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

[bar@xxxxxxxxxxx]

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, and always avoiding the embarrassment of
the fact they cant find the virus itself. They use the psuedo-scientific
term "virion".  There is no paper which states the virus has ever been
identified in stark contrast to the new bird flu virus or SARS for
instance which were id'd  and photographed with electron microscopes
within weeks of the appearance of symptoms. I have a paper written by two
scientist from the University of California and Berlin published last year
which supports my thesis. I have to find it again on the net as my copy is
on my computer which crashed so cant access. But I will try to find today
to send to you.

Chris


> on 12/17/2005 10:55 AM, bar@xxxxxxxxxxx at bar@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
>> No, it is not QED. The proponents of the hiv theory cannot support their
>> claims. It is for them to prove their positive assertion not for me to
>> disprove a negative. Further I can refer you to many article and papers
>> which establish that their claims are completely bogus and The easiest
>> way
>> for you to become acquainted with that is to go to the Perth Group
>> website
>> and they will lead you to many other links to scientific literature omn
>> the subject.  Go there. Look around. Have a read. I gauarentee you will
>> find it very, very interesting.
>
>     I did. All of the articles are pre-2000. This is very interesting. Why
> is this? Where is the recent research?
>
>     I also read numerous published articles that support the HIV/AIDS
> theory. I find them very interesting as well.
>
>     I did as you requested. I cited a published research article on the
> physical reality of the HIV virus.
>
>     Science is not about proof. The proponents of the HIV virus theory do
> indeed support their theory. If you disagree with them, then you simply
> demonstrate that their conclusions are not supported by their evidence and
> methodology. This is not "he who has the greatest stack of papers wins."
>
>     Michael
>
> --
> Hayduke Speaks!
> http://www.calcentral.com/~mlewis
> Hayduke Blogs!
> http://www.calcentral.com/~mlewis/blogduke.html
>
>
>