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