 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Nutrition / July 2009Ray Peat's Newsletter, etc.
http://www.efn.org/~raypeat/ > http://www.efn.org/~raypeat/ When Ray Peat says: "It has been over ten years since I wrote about "AIDS" (e.g., "Repairing the Immune System," in Cofactors in AIDS and HIV infection, edited by R.R. Watson, l989) and the official doctrine that it is caused by the "HIV" virus still hasn't been supported by anything that resembles real science." we can see that his ideas are in opposition to the medical establishment. -- Ron Yes, Ron, if you want to be anointed, "Master of the Obvious," you have my vote. Cancer was supposed to be cured by 1980 and a vaccine for "HIV" was supposed to be available by the mid to late 1980s. And on, and on. If that is what your notion of "science" leads to, you can keep it. Just note that nobody that I know (including Peat) is suggesting that the evidence is somehow not "real," but instead that it has been misinterpreted. I have made offers to put my own money (if I am wrong) do the kinds of experiments that would demonstrate once and for all what claim is correct (such as the "EFA" notion) but nobody, including you, has taken me up on any of these offers. > Yes, Ron, if you want to be anointed, "Master of the Obvious," you have > my vote. Cancer was supposed to be cured by 1980 and a vaccine for > "HIV" was supposed to be available by the mid to late 1980s. And on, > and on. If that is what your notion of "science" leads to, you can keep > it. That's one heck of a straw man argument. I did my undergrad biochem work during this era and frankly these assertions on your part are just plain wrong. I am not aware of any reputable scientists making this kind of claim. Perhaps "futurists" or fund raising organisations were using this kind of talk for PR purposes. > Just note that nobody that I know (including Peat) is suggesting > that the evidence is somehow not "real," but instead that it has been > misinterpreted. I have made offers to put my own money (if I am wrong) > do the kinds of experiments that would demonstrate once and for all what > claim is correct (such as the "EFA" notion) but nobody, including you, > has taken me up on any of these offers. This is a much more rational argument, but of course a better argument would be to analyze current data and then propose a specific experiment to test any hypotheses you may have. Yes, Ron, if you want to be anointed, "Master of the Obvious," you have my vote. Cancer was supposed to be cured by 1980 and a vaccine for "HIV" was supposed to be available by the mid to late 1980s. And on, and on. If that is what your notion of "science" leads to, you can keep it. Just note that nobody that I know (including Peat) is suggesting that the evidence is somehow not "real," but instead that it has been misinterpreted. I have made offers to put my own money (if I am wrong) do the kinds of experiments that would demonstrate once and for all what claim is correct (such as the "EFA" notion) but nobody, including you, has taken me up on any of these offers. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.