[lbo-talk] Churchill and Thomas Brown

[Thomas Brown]

Chuck Grimes wrote:
> got to thinking about this and decided Brown's
>article or essay was not good coin and would probably
>have never made it through peer review. I wouldn't pass it. 
> 
>ere's the reason. Brown attacked Churchill, but offered
>no positive case alternative. It wasn't an academic paper.
>t was shit job. 
> 
>The way to counter Churchill in an academic context is
>to write the positive case history of the small pox epidemic
>and let Churchill's paper die by default. Brown didn't do that.

 
Nonsense. The alternative scenario is clearly laid out 
in my original draft: the epidemic was accidental. If
you don't like my exposition of the argument, then see
one of the authors in my bibliography for more detail.
Michael Trimble's dissertation is a good place to start.
He gives a day-by-day epidemiological analysis of what
happened. That was never my goal.

 
>As a limited e-list discussion outlined, it is likely the US
>withheld vaccinations or distributed them selectively to
>`friendlies' and withheld them from whoever was considered
>temporarily out of favor. That's a positive case alternative.  

 
There are a number of problems with that scenario, but Doug
asked us not to discuss the evidence on the list, and so I won't.
Furthermore, even if valid, it doesn't begin to address the fact
that the crucial details of Churchill's story are fabricated.

We already knew how the epidemic happened. The thrust of
my essay was an exegesis of Churchill's fraud, or rather, one
of Churchill's many frauds. If you haven't been following the
news on Churchill, I have a mostly complete summary in
my op-ed at:

http://hnn.us/articles/10633.html

This piece compares the Churchill scandal with the Michael 
Bellesiles scandal.

Thomas