Images Of Poliomyelitis plag_home jr discussion dc-jw-20100217

Discussion

LTS:  A Close Read

 


Reply To Crowe (jw 2/17/2010)

Contact

Subject:  "West to Crowe:  LTS In A Perfect World"

Highlights added by Jim West.

David Crowe, 12/4/2009

Jim West, 2/17/2010

My perspective is that:

1. The Gallo quartet of papers should be removed from the scientific record as fraudulent and fundamentally unreliable. This should result in a rethinking of the entire AIDS theory obviously. 

2. The strategy and content of the letter are secondary. They could have been improved, but what can't? Fundamentally I think the general thrust of the letter was correct. 

3. Calling for their removal was a historic moment, although the execution was botched with nobody following up with the journal to persist in getting at least a response. 

4. In a perfect world accusations of scientific fraud would be taken seriously and the journal would immediately start a preliminary investigation to determine if a full investigation considering their withdrawal was warranted. 

5. In such a world, the content of the letter is almost irrelevant because the journal should verify every point and solicit other viewpoints. All the letter would be is a trigger (in this world we clearly don't live in). 

I really think this discussion is unproductive. I wouldn't have written even this email except I wanted to put my viewpoints on the record. Beyond this, I think I will remain silent

I apologize to all the people on this list who also don't want to be party to this destructive discussion

Regards,

    David Crowe 

At 2:10 PM -0600 12/4/09, Maniotis, Andrew J. wrote:

>Dear Jim,

>Regarding your reasoning:

>  "Now, how does PSSD show that Gallo concealed Popovic's statements about supposed virus causation, in his draft?  Or, that Gallo was involved in  deliberate fraud? (As The Letter portrays)"

>It doesn't show anything about concealment, viral causation, etc.,  and I never said it did. The paper is about a new In Vitro "amplification" method and that is all. The only problem is that the paper doesn't prove it is a virus being amplified or that a virus is even linked to either pathology or human disease. The experiments weren't designed to do this, it is obvious.

>The proper controls are missing...(see the following for one example as to how to show a virus is causing a pathogenic effect, or not, In Vitro...it is work I am familiar with too...Klara Valyi-Nagy, Robert Folberg, Tibor Valyi-Nagy, Andrew J. Maniotis. Susceptibility of Herpes simplex Virus Type I and II, The Role of Tumor Invasiveness, The Extracellular Matrix, and Chromatin Sequestration.  Experimental Eye Research, Vol. 84, 9991-10,000, 2007.

>In support of the letter to Science, I just said that it is "highly unusual behavior" from the standpoint of any working scientist, former post-doc, former research scientist, and current lab PI, lab technician, or anyone else working toward a scientific objective. I've never heard of such a thing (as sending a MS to one's relatives for "safe keeping," unless perhaps they also were scientists and you wanted to impress them with some new discovery you'd made before it is published). I don't know your background, but, if you'd ask any working scientist functioning at any level in a research lab and doing original research, I'd bet they'd tell you the same thing...resulting in my word choice..."perculiar behavior."

>In addition, I never said there was deliberate fraud regarding the Pasteur/Bethesda shuffle (who stole whose fake diamonds). Ever since Gallo sent me and my university his law suit threats along with the filter salesman's book, Dissecting a Discovery-that he ghost wrote with the help of one Nikolas Kontaratos, a must read for anyone with questions regarding "who stole whose fake diamonds"  unless I retract that I had called him a thief on film and in a few of my writings, my view on the subterfuge has been 180 degrees about face. First, my excuse for this oversight (that Gallo was really a thief) was because 1) if you walk into any immunology, genetics, biochemistry, cell biology lab, university or medical school on the planet and strike up a conversation, and if you line up 50 John Moore's or other academic scientists who believe in "HIV/AIDS" as if it were the eucharist, they all will reiterate ad nauseum the same thing...that it is well known that everybody working in academic science or medicine knows that "HIV" always causes AIDS, but that at the same time and with the same breath, that Gallo stole the virus from Montagnier. It is as accepted and reiterated general wisdom as much as the fact that Nobel was known for dynamite or that the sun will rise in the morning.

