Apparently, we still have to beat this point to death given our gracious host’s choice to dig in his heels and continue to attack the Perth’s PRACTICE of science, which has nothing to do with losing this case. But the question I’m trying to raise is how VALID was the testimony, say Gallo’s on “purification”: and yes, it is the job of opposing counsel to somehow expose it’s invalidity. This can and has been done by expert trial lawyers, even in technically complex areas.

As far as Eleni’s testimony, I’m relying on the parts excerpted by Judge Sulan.

More boring tecno-legal details will follow.

Also anyone familiar with programming Wordpress please contact if you may be able to help with adjustments..

Absolutely not, Dan. That is Moore’s politics, which he forces on others who disagree with him, but which only reflects the concious or unconscious knowledge of the weakness of his paradigm, which no half way intelligent person would support in its basics, whatever recondite issues are disputed by the distinguished sophisticates who contribute to this blog.

We have not the slightest interest in bending our opinion to suit the politics of others, since we basically are revolted by science twisted by emotion and bias of any kind. Unless they offer us ready money of course, when we are like anybody else, willing to assert the moon is made of cheese if the price is right.

To us the whole point of being a very rich country is that we can afford to deal with the truth, but apparently this is a very naive approach. We haven’t adapted to the modern world, where everything is now commercialized, even DNA.

Anyone here whose scientific analysis is bent around their politics kindly leave unless they have a large sum of money to deposit in our bank account, in which case they may stay and we will never contradict them, we promise.

As far as the Adelaide case being lost by the Perth pair is concerned, yes, it was, and a pity that the willful Eleni arranged that outcome by threatening to call a press conference and denounce any other dissident who was called as a witness, if that rather unlikely internet rumor (from Landis, apparently) is true. true or not, telling any judge that you don’t believe the virus really exists is just asking to be rated a crackpot, which indeed is the case since otherwise you would know that and be more cautious.

The Perth pair just discredit the real scientists and their real objections to HIV∫AIDS ideology which has never had anything scientific to recommend it. Want to ensure a case is lost? Call the Perthbusters!

That’s politics. But it’s separate from science, and has bearing only in who is listened to and who is not.

This is a science blog, not a political one

Noted.

Unfortunately, the next two statements which come from the same post sound quite political, or at the very least, not so much about the science.

But it doesn’t matter whether they are right or wrong about their incredible claim. The simple fact is that they are a menace to the reputation of others who claim that the paradigm is wrong, as the Adelaide case showed

This is not amateur hour, this is war, as John Moore has stated. To oppose an aircraft carrier you need a few Exocet missiles, not a Vietnam era battleship

Now TS is agreeing with Moore that this is war. If it is war, then united we stand, divided we fall, correct?

The Perth Group gambled and lost. I, for one, didn’t think for a minute that this case would be any challenge to the paradigm…Perth Group or not. Just my opinion. Time to move on.