I don't get it.  I invite clarification and you say I am
name-calling.  Make with the clarification instead, please.

By the way, on another topic you sent around a valuable
article on change in official heart risk guidelines.
Thanks.

Chandler



On Wed, 13 Nov 2013, Mitchel Cohen wrote:

> 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.
>
> Mitchel
>
>
>
>
>
>> =======
>> 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?
>> 
>> Chandler
>> 
>> 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?
>