Jim West Debates Arrogant Professionals

Debate method

1) Carefully determine the point of the topic. Diplomatically avoid, ignore or correct attempts to go off-topic no matter how insulting or dramatic the opponent. Take whatever time required to be succinct. Otherwise a swamp awaits because you have provided off-topic handles and vagaries. Know that all logical fallacies (ad hominem, ad popularem, ad autoritat, pedanticism, etc) are actually one fallacy -- an attempt to go off-topic (Aristotle).

2) Know that a great belief, accepted by all, nevertheless still carries the burden of proof.

3) Debate is for mutual enlightenment, not win/loss. It can be more profitable to debate a "frenemy". This attitude will inadvertently increase enlightenment and inadvertently lead to a higher frequency of "wins". Eventually you will become a poet.

Why is disease prevention often ineffective?

Jim WestMD at John Hopkins Medical
Conflict of interest. No disease, no profit. Medicine could be the main contributor of nearly all childhood disease.

For example, coming to light recently, is that most modern ultrasound studies find it a risk to the fetus, permanent damage.

Ref: A New Bibliography
Your reference is hardly a valid scientific one. Please name one peer-reviewed study published in the scientific literature that actually supports this theory. There is only one scientific study quoted in your reference and did does not support any fetal injury.
Authoritatively, DMiller (2012) states that ultrasound safety has never been established. Allowed machine intensity levels were raised 16-fold by the FDA in 1991, because industry wanted unrestricted technical development. DMiller states that FDA limited ultrasound intensity to the adult eye at 50 mW/cm2, yet 720 mW/cm2 for the fetal eye.

Why do you think that is? Disease prevention?

Ref: DL Miller (2012)
Again: where is the evidence of actual injury? Millions of fetal ultrasounds yearly. If there is actual harm, it should not be hard to find cause and effect. Alternatively, do study on animal model. Can scale down to rats. Such an important area of human health should get grant funding if well written. Scientific inquiry is much better than extrapolation.
You suggest, “scale down to rats”.

Ellisman (1987) is a rat pup ultrasound study designed to emulate the human fetal scenario. It found “frank” dysfunction of myelination with an ultrasound intensity 1/5333rd of the FDA-allowed machine intensity, of 720mw/cm2 SPTA. The study won an NIH award for quality. Yet no serious discussion followed publication, and funding was refused for continuation.

Ref: Ellisman (1987)
[No response.]

[The doctor might not want to be on record knowing this information. Thanks for a somewhat honest conversation.]

Does HIV (virus) Exist?

Jim WestMedical Lawyer/Biologist
According to critics of the HIV=AIDS paradigm:

1) There is no documentation demonstrating HIV isolation.

Ref: The Perth Group

2) There are no environmental studies (toxicology).

Ref: Peter Duesberg, PhD

I disagree with your conclusion that there is no demonstrated causality associated with HIV. While that may have been true 30-40 years ago, by now it is abundantly clear that AIDS is caused by HIV. Peter Duesberg has yet to offer “any” evidence which is not anecdotal supporting his hypothesis that HIV is not causative. And virtually every other researcher on earth has concluded, based upon an abundance of well replicated data and vast clinical evidence that it is.

I would suggest that you avoid the conspiracy sites and focus upon the peer-reviewed publicized research, instead.
The burden of proof is on those who claim HIV causes AIDS.No. Not anymore. In case you hadn’t noticed, they’ve already proven it. Overwhelmingly. I invite you to cite any peer-reviewed research which disputes any of the wealth of research which unambiguously demonstrates that HIV causes AIDS. It is not the sole cause of every immune system dysfunction, but it is the cause of AIDS.

It has so thoroughly been demonstrated that, at this point, the burden of proof is not longer on those who claim it causes AIDS, it is upon those who dispute it.

Moreover, I invite you to cite any peer-reviewed research which demonstrates any other cause. To my knowledge, there is none. That said, I invite you to show me I’m wrong.
Logic reigns eternal. Toxicology was not discounted and HIV was not isolated. Yet, both items must be fulfilled. With respect, toxicology was the first thing they investigated. They had a wide variety of theories about AIDS and the belief that it was caused by “poppers” was high among them because everyone “knew”, of course, that gay people all used poppers or some other form of amyl nitrates to get high. They assumed all sorts of frankly wacko causes for AIDS, none of which proved out until HTLV-3 was identified. Or LAV or whatever else you wanted to call it. Its now been designated HIV, which comes in 2 primary flavors, depending upon its animal (SIV) origin, which has been extensively characterized because of the amazing advances in molecular medicine and DNA/RNA analysis.

I have no idea where you get the notion that HIV has not been isolated,or else I am misunderstanding what you are trying to say.
Toxicology was mentioned but not rigorously studied.

If you “have no idea where you get the notion that HIV has not been isolated”, then you didn’t read my initial statement.
[No response.]

[After a few weeks, he requested removal of his challenge. Apparently he read my references. I appreciate the somewhat civilized conversation.]

Vaccines Supported by Jewish Law?

Jim WestPro-Vaccine Hasidim
Jewish law says "flee the city" during a plague. You advocate vaccines, yet vaccines will keep you in the city, thinking you are safe. Shalom, and thank you for your email.

I am having some trouble understanding your question. Can you give me the source for fleeing the city during a plague?

