Let me put it another way. Herb raised the excellent question of who this list is for and what purpose it serves. I think most people on this list would agree that a Science for the People has to be based on solid science and not on pseudoscience, and that it is actually possible to come to a consensus about the difference between the two. That is why we don't debate global warming here, nor whether the earth is flat, and it is also why we should not debate whether HIV causes AIDS. I think the issue of censorship is a red herring, even if it is being raised by a true red.

MB

On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 5:57 PM, Michael Balter <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Mitchel,

If I and other scientifically trained people on this list patiently explained to you what it means to isolate a virus, would you take it seriously or would you insist that we didn't know what we were talking about and that only you and Jim West had the proper definition of virus isolation and that our definition was an evasion by the phamaceutical industry that wants to sell drugs to HIV infected people? I ask because this is pretty much where we are on this "debate," and why I consider continued discussion of it to be unfruitful. I have posted material time and time again that does just what I suggest above, but it has been pretty much ignored by the AIDS denialists here--thus the frustration of many of us that the discussion continues to go on.

MB



--
******************************************
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
******************************************