Comments on: Adelaide a bust http://www.scienceguardian.com/blog/adelaide-a-bust.htm Reviewing scientific paradigms and other general beliefs in the light of the scientific amd professional literature Sun, 29 Aug 2010 06:03:45 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Jeroen http://www.scienceguardian.com/blog/adelaide-a-bust.htm/comment-page-1#comment-4506 Jeroen Tue, 01 May 2007 21:26:50 +0000 http://www.paradigmoverthrow.com/blog/adelaide-a-bust.htm#comment-4506 [quote]Most of the testimony which showed that there were serious questions that could be asked about the HIV∫AIDS paradigm probably went over his head, and even if they didn’t, [b]the insistence of the Perth pair in challenging the very existence of the virus probably lost them the case[/b] as soon as they testified. This kind of allegation has no chance against the meme once it is in the brain of a judge or anyone else.[/quote] Gallo called the judge's suggestion that an evaluation of Montagnier's work could determine if hiv exists, "sad commentary". That insult must have been sufficient to kill the hiv-exists-meme in the judge's mind. The judge has probably been paid well. MS MCDONALD [proscecutor] CALLS +ROBERT CHARLES GALLO SWORN +EXAMINATION BY MS MCDONALD [...] Q. Again I want to put a suggestion to you that's been made in this court and that is that in effect the whole argument that HIV exists rises and falls on the first experiments conducted by Montagnier. A. That's silly of course. You know that, I mean everybody knows that that's sitting in the courtroom. HIS HONOUR Q. Not everybody, Dr Gallo. A. That's sad commentary. Was it your Honour who made it? Q. I made that comment. A. Well I would regard that as a sad commentary. [...] Well, Montagnier didn't claim in his '83 paper that HIV caused AIDS, he could not, he didn't have the data for it, he did not and could not. So if they stopped with Montagnier's paper they stopped with someone who didn't say HIV is the cause of AIDS. I'm saying it and he sure said after, and I said it in the spring of '84 for the first time. http://aras.ab.ca/articles/legal/Gallo-Transcript.pdf (p20) [quote]Most of the testimony which showed that there were serious questions that could be asked about the HIV∫AIDS paradigm probably went over his head, and even if they didn’t, [b]the insistence of the Perth pair in challenging the very existence of the virus probably lost them the case[/b] as soon as they testified. This kind of allegation has no chance against the meme once it is in the brain of a judge or anyone else.[/quote]

Gallo called the judge’s suggestion that an evaluation of Montagnier’s work could determine if hiv exists, “sad commentary”. That insult must have been sufficient to kill the hiv-exists-meme in the judge’s mind. The judge has probably been paid well.

MS MCDONALD [proscecutor] CALLS
+ROBERT CHARLES GALLO SWORN
+EXAMINATION BY MS MCDONALD
[...]
Q. Again I want to put a suggestion to you that’s been made in this court and that is that in effect the whole argument that HIV exists rises and falls on the first experiments conducted by Montagnier.
A. That’s silly of course. You know that, I mean everybody knows that that’s sitting in the courtroom.
HIS HONOUR
Q. Not everybody, Dr Gallo.
A. That’s sad commentary. Was it your Honour who made it?
Q. I made that comment.
A. Well I would regard that as a sad commentary. [...] Well, Montagnier didn’t claim in his ‘83 paper that HIV caused AIDS, he could not, he didn’t have the data for it, he did not and could not. So if they stopped with Montagnier’s paper they stopped with someone who didn’t say HIV is the cause of AIDS. I’m saying it and he sure said after, and I said it in the spring of ‘84 for the first time.
http://aras.ab.ca/articles/legal/Gallo-Transcript.pdf (p20)

]]> By: MartinDKessler http://www.scienceguardian.com/blog/adelaide-a-bust.htm/comment-page-1#comment-4466 MartinDKessler Sat, 28 Apr 2007 05:23:48 +0000 http://www.paradigmoverthrow.com/blog/adelaide-a-bust.htm#comment-4466 Marcel Girodian was correct, the judge was more like the ones in the witch trials or the Catholic Church at the time of Galileo saying : Yes, I believe you do have a point! The court should really reconsider this! (Which of course they did not.) The judge, probably during his vacation, where he had the time to consider the ramifications of allowing an appeal, decided that this was not the case he would like to be (in)famous for. Marcel Girodian was correct, the judge was more like the ones in the witch trials or the Catholic Church at the time of Galileo saying : Yes, I believe you do have a point! The court should really reconsider this! (Which of course they did not.)

The judge, probably during his vacation, where he had the time to consider the ramifications of allowing an appeal, decided that this was not the case he would like to be (in)famous for.

]]>