SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives

November 2013

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

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

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

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Chandler Davis <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Science for the People Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 12 Nov 2013 21:20:23 -0500
Content-Type:
TEXT/PLAIN
Parts/Attachments:
TEXT/PLAIN (66 lines)
Sam has my sympathy in this exchange.  Like him, I can't
make out what study you think ought to have been done
that wasn't.  Is your inscrutability deliberate?

Chandler



On Tue, 12 Nov 2013, Jim West 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 ?ARV success?.  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