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