>Also, 2) because of the fact that I once was interviewed by Crewdson (in 1999) and he plastered my interview on the front page of the Chicago Tribune, sometime during that interview (about my findings and calling into question the prevailing cancer hypothesis of that day), Crewdson and I at that time had opportunithy to also discuss this issue of the "who stole whose fake diamonds" at length, (as he kept me on the phone for no less than 3 hours), and because of his journalistic power and acumen at that time, being known for his bringing down Gallo and role in Watergate, and because of my fear at the time regarding how Crewdson could ruin me or crush me in a sentence with his pen if he wanted to, I trusted Crewdson's assessment of the Gallo subterfuge and shouldn't have. Gallo straightened me out completely during numerous conversations, and because he sent me the "Dissecting a discovery" book, offered to have a 3-way with Montagnier (a three way conversation-don't get any perverted ideas), and if you simply look at the NEJM article that Gallo and Montagnier co-authored in 2003 I think it was, there can be no doubts regarding theft (there wasn't any).

>For what it is worth, and I'll repeat it herer again because I've enjoyed enormously some of your work on epidemics and vaccines, my contention ever since those chilling daily conversations on my cell phone as he'd interrupt me as much as 3 times a day with threats and warnings unless I retracted my videos and writings on the Internet still remain:

>GALLO BECOMES A SHEPHERD, AND SCIENTIFIC PEER REVIEW IS AVOIDED:

>Although it was claimed that there was an initial molecular concordance between Montagnier’s “LAV” {sic, html code} and Gallo’s “HIV” (HTLVIIIB) discovered “in isolates” from what were then defined as ARC (Montagnier's Patient One who had syphilis, gonnorhea, herpes I and II, cytomegalovirus, Epstein-Barr virus, and God knows what else), or AIDS patients (Gallo's HTLV-IIIB isolate pooled from the sera of "20 or more "AIDS" patients), and despite "a  laboratory accident," whereby it was claimed that a different "isolate" (LAVBRU) was sent from The Pasteur Institute to Bethesda which “infected” (contaminated) the cultures of the Gallo group, Robin Weiss’s group in England, and at least several other laboratories, research in these labs was thus confounded for at least the next year (Robert Gallo, personal communication).  And despite the fact that Gallo shepherded through the 1983 Barre-Sinnousi et al. paper through to publication because it didn’t pass initial review, the patent on the blood test was filed by Dr. Gallo the day of the press release.

>This patent filing was from henceforward destined to be plagued by numerous accusations of stealing, deception, misconduct, and fraud. 

>However, shepherding of papers occurs frequently among cooperating scientific groups, and as such, such papers are not rigorously “peer-reviewed.” The interests of the U.S. and French governments regarding the patenting of a blood test, fear of contagion, religious views regarding morality, sex, and drugs, and Reagan politics began an era that perhaps should be characterized as the most politicized disease in history.  And even though it was finally concluded that there was no misconduct or stealing found in the Gallo/Papovic case, the numerous accusations, and the lengthy and costly investigations of misconduct and blame only served to polarize those involved and those critical of them, and the charges of wrong doing only fueled bitter rivalry and criticism among scientists who even believe in "HIV" like Christ himself, yet Gallo was a thief, that has lasted for more than two decades.

>All Gallo ever wanted to do was to be praised, like a little boy who wanted to be taken seriously after crying “wolf” too many times, (or in his case, “a human cancer retrovirus is coming,” “a human cancer retrovirus is coming,” “wolf,” “wolf,” a human AIDS retrovirus is coming, etc….) and for linking a retrovirus to a human disease.

>And if shepherding (avoiding critical peer review) was the way to do it, then, by golly, Gallo would become a shepherd for Montagnier’s and Barre-Sinoussi "LAVBRU" isolate, and he would politely smile when they received their Nobels 24 years later saying “they deserved it.” Not out of the goodness of his heart. But as one last-ditch effort after two previous mistakes that had failed to convince the scientific community in the cancer context, that a second scientific group (outside his own) could also use his flawed “retroviral isolation methods” based upon reverse transcriptase activity instead of genuine viral isolation, and link a “retrovirus” to a human disease. It wasn’t a matter of theft, it wasn’t a matter of “who stole whose fake diamonds.” It was  a matter of a boy crying wolf too many times who wanted to save face and his legacy.  Gallo would not be content only with his hypertoxic interleukin 2 which was his self-proclaimed curative “cancer drug-” he needed recognition for linking retroviruses to human disease.

>RE:

>"Hiding something, no matter how strangely, does not increase its credibility."

>I agree...yet maintain it is unheard of behavior in the context of a scientific laboratory as far as my experience goes.

>I hope this helps,

>Sincerely,

>and Cheers,

>Andrew Maniotis, murderer of AIDS patients.

>On Fri, December 4, 2009 12:48 pm, jw wrote:

>  > Andrew,

>>

>>  First, I appreciate your tremendous dedication, wide-ranging knowledge,  skills, experience, and humor.

>>  My response to your reply:

>>  1)

>>  Agreed:  Popovic sent his sister a draft copy.

