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

To: The A-List <a-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [A-List] How "scientific" is science?
From: Hayduke <hayduke@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 11:41:27 -0800
User-agent: Microsoft-Outlook-Express-Macintosh-Edition/5.0.6

on 12/17/2005 11:01 AM, bar@xxxxxxxxxxx at bar@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

> I am in contact with and work withthe Perth
> Group (Dr. Val Turner is one of the figures in that research group) and
> can get you many papers discussing the improbablity of the hiv theory.

    This is not about improbability. This is about evidence. It is
insufficient to state that the HIV theory is improbable. It must be clearly
demonstrated that the evidence and methodology of the HIV research does not
support its conclusions.

    Neither you nor I have the technical background to derive such a
conclusion.

    Michael

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

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

Prev by Date: Re: [A-List] How "scientific" is science?
Next by Date: Re: [A-List] How "scientific" is science?
Previous by thread: Re: [A-List] How "scientific" is science?
Next by thread: Re: [A-List] How "scientific" is science?
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

Thread context:
- Re: [A-List] How "scientific" is science?, (continued)

[ Other Periods | Other mailing lists | Search ]