At 08:32 AM 11/13/2013, Jim West wrote:
>Why is it necessary to call me inscrutable? Do you think
>toxicology is unnecessary?
And that's part of the way things go on this listserve. Some folks
are censured or even banned for their language, and others are
allowed to get away with it.
I am interested in an honest discussion on the subject, as Sam is
engaging in, causing me to think and rethink various evidence and arguments.
I am NOT interested in the name-calling, nor in the moderators
apparently allowing that to go on, which diverts from the actual
discussion of the facts, and which is why a number of strong
activists have already been driven from this listserve.
Chandler, your characterizations really are unfortunate, and block
real discussion from occurring.
>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?