X-Message-Number: 7593
Date: 29 Jan 97 14:56:53 EST
From: Michael Darwin <>
Subject: Donaldson and Proof

Thomas Donaldson writes:

>Second, I will note that all the complaints about Virodene are complaints 
>that Established Procedures Were Not Followed. Not one produces hard evidence
>that it does not work. Sure, it may not work, but Charles Platt's posting
>fails completely to show that.

Yes, the complaints were that established procedures were not followed.  One of

the established procedures that is absolutely critical to scientific medicine is
that evidence or, in more common terms, _proof_ be submitted about claims.  Of
course Charles Platt's posting "fails completely" to show that Virodene doesn't
work.  If Charles or anyone else for that matter were posessed of a top-notch
laboratory full of willing HIV patients they _still_ would not be able to show
that Virodene did not work.  Why?"

1) Because we do not know what Virodene is.
2) We do not know how it is to be administered (dose, route, vehicle).
3) We do not know patient selection criteria.


In short, we don't know anything. And the only evidence is patient testimonials.

And therefore the claims are not testable.  This sort of thing when coupled with
claims of life-or-death importance is widely considered a great evil in science
and medicine.  And is always considered unacceptable.


I repeat, it is not incumbent upon _any_ of Visser, et. al.'s critics to _prove_
that Virodene does NOT work.  Rather, it is incumbent on Visser and her
colleagues to prove that it does.  

I am quite surprised to see this remark from Thomas.

If the disclosure of the Virodene trials was premature, this is regretable.
However, when providing information and requesting funding before a government
body such as the cabinet of South Africa, media discussion is inevitable.

Mike Darwin


Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=7593