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

[bar@xxxxxxxxxxx]

Michael,

Read the following paper and you will have answers to your questions. One
of the best surveys of the current medical knowledge and in my view a
compelling refutation of the hiv causal link to aids.

The Chemical Bases of The Various AIDS Epidemics: Recreational Drugs,
Anti-Viral Chemotherapy and Malnutrition, Duesberg,P.University of
California, Koehnlein,C. Kiel University, Rasnick, D. University of
California, 2003 Journal of Biological Science 28
http://www:duesberg.com/papers/chemical.bases.html

Chris
> 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
>
>
>