Please don't hesitate to write back if I can be of any further help.
Thank you. Here's what I'm referring to:


Rabbi Moshe Isserles (known as the Rema), one of Judaism’s outstanding halachic decisors, writes that when a plague breaks out in a city, the inhabitants of that city should not wait for the plague to spread.

Rather, they (with some exceptions) are obligated to try and flee the city at the onset of the outbreak.

When there is an epidemic, not only is it your obligation to flee, but as a parent you have the obligation to secure the safety of your children. Rabbi Yeshayah ha-Levi Horowitz, known as the Shelah, writes that any parent who doesn’t move his children out of a city plagued by an epidemic is held responsible for their fate. We have established that one must do whatever is in their power to save oneself, one’s children, and others as well from possible life-threatening dangers. and it would seem that there is no difference between vaccinating and having to flee a city when there is an epidemic.


The third paragraph is a problem. It twists the meaning of "flee from the city", as if a vaccine is equivalent to fleeing.

Vaccination (with its sense of security) causes a person to not flee the city.
Shalom Jim,

How does it twist the meaning? It says that one needs to secure the safety of his children. If that can be done through vaccination, then it is identical, and maybe better than actually fleeing.

Please don't hesitate to write back if I can be of any further help.

"Fleeing" is the better security, unless one is sure of the diagnoses.

Example: London, 1952, during "The Great London Smog", thousands died and many more disabled. Industry prevented people from fleeing, with the misnomer, "The Great London Fog", misdiagnosing the epidemic as influenza. Coal smoke was so obvious that this was eventually corrected.

Devra Davis documents this and other fake epidemics designed to protect industry.

Ref: Devra Davis (2002)

In the U.S., stove exhaust symptoms are being misdiagnosed as "flu" with "disastrous consequences".

Ref: Dolan (1985)

I'm not sure how that applies to vaccinations.

Please don't hesitate to write back if I can be of any further help.

Environmental diseases can be misdiagnosed as infectious (see examples).

Vaccines would therein give a false sense of security and discourage the proper action, fleeing.

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you are saying.

Please don't hesitate to write back if I can be of any further help.

What do you not understand?
Shalom Jim.

I see no purpose in discussing what can be mistaken for what. Judaism teaches that we follow the majority when in doubt. Common medical practice is to vaccinate, therefore we vaccinate.

I do not have anything further to add on this topic, sorry.

I see now why you have difficulty understanding me. You fell off topic, as neither mistakes nor doubts have been mentioned.

Staying on topic...

Fleeing would secure people from infectious AND environmental epidemic scenarios. That perhaps, is why fleeing is recommended.
[No response.]

[This person is apparently not allowed to discuss environmental factors.]

If a vaccine were developed that prevented autism, what would anti-vaxers do?

Jim WestCertified Toxicologist
They would merely ask if the vaccine were a commercial gimmick.

For example, a vaccine can be widely sold despite even its manufacturer stating that it has not been proven safe nor effective.

See: Pharma Confession

[Someone jumped in with, "Thimerosal isn’t toxic." I replied,]

The entire purpose of Thimerosal in vaccines is its toxicity. Read the manufacturer insert paper which I linked.
This is absolutely untrue. Thimerosal, in the very few vaccines in which it is used, is added as a preservative not as a poison.

[The topic is changed from Thimerosal properties, to manufacturer's intended use of Thimerosal. Game alert.]
Preservatives are poisons. [I take the bait.] No they are not all poisons. That is also untrue. Do you have any training or experience in toxicology? It does not appear so, from your incorrect statements.
There are exceptions, but the preservative we are discussing is a poison. [I reassert the topic.] [No response.]

[ I caught the toxicologist playing pedantic semantics.]

Why does mainstream medicine not teach disease prevention?

Jim WestAnesthesiologist 15 years
Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons
Conflict of interest. No disease, no profit.

Medicine could be the main contributor of nearly all childhood disease.

For example, coming to light recently, is that most modern ultrasound studies find it a risk to the fetus, permanent damage.

Ref: A New Bibliography
Now that is a ridiculous claim and you should know better. Your intellectual stature just shrunk immensely as a result. Your reference does not prove any of your claims. You may be right but you have not proven it. Making controversial statements does not impress most authorities unless there is objective data. You suggest that important research has been and is being done in China. But forces conspire to prevent its publication or distribution. This is standard conspiracy theory commentary. You readily admit “though for legal reasons, its conclusions and implications should be suspended, pending trustworthy authoritative review.” You show several figures without defining the acronyms used. You refer to a Chinese study of changes in aborted fetuses. Was there a control group? What does the surgical procedure of abortion do to fetal tissue? You show electrophoretic patterns claiming the demonstration of DNA fragmentation. This does not clearly support your case. It might be impressive to those persons naive about electrophoresis. I would certainly expect better than this for someone whose “work found its way into several professional books, journals, and websites” I challenge you to publish your research after it has undergone “trustworthy authoritative review” I also challenge you to provide a decent bibliography or footnotes.

[This hothead is treating my press release as if it were a formal study, then declaring it insufficient.]
With patience you will understand the acronyms. You will find the control groups and understand how control groups account for things like surgical procedures. You will find that prenatal ultrasound can damage tissue at intensities far below that allowed by the FDA. [No reply]