All data based knowledge is contingent. A theory is only progressively more believed, it's never proved. Only mathematical theorems are provable. A scientific theory is never complete. One learns this as an undergraduate or in grammar school. Some don't. They are built up with false power from pseudo-science and that has become the scourge of the 20th century. It is called scientism.
You chose a particularly poor example with penicillin. Which penicillin? The previous incarnations have been misapplied, but even if they hadn't, eventually the entities they were designed to contain would have evolved beyond penicillin's k-th derivative to handle. Here we have a target to which ARQL's method should be applied. We want a molecule that mimics penicillin's successes, addresses penicillin's new failures in the k-th incarnation, and doesn't have negative side effects. When penicillin K was developed, it was assumed that no one would abuse it by injecting small quantities in their bodies as a precautionary immunization. Just how do you design into a molecule such unanticipable circumstances? The result of such indeterminacy not only undermines what has been accidentally discovered, but has relegated variations on that discovery to the harmful camp. The use of early penicillins invite the trouble they were designed to eliminate because the entities that were attack specific have evolved the ability to defend and thrive on the antidote. Voodoo, you and the other Frankensteins have a shop of horrors developing here that has greater threat to the planet than nuclear war.
Peer Review. A pretentious bunch of nonsense designed to minimize individual career risk. Please tell me how a a group of individuals who don't know about the implications of a certain research can sit in judgement about the accuracy of what is presented? Again you are assuming that there exists in the collective scientific mind a deep enough understanding that a meaningful assessment is achievable. It has been the history of science that such groups represent mass mindthink, a joint narrowmindedness, that precludes the possibility of meaningful advance. The pronouncements of such groups neither increase the potential value of the research nor do they achieve their intended objective: make sure that whatever you have in your test tube is no worse than neutral on the body.
By the way the second jury in the OJ trial commended the first jury in their obedience to law and not a few stated they respected how thorough, accurate, and equitable was the first jury's decision. You won't find any of that jury's common types on the Peer Review because the pretense to knowledge has the pseudo-scientists believing they are the only ones qualified to understand all that technically accurate information. The problem is that it isn't accurate but only the common types wouldn't be co-opted because they had prurient interest at risk. The first assumption of the Peers is that they are objective in their assessment. It is the objectivity of habit and the milieu. Peer Review often degenerates into rubber stamp and seal of approval. Tell me. have you been participating in the DDT consumption experiments to prove that it's harmless? Now there's Peer Review.
I made all the criticisms long ago in detail about ARQL. I haven't changed any and the company hasn't changed my view. I haven't added anything constructive in responding to you or others recently. You claim you're some kind of biochemist. Everything you've written makes me surprised that your peers have somehow let you through. The first rule of science is pursuit of the truth. You pursue money and if the truth happens to be going in that way, you may visit it too. When I find this type in my specialty I go out of my way to expose their fraudulence on a technical basis. In biophysics or chemistry that's almost impossible to do because everything is inconceivably difficult and murky. It is much like the indeterminacy of the stock market which makes rank beginners think their success has come from ability. You can hide in what isn't known, but don't bet someone else's life on it. But I guess that's all you can expect out of the Review, a song and dance, and then they let you through. |