>>  Suggested acronym: "PSSD"

>>  PSSD was not mentioned in The Letter.

>>  Thus, PSSD is not a requirement for a review of The Letter.

>>  2)

>>  I assert:

>>  PSSD is a liability if presented to a sophisticated audience.

>>  PSSD is useful as non-public speculation, or promo for The Letter.

>>  3)

>>  Let's speculate about PSSD.

>>  Let's pretend PSSD was included in The Letter.

>>  Let's assume PSSD is extraordinarily "peculiar" as you say.

>>  Let's assume Gallo is corrupt.

>>  Let's believe Popovic confessed he was afraid of the fate of his draft in  the hands of a corrupt Gallo.

>>  Let's accept that Popovic used PSSD to clarify his own position regarding  supposed Gallo-plagiarism-of-Montagnier/LAV.

>>  Now, how does PSSD show that Gallo concealed Popovic's statements about  supposed virus causation, in his draft?  Or, that Gallo was involved in  deliberate fraud? (As The Letter portrays)

>>  No result.  PSSD meaning - is dependent upon a subsequent fraudulent change in Popovic's draft.  The changes didn't actually happen, comparing draft  against published paper at 

>> {defunct link, so try:}
http://plag.tk/jr/lts081201.htm#The_Smoking_Gun,_Discovered

>>  4)

>>  Parallel.

>>  Imagine a court scenario.

>>  The judge requests all parties to bring forth published and draft copies.

>>  Does one party get extra weight for having saved a copy with a sister?

>>  Is a copy brought to court more credible if saved with a sister?

>>  No.

>>  If Yes, then everyone would be installing file cabinets in their sister's  residence, and begging their parents to birth or adopt daughters.

>>  Conclusion

>>  Hiding something, no matter how strangely, does not increase its credibility.

>>  PSSD is apparently a secret speculative rationalization designed to maintain  a sense of righteousness.  No one dare include it in A Serious Public  Document.

>>  Regards,

>>  Jim West

>>  http://harpub.tk

>>  -----Original Message-----

>>  From: Maniotis, Andrew J. [mailto]

>>  Sent: Monday, November 30, 2009 1:30 PM

>>  To: Mike Hersee

>>  Cc: {...}

>> 'Anthony  Brink'

>>  Subject: RE: The Letter To Science: Close Read

>>  Dear Jim, Mike, and others,

>>  I agree with Mike H. here  regarding the need for Papovic to send a draft  to  his sister out of the country for safe keeping...why  did he do it?

>>  I've written several controversial works (on the scale of 1-10 one of them  was called an 11, and the other one was a challenge to the modern view of  the living cell) as a post doc, and with a powerful Harvard lab director  over me, and yet I, nor anyone I have ever  known or worked with in a lab  has  ever felt the need to send the first draft of a paper or data to a "safe haven" just in case...regardless if whether there would be interpretational or selling point (ideological) differences between the lab PI and the  underling regarding one's own primary work that is typically written up  first by the scientist underling and then given to the lab PI for  editing...This is indeed astonishingly "peculiar" behavior on the part of  Papovic.

>>  In my opinion, for what it is worth, the strangeness of such an act (sending  a first draft of data to a family member who isn't a scientist who lives  in  a foreign country) is amplified even more when Gallo hired Nikolas  Kantaratos, the policeman wannabe and accomplished filter salesman, to  ghost-write his book "Dissecting a Discovery" (which for those of you who  haven't read it is the fantastic story of how Gallo didn't steal the virus  from the Pasteur).

>>  When Gallo sent this ghost-written book, "Kantaratos's book" to me in the  mail, claiming that it was the best, most accurate and genuine story  debunking "the theft of the LAVBRU isolate"from the Pasteur group by the  Bethesda group-which is the primary theme of that book), as prelude to his  lawsuit he was going to file against me and my university for my calling him a thief, Gallo (through Kantaratos's pen) clearly recounts the sending of  that first draft (by Papovic) to his sister, and chalks it up to something  like (I don't remember what the excuse was precisely-perhaps Janine could  look it up since she still has this book I lent to her) "Mica was simply  cleaning out his closet in his appartment or something like that, and  somehow that first draft got packaged into a present or something that he  was sending to his sister" by accident for Christmas!

>>  Thus the sending of the letter by Papovic to his sister (I believe she was  at that time in the Chech Republic or was it Hungary-I don't recall as I  lent the book out and don't have it to check on?) and the belaboring of  the  point by Gallo through the filter salesman's pen is like much else written  in that book--heavy damage control and there are a number of even more  severe infractions/peculiarities/perversions of normal best lab practices or  what any working scientist knows are normal everyday scientific conduct  that  indeed do scream out to anyone who has ever worked in a laboratory or  published a scientific paper in the peer-reviewed literature.

