SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Daniel Schuh who wrote (11318)10/27/1998 11:36:00 AM
From: Johannes Pilch  Read Replies (1) of 67261
 
>True, sometimes crackpots are right. More often, they're wrong.<

But this is really quite besides the point, you see. Mullis should not be required to have answers to the AIDS question before pointing out an error in methodology. If it is true that scientists in this area are generally marching in accordance with a paradigm handed to them (and not in accordance with the pure facts), then he may very well point out the deficiency.

I never heard him, by the way, claim that HIV did not in fact cause AIDS, and likely he would agree that perhaps it does. His point seems to be that the correspondences between HIV and AIDS do not prove causality and yet science has rushed headlong down an HIV rabbit trail as if it does. He seems to say science needs first to find the AIDS culprit definitively, before assuming it is HIV. And this is reasonable.

Now again, I do not know if he is correct in all his claims, and that HIV is not the culprit in AIDS is irrelevant to my point. My point concerns the fact that a Noble Prize winning scientist claims serious myopia exists within the scientific community, a fact that despite that scientist's spiritual views, leaves me not a bit surprised since I myself have suspected the very same thing.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext