Jim:

Sorry, but at this point argument alone is not enough.  What you claim is
true for flu misdiagnosis need not be true at all for HIV/AIDS, which is
what the discussion was about.  I have learned nothing new from your
information.

I think you need to provide evidence about HIV/AIDS and potential toxic
causes.  You are still arguing by analogy to flu.  Also, a solitary
reference form 1987 is weak evidence.  Has no new evidence appeared since
Dolan to support your argument?

I disagree with you.  An exchange that goes nowhere after repeated
requests for evidence about HIV/AIDS toxic causes is time consuming and
becomes annoying.  Unfortunately, I am also repeating myself.  See below.

I am asking you to stop, please.

Larry

On 11/16/13 9:38 AM, "Jim West" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>Larry,
>
>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.
>
>----footnote------
>With my date correction, Dolan (1987):
>
>³Subacute 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. ... ³
>
>³No 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...²
>
>===============
>
>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.
>
>Larry
>
>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..."
>
>