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
2. primary citations and evidence that
the HIV tests actually identify those infected with this virus
(not just antibodies) and not any other disease
----- Original Message -----
[log in to unmask]
" href="mailto:[log in to unmask]" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">Larry Romsted
Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2007 2:49
Subject: Re: when are appeals to
What about the structure I posted
yesterday, March 31? Dead silence on this suggestion so far. Could
be modified of course.
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.
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
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
So I recommend:
- 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.
- 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
list digests the information, discusses and votes by some later agreed upon
strongest position (or a synthesis) becomes the position of
(My response to both Michael Balter's and Larry
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
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