So far, all exchanges are brief, not time-consuming. I supplied a strong ref, Dolan (1987), which obviously sets a base for related discussion. The topic is important to this forum because a tradition exists here as demonstrated by the content of the ongoing discussion to which I interjected a counter-argument. I'm doing by best to stay focused and succinct.
Dolan (1987) is the most important of my references, not a "grant proposal" you mention.
With my date correction, Dolan (1987):
“Subacute carbon monoxide poisoning is commonly misdiagnosed as an
influenza-like viral illness. All patients presenting... with flu-like
symptoms during February 1985 were asked to give blood samples for
carboxyhemoglobin determination. ... “
“No patient with a carboxyhemoglobin level greater than or equal to 10%
was diagnosed as having subacute CO poisoning by emergency physicians.
Physicians must seek out the possibility of CO toxicity in patients
with flu-like illness...”
OK. So the location I chose to emphasize the need for evidence, I.e., court, was not a good one on this list, it was also done near 11 PM.
However, argument by hypothetical examples or analogies is not useful, except to illustrate the writers meaning. However, once demonstrated, why continue when the argument does not demonstrate anything about the actual case, I.e., is toxicity causing HIV/AIDS like perhaps it does with the flu. I don't really know. Also, more evidence about environmental toxics causing flu symptoms will add nothing to the case for environmental toxics causing HIV/AIDS instead of a virus.
I doubt if anyone on this list is about to go out and try to get it funded to do the research. Argument from analogy in a grant proposal will go nowhere. Evidence is needed. So what is the point about talking about the absence of evidence for a claim of a possibility made by analogy?
If there is no point, then this discussion should stop.
From: Sam Friedman <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To: Science for the People Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Friday, November 15, 2013 7:15 AM
To: "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: HIV AIDS and toxicology
Well, I was a little taken aback at Larry's metaphor, too.
But then I thought in terms of what I would say as a peer reviewer about some of the statements made on this list.
My own guidelines on issues like this come from a term used by Lenin of all people: "Patiently explain..."