>>  On this point, I reiterate (for the 5th or 10th time now I don't remember),  in response to the conclusion:   Claus Jensen (critic)(4) has noted that there were early warnings to Crowe  and Roberts along these lines, voiced by professors Andy Maniotis, PhD,  and  Val Turner, MD. of The Perth Group.(11)

>>  this is in fact true...but the warnings given were not given in the context  that the rhino man and the other hyenas of recent months have been  jabbering  about-it had nothing to do with RA, David Crowe, his judgment versus ours,  Janine's scholarship or balls, plagerism, and the like. I believe I can  speak for Val, when I tell you that the warning(s) we gave Janine and  David  were simply warnings regarding realistic expectation(s) versus simple ruckus-raising using a formal methodology for a complaint rather than fruitless and endless blogs or blog war tactics as we tried years ago with  "Tera's Aetology site, or with HANK BARNES YBYL."

>>  I believe I can speak for both Val and I that neither Val nor I believed  for  a moment that such a request would be taken with the seriousness with  which  it was composed or that the editors of science would consider Janine's  objections and request to yank the 4 papers-other than to perhaps be  alerted  to the fact, that for the record, such a group of scientists and others exists, that we are somehow organized, and that we know how to file formal  request letters to a scientific journal.

>>  The subjects chosen to harp about aren't that important...I think it was  Steven Davis (where are you Steve) who once said that Gallo couldn't be  trusted to tell the time correctly, let alone.........and I agree with him.

>>  Thus more than anything else, it was to  inconvenience, more than anything  else, Bruce Alberts, Lechner, and the journalistic staff of Science, and  as  David Crowe correctly stated, to let them know that there is the  possibility  that there is a group of us who believe that "their Titanic is sailing in  waters where there might be a lot of ice-bergs." You wouldn't believe me  even if I sent you a book of letters I have received, that many in  mainstream science have never heard of any dissent to the "HIV=AIDS= Death  paradigm, especially those most surrounded in the inner sanctum of power  at  the NIH, Science, Nature, and elsewhere. But regardless of how powerful,  all of them have heard and many still recant that Gallo was a thief, right as  the smile and tell you that "HIV" causes AIDS. They have no problem with  such a conundrum.

>>  This was another reason I signed the letter, because I had known Bruce  Alberts, and as a signer, I thought that at least he might remember me,  respond at least that they received the letter, or remember perhaps the  legitimacy of my early contributions at Berkeley which I believe he put in  one of his Molecular Biology of the Cell textbooks he wrote and discussed with my PHD advisor when he visited the lab one day, and that he would at  least give some pause to me and the list of signers, and at least repond  out  of protocol to the serious charges raised by the letter.

>>  But of course this never happened. We never even so much as got a reply or  receipt even after sending several other signed letters highlighting  different issues with the Papovic/Gallo paper, for instance the fact that  there is not a single experiment in that paper that ties together, and as  Janine has correctly stated over and over, "HTLV-III" to any pathological  state of cells, or anything else. It is garbage.

>>  Also, in so far as Gallo and AID$ Inc. have perpetually inconvenienced our  efforts, my efforts, I don't think that asking Alberts to at least read  the  godddamn letter we wrote before he threw it out or before Leschner called  a  meeting or whatnot happened, is too much to ask for. For example, I am  currently fighting (during the Thanksgiving week and weekend) for the life  of one of us who is dying slowly in a Kansas City, MO hospice (Marie Kim Bannon). Because of the AIDS insanity, I have to do impossible things,  incredible things, yet not illegal things in order to help Kim and her  family,  precisely because of the AIDS insanity.

>> Therefore, I'd sign such  a  letter again, and I think it appropriate that we (Gene and I) tried  sending  such a series of letters to Science if for no other reason than to pester  them.

>>  The letter and attempt also may be important someday. I am confident the  day  will come when mortal scientific and medical blows to the paradigm will be  inflicted out of the necessity of changing yet another time the definition  of AIDS and the meaning of the "HIV" tests for both healthy and sick  persons, and they will need to change the way current AIDS standard of  care  is practiced (it already is beginning to happen in many places).

