I would like list members to note that there is no actual discussion going on about the issue of whether HIV causes AIDS. What we have is Jim West trolling this list with EXACTLY the same issue he has raised about HIV isolation many times over the past few years and rejection of the scientific explanations provided despite the fact that he is not scientifically qualified to pronounce on the issue of what constitutes isolation of a virus and what does not (neither is Mitchel.) Thus the "debate" is stalemated, as Michael G. suggested. I also question Jim West's honesty and motivations for doing so, as per my last post on this subject.

Jim West also argues that polio was caused by pesticides and not the polio virus; would list members like to debate that issue too?

As Eric implied, Science for the People does not mean rejecting science. Even Peter Duesberg rejects the arguments of the Perth group that Jim is citing; they are nothing more than the rantings of a group of whacked out nut cases with no scientific merit.

I would urge those list members who feel that this is an inappropriate subject for this list to speak up, because if Jim et al. are allowed to post on this subject I will be obliged to counter them every time. As for those who avoid this by activating spam blockers, the archives of this list are searchable and accessible to non-list members, and new people are coming on the list all the time; we should not allow this list to de facto endorse AIDS denialist positions any more than Holocaust denialist positions should go unchallenged, nor allow anyone to have the impression that the members of the community represented by this list consider the HIV-AIDS issue to be an open question.

AIDS has now killed more people than the Holocaust did and in my view those who push denialist positions are complicit in the deaths of HIV infected people who are convinced to go off their meds because they come under the sway of this nonsense. This was my criticism of Jonathan Campbell who made at least part of his living counseling HIV infected people to go off their meds and pay him instead. Of course, an adult has the right to do so, but Christine Maggiore's young daughter, who died of AIDS because of her mother's willful neglect and denial, was not given any choice. That makes this a moral as well as a scientific issue.


On Sat, Aug 2, 2008 at 4:51 AM, Mitchel Cohen <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
I object to putting Jim West on moderation.

His posts are civil and seek coherent information, and challenge the official views when they seem contradictory or not comprehensive. I also note, Michael, that you are a participant in one side of this discussion.

Frankly, I've received offlist messages from list  members who feel this is an important issue, thanking me and Jim for raising them.

No to censorship!

But  if  there's gonna be censorship, I have at least one lucky winner in mind. And it's not Jim.


-----Original Message-----
>From: Michael H Goldhaber <[log in to unmask]>
>Sent: Aug 1, 2008 3:02 PM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: Non-HIV Topic: "Isolation doesn't exist"
>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
>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
>> www.geocities.com/noxot
>> =====
>> 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

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