I am a biologist and I have no idea what Jim is talking about.
Harvard Medical School
Department of Microbiology and Immunobiology
77 Avenue Louis Pasteur
Boston, MA 02115
617-432-1920 FAX 617-432-4787
home page beck2.med.harvard.edu
My memoir, "Making Genes, Making Waves: A Social Activist in Science" (Harvard U. Press, 2002)
From: Science for the People Discussion List [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Chandler Davis [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2013 9:20 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: HIV AIDS and toxicology
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:
> 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
> 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
> 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.