November 2013


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
Jim West <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Science for the People Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Wed, 13 Nov 2013 08:32:10 -0500
text/plain (34 lines)
Why is it necessary to call me inscrutable?   Do you think toxicology is unnecessary?

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?


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?