Print

Print


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?

Best,
Michael

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
> www.geocities.com/noxot
>
> ====
> 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
>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>