Brink, West, Jensen, and Semon reply to Janine Roberts's second response.
First, you’ve already responded. But no problem, I’ll post this further response of yours below with comment on it, if any, from your critics.
You say ‘You write’. Wrong, note the quotation marks: I’m quoting Jensen’s ‘words’.
I don’t agree that his quoted statement is nonsense.
I concur with it.
I think the Letter is a complete fuck-up – I used the polite word ‘shambles’ on my RA site.
The Perth Group, Gene, and Jim all agree too.
We all agree that it’s a complete fuck-up.
Reading it again makes me sick. Content aside, the anodyne language used in it is to puke over.
Whenever I hear the word ‘simply’ my red light goes on, because it’s generally employed to obfuscate.
The editors never ‘simply hid’, they ignored the letter. AM’s too.
Eleni pointed out that HIV hadn’t been isolated right at the beginning of the AIDS era.
Now you say the PG ‘strongly maintains the same’?
As if you independently arrived at the conclusion that HIV has never been shown to exist. And the PG supports your work. Who are you trying to fool?Vaccination mummies in the church hall?
Not fucking once do you cite the PG’s extensive searching analyses and debunks of Gallo’s papers.
The press release states: ‘“With new findings that undermine the scientific integrity and veracity of Gallo's four papers, the entire basis of the theory that HIV causes AIDS may now be questioned,” says Rethinking AIDS president David Crowe.’
Did you protest: ‘That’s completely wrong David, it’s such a typical lie of yours, so very typical of you. In truth, the PG had ample reason to question “the entire basis of the theory that HIV causes AIDS” decades ago, and were doing so decades ago, long before we hit the scene and started trying to carve out some fame for ourselves.’?
No, you basked grinning in your five-minutes of limelight, with RA’s second-raters crowding around you to catch some of the glow, like bums around a grate under a bridge.
RA seems to be the natural home of Johnny come lately poseurs and plagiarists.
And abysmally bad writers.
I did not ‘forget to mention’ the history of your problems with Crowe. Contrariwise it’s on the RA site, with a supportive comment from me: independent of the merits of the Letter, Crowe’s behaviour was stupefying and demonstrated in cameo what a ‘total sack of shit’ he is, as I remarked at the time.
In truth I never paid the content of the Letter any attention when it was circulated, nor when it was released, nor even at the time you were moaning about Crowe. I was completely preoccupied with my own work.
It was much later when the criticisms were rolling in that I appreciated how bad it is. Jim West has just fired the final slug into its head. It’s completely discredited among all serious dissidents. It continues to sparkle, very appropriately, as a fake gem on the RA front-page.
Please take a moment to ponder the relevance of this statement and then explain its relevance to me: ‘I strongly supported in Eleni's request that you be allowed to speak on her behalf at the RA conference and was attacked for supporting this. At that time you thanked me.’ Do you possibly mistake me for Crowe, the puisne politician, trading truth for power?
Roberts: The letter principally pointed out that HIV was not isolated, despite this Science paper claiming in its title that it was isolated. It further pointed out that there was no experiment in this paper designed to prove any virus pathogenic, let alone the cause of AIDS.
The undeniable fact is that the Letter principally was sold on new analyses and discoveries by Janine Roberts. As for the rest, the Perth Group has already provided much better, much more detailed, much more damaging, and above all much more appropriate analyses than this school girl prank, which only Janine Roberts is still naive enough to believe would distract the Editor of Science for a second.
Dr. Maniotis, the only dissident of note still attempting an occasional half-hearted defence of the Letter, has recently admitted that even the minimal response he had hoped for (that science editor Bruce Albert, following protocol, would send the Letter to Gallo, and that Gallo would be upset and react in some way) did not occur:
If Alberts didn't send our request to Gallo, then he is not operating as a true editor of any journal...he must send the complaint to the primary authors (including Papovic since he is primary author). For me, this in and of itself was worth it...plus I was expecting Gallo to call me repeatedly on the phone (as is his habit of doing when something I do against him really upsets him) (Maniotis 12/1/2009)
Under criticism, Roberts creates weak, extraneous arguments.
Under criticism, Roberts shifts the central premise of The Letter: from a) Gallo the fraudulent concealer of Popovic’s supposed admissions, to b) lack of causation proof, to c) lack of isolation.
a) On December 1, 2008, The Letter itself is mainly a dramatic and false portrayal of Gallo concealing Popovic’s supposed admission of lack of evidence for virus causation for AIDS: “that key experimental findings have been concealed.” The Letter portrays Popovic and Gallo in opposition, draft and published versions as different, and Gallo's edits as deliberate fraud. See http://www.plag.co.cc/jr/lts081201.htm
b) On October 2, 2009, Roberts responds to Jensen, making the central premise, the lack of proof of causation : “The central premise of the Letter... is that; at no point in the Popovic et al paper... is there any experiment designed to prove any virus pathogenic, let alone the cause of AIDS.” Popovic/Gallo opposition becomes a secondary note.
c) Here, December 1, 2009, Roberts responds to Brink, making “isolation” the primary premise, and causation, secondary: “The letter principally pointed out that HIV was not isolated.... It further pointed out that there was no experiment in this paper designed to prove any virus pathogenic...”
c) Current item.
I need not repeat the entire dialogue on the big list, nor do I want it to be "personal".
But of course, as George Lakoff (The Political Mind) writes about the human brain, there's no such thing as "disembodied logic". So it inevitably gets "personal", when it comes to "world-view warfare" - our deeply held convictions understandings, etc become "us" - as we've clearly seen in past months.
If you want to go on believing that "It further pointed out that there was no experiment in this paper designed to prove any virus pathogenic, let alone the cause of AIDS" - FINE. But I will continue to insist that its bullshit. (In agreement with Anthony agreeing with me and Claus.)
As I've said to you previously, such a letter makes no sense if the unless authors don't understand and assume the perspective of Bruce Alberts. David Crowe as usual waffled on this point, with his (paraphrasing) "well it was only for a propaganda victory anyway".
But it's just common sense to anticipate how Alberts is going to scrutinize every word.
So clearly there are many statements in the paper pages 497 and 498 that contradict your statement - even from my perspective.
As I said to the big list, Haseltine confirmed the syncytia induction experiments in Popovic /Gallo paper. By February 1986, in SCIENCE, Gallo offered a model of pathogenesis based on many experiments.
So looking forward, I like what Andy says which obviously should have been included one year ago:
Yes, perhaps, but I am a cell and tissue culturist "par excellence" (ask my peers), and as with Strohman in his lab, I have created a number of new In Vitro systems that have been published. In the "HIV" literature, syncytia are not necessarily diagnostic of "HIV" infection because:
Cell extracts thought to contain "HIV," when cultured in Petri dishes with lymphocytes or cancer cells:
the cells. (Montagnier's LAVBRU).
B. Don't kill the cells. (Gallo's H9 cell line for instance)
C. Fuse cells together. (Haseltine as you pointed out and others).
D. Don't fuse cells together (H9 cells from which the test kits are made).
etc but not too much :o)