>>  If Science and Alberts followed typical scientific protocol, aftger they  recieved it, and because a group of scientists signed it, they would have  had to at some point send it directly to Gallo, and the letter serves at  least as a warning to Gallo and his filter salesmen, as Crowe correctly  stated, that their science "is in dangerous waters" and the sooner they  open  up a dialogue the better. If Alberts didn't send our request to Gallo,  then  he is not operating as a true editor of any journal...he must send the complaint to the primary authors (including Papovic since he is primary  author). For me, this in and of itself was worth it...plus I was expecting  Gallo to call me repeatedly on the phone (as is his habit of doing when  something I do against him really upsets him) about Gonda, perhaps, or the  multiple changes in interpretation he made following our discussions over the phone about amplification versus isolation, and then tell me the real story  since he claims (the filtersalesman claims) nothing of the kind in  Dissecting A Discovery...Gallo, I mean the filter salesmen, states  instead,  that, and I quote from memory, "and Mathew Gonda was the won who correctly  identified "HIV" as a "Lentivirus."

>>  C'est tout....history rewritten....not so unlike the Nazis did, or 9/11.

>>  Cheers,

>>  Andrew

{...}

David Crowe defends The Letter with an uplifting "perfect world" argument, then advocates silence, claiming discussion is "destructive".  My comments follow his items. 

Crowe:  "1.  The Gallo quartet of papers should be removed from the scientific record as fraudulent and fundamentally unreliable. This should result in a rethinking of the entire AIDS theory obviously." 

Crowe presents a grand objective.  Yet, The Letter focuses upon the first paper, mischaracterizing it in a manner that appears manipulative.  See my review at
http://plag.tk/jr/lts081201.htm 

Crowe:  "2.  The strategy and content of the letter are secondary. They could have been improved, but what can't? Fundamentally I think the general thrust of the letter was correct."  

Crowe downplays the problems of The Letter by reversing the relationship of content and "thrust".  As any letter is basically a container of its content, its content cannot be secondary, as Crowe claims.   

Content conveys thrust.  The Letter cannot convey any effective thrust because its core content is false, misdirected, and appears manipulative.  Crowe doesn't define thrust, though he allows the implication that thrust is related to the grand objective in item #1. 

Crow again downplays the problems with, "They could have been improved, but what can't?" 

Crowe:  "3. Calling for their removal was a historic moment, although the execution was botched with nobody following up with the journal to persist in getting at least a response." 

Crowe glorifies The Letter as he flatly contradicts Andy Maniotis' history of substantial followup, without acknowledging Maniotis, to whom he is responding (see enclosed)

Crowe portrays The Letter as a "moment", yet continues to promote it, as do Roberts and RA. 

Crowe:  "4. In a perfect world accusations of scientific fraud would be taken seriously and the journal would immediately start a preliminary investigation to determine if a full investigation considering their withdrawal was warranted."  

Crowe defines a strange "perfect world" where (if this has anything to do with The Letter) corrupt accusations would immediately start investigations. 

Crowe:  "5. In such a world, the content of the letter is almost irrelevant because the journal should verify every point and solicit other viewpoints. All the letter would be is a trigger (in this world we clearly don't live in)."  

In Crowe's perfect world, "almost irrelevant" content would "trigger" action towards the grand objective.  That would obviously produce chaos, draining everyone's resources, in any world. 

Crowe's disregard for content is also found in his discussion with Val Turner, stated before submitting The Letter to Science.  See Claus Jensen's critique at
http://tig.org.za/Rethinking_the_Letter_to_Science.pdf 

Even as a political device, The Letter fails because it confirms the negative orthodox views of AIDS dissidentia.  Orthodox political devices ("denialist", etc.) are strengthened by The Letter and its defenses.  Also, see Roberts' defense at
http://plag.tk/jr/disc/jrjw20100124.htm 

Crowe:  "I really think this discussion is unproductive. I wouldn't have written even this email except I wanted to put my viewpoints on the record. Beyond this, I think I will remain silent. {b}  I apologize to all the people on this list who also don't want to be party to this destructive discussion." 

Crowe returns to this world to say what he really thinks.  This is not surprising, considering he was, at the least, an editor of The Letter.  See
http://plag.tk/jr/disc/lts-auth.htm 

Crowe is responding to valuable discussions, e.g., Maniotis' first-hand accounts, histories of Popovic, Gallo, Crewdson, and The Letter, and a clarifying discussion of PSSD ("Popovic Sent Sister His Draft").  See enclosed

Jim West
NYC
http://harpub.tk

{See left column for enclosed messages.}

Top

Footnotes
1.

Editorial marks:  Bolding was sent with the message.  Yellow highlight and {brackets} are added here, Jim West's.  {b} means break, parsed.

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
   

Top
 


Images Of Poliomyelitis plag_home jr discussion dc-jw-20100217

Jim West/HARpub 2009 - All Rights Reserved