“Manhattan District Attorney Robert M. Morgenthau today announced the arrest of a 49-year-old man for creating multiple aliases to engage in a campaign of impersonation and harassment . . . . The defendant, RAPHAEL HAIM GOLB, was arrested on charges of identity theft, criminal impersonation and aggravated harassment. . . . [perpetrated] in order to influence and affect debate . . . and in order to harass . . . scholars who disagree with his viewpoint. GOLB used computers at New York University (NYU) in an attempt to mask his true identity when conducting this Internet scheme. . . .
GOLB is charged with Identity Theft in the Second Degree, a class E felony, which is punishable by up to 1⅓ to 4 years in prison; Identity Theft in the Third Degree, Criminal Impersonation in the Second Degree, Forgery in the Third Degree and Aggravated Harassment in the Second Degree, all class A misdemeanors, which are each punishable by up to 1 year in prison”
(News Release, New York County District Attorney, 5 March 2009).
The disputed issues concern the Dead Sea Scrolls, but the legal and other circumstances make the case of some interest to AIDS Rethinkers and HIV Skeptics, who have become quite familiar with harassment and impersonation practiced by HIV/AIDS groupies and vigilantes.
Golb apparently began his campaign in reaction to a museum exhibit featuring work by Robert Cargill. Cargill had set Google Alerts to track material about the Dead Sea Scrolls and noticed suspiciously similar comments coming from an apparent variety of sources. His 2-year investigation, which included tracking IP addresses, is described on the website, “Who is Charles Gadda?”
“Prosecutors said Mr. Golb opened an e-mail account in the name of Lawrence H. Schiffman, the New York University professor who disagreed with Mr. Golb’s father. He sent messages in Professor Schiffman’s name to various people . . ., fabricating an admission by Professor Schiffman that he had plagiarized some of Professor Golb’s work . . . . Raphael Golb also set up blogs under various names that accused Dr. Schiffman of plagiarism . . . . ‘It’s very easy to open an account using any name you want on the Internet. There’s nothing necessarily wrong with that. But when you start using another person’s true identity for some purpose, you’re crossing the line into a possible identity theft crime or impersonation crime’. . . . ‘We debated the theories,’ Dr. Schiffman said . . . , referring to Mr. Golb’s father. ‘I thought that’s what scholarship is about. You don’t have to impersonate me’” (“Identity-theft arrest in dispute over Dead Sea Scrolls”).
“’I can’t believe this would happen,’ . . . [Schiffman] said. ‘We are supposed to be doing scholarly interchange’” (“U. of C. scholar’s son charged with identity theft, harassment”)
“Schiffman issued a statement after Golb’s arrest: ‘. . . . Reasoned intellectual discourse relies on integrity. When an individual, in seeking to advance a particular view, engages in impersonation and falsehood, he or she undermines the precepts of higher inquiry’” (“The arrest of Raphael Golb”).
“’I don’t know what caused the transition from the proper intellectual discourse,’ Prof. Schiffman said . . . . ‘Usually these things happen because someone hates their ex-wife. But this? Who would do this?’ . . . . ‘It’s the nature of academic life that you have scholars in disagreement. They tend to debate in academic publications such as books and peer-reviewed journal articles, and sometimes at academic conferences,’ Prof. Levitt Kohn said” (“Curse of the scrolls”)
Why the underhanded roundabout rigmarole?
“Mr. Schiffman said that if Raphael Golb had knocked on his office door saying, ‘I think my father’s right, and I think you’re wrong, and is it OK if I come to some conference and bring the reasons why?’, he would have had no objection. ‘The guy could have been a big friend of ours. That’s what’s so stupid about all this’” (Steve Kolowich, “The fall of an academic cyberbully”, Chronicle of Higher Education, 20 March 2009, A1, 8-11).
Raphael Golb is a lawyer, not an academic. But some academics, too, behave just like that: attempting anonymity, attempting character assassination, being anything but honest, open, straightforward.
Just like Golb, all that the HIV/AIDS groupies and vigilantes would have to do to make their case and demolish their opposition is to cite the published articles that prove HIV to be the cause of AIDS.
Instead of spending countless time in attacking persons and spewing vitriol and making fools of themselves and disgracing their professions, all that the HIV/AIDS groupies and vigilantes would have to do is just cite the articles that prove HIV as the cause of AIDS.
Just cite the articles, and all we AIDS Rethinkers and HIV Skeptics will stop being such annoying thorns in your sides and hair.
So why are those articles not cited?
Because they don’t exist.
The people who should most know are the co-discoverers of “HIV”.
Montagnier, for his part, has consistently denied knowledge of such publications, and has consistently gone further to say that HIV alone does not cause AIDS, that it requires co-factors and a pre-weakened immune system. Indeed, more than 15 years ago, articles from his laboratory showed that “HIV” in the presence of antibiotics does not kill T-cells whereas in absence of antibiotics “it” does, proving that some bacterial type of agent in “HIV” “isolates” is the killer.
Gallo, for his part, has consistently refused to answer requests for the pertinent citations, most recently on the Gary Null radio program, where he offered the consensus of official organizations as proof. Testifying in the Parenzee case, he had even claimed that purification of “HIV” ”isolates” was unnecessary.
All the researchers and groupies who took up “HIV/AIDS” after the Gallo-Montagnier “discovery” have simply taken the matter on faith. They can’t cite the pertinent proofs because they never looked for them. They can’t engage in rational discourse now because of cognitive dissonance: They cannot admit to themselves that they accepted on faith, and built their careers on, a mistaken view that was without proof when they adopted the belief as their own without first looking into its merits.