Print

Print


†
while my view is the 'aids denialists' actually have a different agenda (essentially muddying the water as a strategy so they can compete to find the pearls) i might have an issue with the issue of whether debating if the earth is flat should be censored or is worthwhile.† (the denialists also never seem to do any empirical research or literature review apart from cherry picking.††its like a debating society, with constantly shifting goalposts; but with an agenda (eg the 'federalist society').†)
†
regarding the flat earth i prefer 'geocentrism' as an example, but the issue is the same.† (see wikipedia----for example one recent 'science literacy' study asked students whether the earth revolved around the sun or not;†the supposeldy correct answer was 'yes'.†† however, 'modern physics (of relativity) suggests this is an ill posed question.†† one can decide the earth rotates around the sun or the reverse, based on choice of reference frame.† and that is what is interesting, not whether classical theology had it right or their 'enlightened'†descendents.)
†
if anyone has seen a map of the world on a wall, there is your flat earth (i think its called the 'mercatur projection').† of course, to make this fit with empirical reality, one would have to posit some new or fictional forces that make one not notice the 'gaps' when traversing the flat earth.††† however, i think some of these are already used in other parts of physics (such as for explaining the stability of atoms and even elementary particles; even the 'higgs boson' may possibly be seen as something filling a gap which makes the universe fit our intutitions.† )††† there are models of the universe which suggest it is† 'multiply connected' and these are equally nonintuitive, but possible.† (as i gather, in these looking at distant galaxies actually is an illusion, since one is actually looking at a local one, like in a house of mirrors.)
†
on a last ntoe,† when considering what 'not isolated' means,†i might even start with what does 'not' mean, and to break it down even more, one can start with the 'n' or ".††††
†
†
- On Sun, 8/3/08, "Josť F. Morales" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

From: "Josť F. Morales" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Censored topics: Clarification requested
To: [log in to unmask]
Date: Sunday, August 3, 2008, 10:16 AM

but c'mon Mitchel!  Lets say this list was "Geography for the
People" 
and there was some guy who was insisting the world is flat and trying 
to debunk the evidence that the world is round.  There would be 
something of a consensus in the world that the world was round, but 
of course there is some fraction of people who will insist otherwise.

Why should a list allow that conversation about round or flat when 
its such a colossal waste of time?

What meaning would an argument have about having open minds on that topic?

In my book, 1) that issue is a not worth the bandwidth 2) the issue 
of open minds is not germane to established fact.



>One reason not to ban information on this list is because people -- 
>well, I for one -- learn from the information  presented, even when 
>I disagree with portions of it.
>
>It's not about the "convincing" or attempts thereof. It's
about the 
>process of keeping an open mind. Those who do have not foreclosed 
>learning. This list is not only for those who already have closed 
>their minds. It would be a terrible shame to impose that methodology 
>on the rest of us.
>
>Mitchel Cohen
>
>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Michael H Goldhaber <[log in to unmask]>
>>Sent: Aug 2, 2008 2:46 PM
>>To: [log in to unmask]
>>Subject: Re: Censored topics: Clarification requested
>>
>>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
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>


-- 
|||///\\\///\\\///\\\///\\\|||O|||///\\\///\\\///\\\///\\\|||
Jose Morales Ph.D.