Re: [A-List] How "scientific" is science?

[Hayduke <hayduke@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

on 12/17/2005 12:38 PM, bar@xxxxxxxxxxx at bar@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

> As Tony noted, your paper and all the others in the pro-hiv literature
> speak only about particles which they presume are connected to the virus.
> There are thousands of papers like that scrambling to try to link these
> particles to a supposed virus

    "ALL" the others? "Presume?" "Scrambling?"

    I have yet to see a rational refutation of the conclusions and
methodology of the cited sources. The body of evidence suggests a close
association among that which is identified as the HIV virus and the
condition of acquired immunodeficiency. The HIV theory is predictive in that
it suggests a methodology of approach that demonstrates effectiveness in
controlling the condition.

    If the lifestyle, chemical exposure, etc. proposition is valid it will
suggest a methodology for treatment that can be verified with positive
results.

    Has the Perth Group study proposed a treatment methodology that has
proven effective in controlling associated AID? If not, does their
proposition suggest a predictive course of study that can be tested? If not,
why not?

    Michael


--
Hayduke Speaks!
http://www.calcentral.com/~mlewis
Hayduke Blogs!
http://www.calcentral.com/~mlewis/blogduke.html