> just antibodies) and analysis of the this virus
> 2. primary citations and evidence that the HIV tests actually identify
> those infected with this virus (not just antibodies) and not any other
> disease
> Kind regards
> Jonathan
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Larry Romsted <[log in to unmask]>
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Sent:* Sunday, April 01, 2007 2:49 PM
> *Subject:* Re: when are appeals to authority ok?
> Jonathan:
> What about the structure I posted yesterday, March 31?  Dead silence on
> this suggestion so far.  Could be modified of course.
> Larry Romsted
> All:
> I have been reading the exchanges on whether HIV=AIDS or not.  So far the
> discussion has been almost totally about the discussion and not about the
> evidence.  I, like probably others on this list, am not expert in this area
> of science nor will I be anytime soon.  I am an academic chemist working in
> colloid and surface chemistry and I too have to keep my "financial
> underpinnings" going just to continue to do my research—and to avoid
> (successfully so far) taking money from corporate interests.  Occupies much
> of my time and the remainder is devoted to anti war work.
> Anyway, I would really appreciate a discussion about the scientific
> evidence supporting HIV=AIDS or HIV does not equal AIDS.  I cannot take the
> time to review and digest the literature on this question myself, but I
> would read with real interest a well written summary of the evidence that
> included critical sources (a few that are not too long) that support each
> position.
> What I kept hearing from each side is: you go first and I will respond (I
> suspect hoping that the other side will not do the initial academic
> slogging).
> So I recommend:
>    1. Each side write a paper (5-10 pages with selected references, say
>    max of 10) and submit the paper to the other side by an agreed upon date.
>    2. Each side then write a response (2-3 pages) to the other and
>    submit the paper and the response to the list at a later agreed upon date.
>    3. The list digests the information, discusses and votes by some
>    later agreed upon date.
>    4. The strongest position (or a synthesis) becomes the position of
>    "Science-for-the-People."
> Good Idea?
> Larry Romsted
> **********************************
> (My response to both Michael Balter's and Larry Rolmstead's suggestion)
>        Mitchel agreed to get together some of us in a subcommittee and
> develop one (or perhaps a few) well-stated arguments for the non-HIV=AIDS
> hypothesis. First, I strenuously object to the idea that whatever argument
> we post can then be illicitly shredded by the kind of innuendos, ridicule,
> and biased manipulation (e.g., by suggesting that HIV does not cause AIDS
> we are somehow murdering people) that has already taken place, by Balter and
> others. That is not scientific inquiry, and I do not accept this challenge,
> unless it is promised (by Balter and others who have had similar comments)
> that we focus on the scientific arguments, not on alleged motives or
> personal opinions about us.
>       Second, I see no reason why it should be up to us to produce such
> tracts. There is no way that I could produce an article of Mae-Wan Ho's
> article, and, while it does not present EVERY objection to the HIV=AIDS
> hypothesis, it is one of the best I have seen. (And when I have the time in
> the next few weeks, I will do so.)
>        *For now, I would propose Mae-Wan Ho's article as the first in the
> series of articles that Balter has suggested.* No, neither I nor Mitchel
> nor anyone else on this list has written it. But its arguments are the same
> as those I would make in anything I wrote on those aspects of the paradigm.
> Please, Balter and co, go to town. Refute Mae-Wan Ho's article, paragraph by
> paragraph. Cite the primary peer-reviewed research please, not government
> pronouncements.


Michael Balter
Contributing Correspondent, Science
[log in to unmask]