SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives

November 2013

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE@LIST.UVM.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Date:
Wed, 13 Nov 2013 04:33:45 +0000
Reply-To:
Science for the People Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Message-ID:
Subject:
From:
"Romsted, Laurence" <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
8bit
In-Reply-To:
MIME-Version:
1.0
Sender:
Science for the People Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (82 lines)
Jim:

I have been following this exchange most of the time.  I do not understand
what you mean.

Perhaps you could give a concrete example that illustrates what you mean
with a reference or references that illustrates the point that toxicology
studies made a difference.

Larry

On 11/12/13 9:15 PM, "Jim West" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>Sam,
>
>The assumption of toxicity is not necessary, nor the finding of toxicity,
>nor the separation of views.
>
>Required is the toxicological context to actually understand any disease,
>perceived "successful" recovery, and the characteristics of any suspect
>microbe.
>
>Without the toxicology, fundamental data is missing from the picture, any
>picture related to AIDS, including your hypothesis of ³ARV success².
>It's basic science.
>
>===============
>That assumes that his specimens are toxic, I think.
>
>The trouble with your argument here is that it avoids the point I have
>been making:  The intervention methods based on the HIV theory worked.
>Lots of people got well and did not die.
>
>Until you have an answer to that bit of history, you are just saying "You
>did not play in my sandbox so I don't like you any more."
>
>However, I will play in your sandbox a little:
>
>Exactly what toxicological studies do you think should have been done?
>
>Maybe what you wanted was in fact done and maybe I know about it.
>
>What hypotheses, or kinds of hypotheses, do you think should have been
>tested?
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jim West <[log in to unmask]>
>To: SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE <[log in to unmask]>
>Sent: Mon, Nov 11, 2013 9:09 am
>Subject: Re: HIV AIDS and toxicology
>
>Kamran,
>
>I will recapitulate.  I asked Sam for the toxicology of AIDS and he had
>me 
>rephrase my question.  He also brought related discussion, which I
>delayed 
>getting into premature to my initial topic.
>
>Thanks to Sam for answering my question:  Sam is unaware of AIDS
>toxicology, and 
>that concurs with my experience.
>
>Here is my continuance in the context of Sam's related discussion.
>
>I will draw a simple parallel, since HIV/AIDS science and politics can be
>confusing.
>
>A research biochemist can corrupt his laboratory in two ways:  1) Poison
>his 
>specimens.  2) Avoid the toxicological status of his specimens.
>
>If either option is selected, then his laboratory findings are moot.  The
>characteristics of any virus studied in such conditions are moot.  All
>subsequent research and literature based on the findings of that
>laboratory are 
>in doubt.
>
>Option #2 represents the history of AIDS research.
>
>Jim

ATOM RSS1 RSS2