|
Discussion |
||
|
LTS: A Close Read |
||
|
|
|
|
Subject: West replies to Roberts (4)
|
|
||||||
|
|
Roberts begins by erasing my first and third items, then presenting two paragraphs of run-on sentences. I have parsed them. | ||||||
|
Jim - your email is nit-picking in my view, Popovic's manuscript is not "stamped" as a first draft but typed in my view - same typescript as the paper - I show this in my book - {p} |
I now suggest "affixed" as a replacement for "stamped" to accede to Roberts' "nit-picking". |
||||||
|
so definitely it is the first typed draft - -{p} |
Roberts' argument that Popovic's draft is "scarcely a first draft" – is resolved with Roberts agreeing. | ||||||
|
I simply recently suggested that Popovic probably did a few drafts of his own... before he produced this typed copy but this is only a surmise and just so unimportant...{p} |
Roberts calls this topic "so unimportant", yet it describes the relevancy of the "first draft" to the published paper. The topic was brought up by Mike Hersee earlier in the thread, so it is important. | ||||||
|
.... - as for your other point Jim, - as you are saying the same as I have said repeatedly - in my book, in articles and in emails, thus I must agree with you! {p} |
Roberts emphatically agrees to my important second point, which is, "Roberts here, and The Letter itself, are inconsequential." Roberts' emphatic miswrite, "I must agree with you!", takes the discussion off-topic. |
||||||
|
as for your third point, that the letter to science, and presumably all its many eminent signatories, acted incredibly, - here it is simply your negativity speaking ....{p} |
Extracts from Claus Jensen's review of The Letter demonstrate that "negativity" is not mine: "distance my name", "I feel blind-sided", "what's your purpose", "nowhere is there mention of Janine", "was previously advised there are no reasons... to withdraw... the paper", "I found Janine’s actual writings and read incredulously...". | ||||||
|
for my part I think we should be building on the letter and using it more ... Christine, David and I and the RA board - we achieved together, despite all difficulties, something striking and good... {p} |
The Letter is detailed line-by-line at "LTS: A Close Read". The Letter portrays false "revelations" with dramatic devices and blatant misrepresentation of text. | ||||||
|
which in fact does not contradict Perth's view at all. |
Roberts launches an off-topic vagary. | ||||||
|
Eleni long ago wrote that that no cause of AIDS was isolated in this experiment, basing her words on the published papers - {p} |
Roberts extends the vagary. | ||||||
|
I focussed perhaps more on the events on the ground at the time these experiments were done - |
More vagaries. The problems of The Letter are not a thing of the past. | ||||||
|
and satisfied myself that there was clear evidence of fraud and deceit - as did also all our many signatories, Janine |
I requested support for Roberts' claim of what the signatories knew, on 12/4/2009. No response. | ||||||
|
On 14 Dec 2009, at 19:41, jw wrote:
Yet, "Science -- First draft" is stamped in the upper left-hand corner of Popovic's copy See "Cited Documents", "Undated" draft of Popovic, at Crewdson's site http://www.sciencefictions.net
2) Roberts writes,
"also... the paper did not contain any experiment designed to prove
any virus pathogenic".
Roberts here,
and The Letter itself, are inconsequential. Popovic's paper does
not claim to prove virus causation. See http://plag.tk/jr/lts081201.htm
3) Roberts writes,
"This is an atrocious piece of 'science' which should be withdrawn -
do you doubt this?"
The Letter cannot hope
to bring down Popovic's paper,
because The Let
|
As Roberts deleted my first and third items, they are copied here for reference: 1) Roberts writes, "Jim really... this was... scarcely a first draft".
Yet, "Science -- First draft" is stamped in the upper left-hand corner of Popovic's copy. See "Cited Documents", "Undated" draft of Popovic, at Crewdson's site http://www.sciencefictions.net
2) Roberts writes, "also... the paper did not contain any experiment designed to prove any virus pathogenic".
Roberts here, and The Letter itself, are inconsequential. Popovic's paper does not claim to prove virus causation. See http://plag.tk/jr/lts081201.htm
3) Roberts writes, "This is an atrocious piece of 'science' which should be withdrawn - do you doubt this?"
The Letter cannot hope to bring down Popovic's paper, because The Letter is an incredible liability. Only as a publicity device can it have value, though for whom? Orthodoxy can use it to exemplify "denialism". |
||||||
|
Janine Roberts. Author of "Fear of the Invisible" & "Glitter
and Greed;" and on Aboriginal Australia -"Massacres to Mining"
and "Jack of Cape Grim.
Publisher in 2009 of "Goodbye AIDS" by Maria Papagiannidou,
a senior journalist and former AIDS victim, and of 'Jabs,
Jenner and Juggernauts" a easy-to-read book on vaccine
dangers by Jennifer Craig PhD
www.vaccines.plus.com\
|
Jim
West
http://www.plag.tk/jr/lts081201.htm
(Review of "The Letter To Science")
|
| Footnotes | |
| 1. |
Editorial marks: Yellow highlight, bolding, and {brackets} are Jim West's. {p} means parsed for review |
| 2. | The Letter, A Close Read, by Jim West |
| 3. | The Letter To Science; http://rethinkingaids.com/Home/tabid/146/Default.aspx; accessed 10/30/2009 10:59am |
| 4. | The version history according to ORI: Draft 1 was hand-written. Draft 2 was typed version of draft 1. Draft 2 and 3 are nearly identical, in terms of ORI's scope (Gallo's purported plagiarism of Montagnier's LAV). Draft 4 was Popovic's "first draft" for Gallo to begin the editing cycles, and labeled on Popovic's copy as "first draft". Though perhaps things are somewhat not as they appear, as it is not clear if Gallo was involved in some editing of draft 3 to produce draft 4. ORI mentions eight drafts but doesn't stipulate that those represent all draft versions. |
