Why is it necessary to call me inscrutable?   Do you think toxicology is unnecessary?

=======
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?