I guess that’s impossible TS, since you should by now be able to tell me, with all the resources you’ve collected here, why a quasispecies can’t be a lentivirus. This particulat dissonance can only be understood via biochemistry, which in your case requires interviews with practicing biochemists to get to the bottom of the issue. But due diligence seems to be beyond the ken of modern journalism since, of course, there’s no time …

TS, again you insist that I repeat myself. It is the essence of the psych-out tactics of the other side, what you’re doing! Your questions have been answered, since presumably an ‘average person’ (whatever the hell THAT means) can comprehend the idea of an illusionist’s trick. especially as popularized in the movies The Illusionist and The Prestige.

As far as the cDNA clone itself, the metaphors techne and ontos are consistent with the illusionism that’s been pulled off precisely because the genius Gallo salvaged cancer virology by “inventing” a $100 billion gold mine. Now, what is it about recombinant DNA reliably (of course!) produced by the cloning technique from different fragments of rearranged endogenous DNA as a result of the artifice cell culturing that still eludes you? Are you saying that these topics, DNA, cloning and the culturing of cells are not covered in newspapers? That people don’t know that cell cultures are not organisms found in the natural biosphere? That recombinant DNA has never been in the news, even (gasp) the source of another controversy right at the time we transitioned to the AIDS era? But now, of course, I’m getting too close to that dreaded, blasphemous conspiracy theory so … enough …

“for their politesse, when we also admired them for their ability to make scientific statements and objections based on papers and data, which you sadly seem almost never to manage, and if you do quote someone or something kindly specify at least one or two points in what you are recommending, and why you like them” (TS)

At first, I find this response unbelievable; but then when I contemplate gutless leaders who decide the most appropriate response to the current crisis is gatekeeping and controlling putative “wild cards”, it makes sense. Is this too unintelligible TS? What on earth can I possibly mean? Whatever you do, don’t, please don’t contemplate how what I just said relates to current events.

Look, MacDonald has nailed you on how your responses in this thread are isomorphic to the tactics of the other side. And you simply go on, continuing to feign incomprehension or ignore salient points. I have made my points crystal clear; example, what is it about “synthetic” that needs to be further explained to you?

And your scientific hero Martel LIED on an important technical point concerning PCR to set up one of those famous “impossibility barriers” that you appear to find so endearing.

Alas, you are so impossibly obtuse in this thread that I’m forced to play the ace card. (Reluctantly? I honestly don’t know.) In the “great debate” between Peter Duesberg and Perth Group there is a probability argument. Do you have any idea what it is? Which party’s reasoning was more rigorous? Why many observers have concluded that PD lost the whole thing on the basis of the Perthian response?

Above I called for a cease fire. F**k that. It’s worldview warfare, all against all, and why should “dissidents” be exempt from World War IV. All scientists who continue to support toxic biotechnology in any of its manifestations should be impeached. Let the games continue.

(My lawyer just informed me to make it clear that I’m NOT talking about personal attacks of any kind.)

Perhaps you will allow us to say that the ultimate aim of this blog and its discussion is to get policymakers to open this can of worms and rescue the victims of the AIDS meme from damage and death. This can only be done by speaking to non scientists in as many double and monosyllables as possible, preferably in Anglo Saxon rather than Latin verbiage (not saying you indulge in Latinate verbiage, merely stating the requirements as we see them). Politicians have neither the time nor the acumen to deal with endless subtleties, and their staff need everything simplified too, given the amount of stuff that gets thrown at them. Are you aware for example that the New York Times gets 400 letters a day? That’s at least 40 times the number they print,. right? David Pogue just revealed this at the Javits Photoplus show. Presumably Congressional staff get innumerable tips of the same nature. So we have to keep things simple. Also, the slow witted blog host and newcomers to this blog need the same service. So don’t mind us asking you to give us a sound bite here. Not intended to demean your research or your argument in any way.

The lab workers of the world say that they can clone and sequence and culture the Virus, and analyze small variations in its RNA. What are they doing if the Perth group are right and they are not doing what they think they are doing?

Without an answer to this question it is really a matter of sniping without result at the established notion, which doesn’t seem to produce many difficulties of its own accord.

TS, with all due respect, you’ve effectively created a classic double bind in this thread. Plus you’ve pulled an Adele with this caricature of my position. Do you see how Duke wound things up here? Can I be fair to him by just pulling a slogan out of my pocket, or resort to a put down since my last post actually did address his substantive points in a form (hopefully) intelligible to you?

The part of scientific method that calls for pointing out flaws in evidence and reasoning that support a particular hypothesis does not require the presentation of an alternative.

As you can see from Duke’s posts, there’s an overwhelming amount of evidence that’s been produced by the government sponsored research cartel and there will ALWAYS be papers I haven’t read that can be thrown at me. After all, we’re talking about at least $100 billion dollars worth of research, not exactly what you can call a level playing field. So when you, say, offend MacDonald’s sense of what constitutes intellectual good faith, yeah, more than a few jabs will come your way.

And of course, Perth Group has done this presentation of an alternative anyway, right down to the molecular level that addresses the place where retroviruses fit in. It’s all in Continuum and it really shouldn’t matter to a truthseeker that it wasn’t a Tier I Journal. So I now point out, not to insult you, that perhaps you’ve been taken in by the other side’s (Chris Nobel) ploys, e.g. repetitive insisting on an alternative hypothesis when one has already been presented.

Everything I’ve put up here since Martle (remember HIS attempt to mislead us with the annealing temperature BS?) is to make the case that the other side’s position hangs on a fundamental contradiction between the biological properties of a lentivirus and the biological properties of a viral quasispecies. Many of the points raised by Peter Duesberg, especially 1987 – 1990, highlight this fundamental contradiction. You can call it a “forensic overlap” with the Perthian position but – and I don’t mean this as a put-down – you MUST do some work to get this.

And of course, this is a reminder of the tragic, but I’ve also argued could have been prevented, outcome of the Parenzee Case.