Images Of Poliomyelitis plag_home jr discussion jr-jw-20091214


LTS:  A Close Read


Reply To Roberts, 12/14/2009


Subject:  West replies to Roberts (2)

Roberts, 12/1/2009(1)

Jim West replies, 12/14/2009


  This discussion is profitable, as it puts to rest fundamental dissident misconceptions.
Jim really - this was Popovic's typed up copy -- presumably several drafts after the first... ready to go to the science journal in a week's time... so scarcely a first draft...(except of Gallo's comments scrawled onto it). .... {b}

1) Roberts writes, "Jim really... this was... scarcely a first draft".


Yet, "Science -- First draft" is stamped in the upper left-hand corner of Popovic's copy.  See "Cited Documents", "Undated" draft of Popovic, at Crewdson's site 

also -  the paper did not contain any experiment designed to prove any virus pathogenic - let alone to cause AIDS  despite the hype widely given to it    - it scarcely requires much effort to see this experiment is missing  .......  {b}

2) Roberts writes, "also... the paper did not contain any experiment designed to prove any virus pathogenic".


Roberts here, and The Letter itself, are inconsequential.  Popovic's paper does not claim to prove virus causation.  See

also  look at the paper as published - it still does not include any such experiment - nor any isolation of a virus despite Gallo adding the word isolation to the title   ....  {b}
This is an atrocious piece of "science" which should be withdrawn - do you doubt this?       .    if anyone wants to review this - the full unedited copies of the original documents with my critique are on the website  .
....  Janine

3) Roberts writes, "This is an atrocious piece of 'science' which should be withdrawn - do you doubt this?"


The Letter cannot hope to bring down Popovic's paper, because The Letter is an incredible liability.  Only as a publicity device can it have value, though for whom?  Orthodoxy can use it to exemplify "denialism".


Thanks for your response. 
Three items:
You begin your response by mischaracterizing my words, then finish with hyped moral weight, "To make such a knowingly disingenuous assertion about those specific circumstances suggests a degree of deliberate dishonesty."
I wrote:
=== ( extract from ) ===
This review assumes Popovic's draft is pertinent to the published paper, however, in the real world, a first draft can be nearly irrelevant to the final version, i.e., it can be a mere base for many editing cycles.  That's why experienced people often pass the task of first draft to others.  Roberts is thus at risk making scandalous claims about a first draft, not knowing the context of current experiments, or of any notes or studies from which Popovic could have constructed the first draft. 
You can see I properly assume Roberts' view for my review, in terms of the relevancy of the draft to the published article.  I then describe possible risk ("can be", "at risk") in critiquing a first draft.  That's all.  Essentially, I'm describing a range of relevancy, from "pertinent" (my assumed view) to "nearly irrelevant".  Obviously, there are possibilities between those two extremes for risk.
Your argument is speculation about Popovic's motivation for saving a draft and why he would send it to his sister.  Yet none of that is in The Letter.  I am reviewing The Letter.
Why was your speculation kept out of The Letter?  Answer:  It's too speculative, even for The Letter, which is already full of drama, innuendo and false description.
You describe Gallo/Popovic opposition (I assume you got that from The Letter).  
You will not find such opposition, if you verify Popovic's draft for yourself.  Here is the relevant section:
Jim West
a) "Unrebutted evidence shows that some papers by Dr. Popovic had been translated by others from his native language, that some papers were heavily edited, and that Dr. Popovic's English skills were in fact limited at the time he drafted the Science papers (which also was subjected to substantial editing)."  --

From: Mike Hersee []
Sent: Monday, November 30, 2009 10:50 AM
To: jw [and list]
Subject: RE: The Letter To Science: Close Read
Hi Jim,
Just one point to make, and that is that you say it is inappropriate to compare a first draft with the final published papers because of revisions, editing and so on. I would agree that In most cases it would be entirely inappropriate to even look at the first draft, which most people never get to see and in any case which probably rarely survive.
In this instance that is an invalid assertion because of the specific circumstances, because of the importance attached to that first draft, by non-other than Popovic himself. It has been clearly documented that when Gallo had written his revisions all over it, Popovic sent it for safe keeping to his sister on another continent. How often does that happen to a first draft? That itself is very powerful circumstantial evidence that Popovic himself knew that that if the finished article was to have the alterations made by Gallo, making claims that could not be substantiated, then Popovic too could get into serious trouble and that preserving that SPECIFIC draft copy with Gallo's handwritten alterations on was his evidence and 'get-out-of-jail-free' card that Gallo had made those claims and not him. And of course, that is exactly what came to pass.
So, that SPECIFIC draft and those SPECIFIC alterations by Robert Gallo in comparison with Popovic's draft underneath it are of fundamental relevance.
To make such a knowingly disingenuous assertion about those specific circumstances suggests a degree of deliberate dishonesty.
Mike Hersee 
-----Original Message-----
From: [jw]
Sent: Sunday, November 29, 2009 3:49 PM
To: [list]
Subject: The Letter To Science: Close Read
To all concerned,
Please review for concept and accuracy, this detailed "close read" of The Letter To Science.
Jim West
Janine Roberts.  Author of "Fear of the Invisible" & "Glitter and Greed;" and on Aboriginal Australia -"Massacres to Mining" and "Jack of Cape Grim.
Publisher in 2009 of  "Goodbye AIDS"  by Maria Papagiannidou, a senior journalist and former AIDS victim,  and of  'Jabs, Jenner and Juggernauts" a easy-to-read  book on vaccine dangers by Jennifer Craig PhD



Editorial marks:  Yellow highlight, bolding, and {brackets} are Jim West's.  {p} means paragraph break inserted for review

2. The Letter, A Close Read, by Jim West
3. The Letter To Science;; accessed 10/30/2009 10:59am


Images Of Poliomyelitis plag_home jr discussion jr-jw-20091214

Jim West/HARpub 2009 - All Rights Reserved