I understand the frustration. Please refer to my reply to Larry's earlier message. There is a clarifying example.
Mitchell, I am trying to have a real discussion. It is difficult to do sometimes, though.
I still am waiting for Jim to provide us with a few suggestions about precisely what type of toxicology studies he would have recommended 30 years ago--or what he would recommend now.
It is very hard to discuss these issues in generalities.
And the evidence in support of the view that HIV is causal for AIDS and AIDS mortality now strikes me as overwhelming. The argument that maybe the mix of research should have been different a generation ago may or may not be a strong one. To judge that, I would want to know what kinds of tox studies would be suggested by the symptoms etc or other evidence.
But by now, the evidence on ARV success makes it extremely unlikely that these studies would have found much.
If Jim or anyone else has something specific to say about this, I will be glad to discuss it. In the absence of that, though, there seems like little to discuss--and I am increasingly coming to conclude that the toxicology argument is pretty baseless. But as I say, I welcome discussion on it with content.