Re: Re: That is a Scientist's Responsibility 23 February 2004
Previous Rapid Response Next Rapid Response Top
Mark Bartlett,
Communicable Disease Investigator
Toronto, Canada

Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Re: That is a Scientist's Responsibility

Peter Flegg Wrote:

"The point is that the "flaws" are in fact >>usually<< nothing of the sort."

You say above ">>usually<< nothing of the sort". Why "usually"? I am surprised you would use the word "usually". Care to elaborate?

Peter Flegg wrote:

"I for one would be delighted ......... or applied equal criteria of evidence for their own claims as they demand from others."

I expect the Perth Group did (and continues to) deconstruct their own claims as part of their hypothesis-forming/review process. They have made predictions from thier oxidative stress model and their predictions, thus far, to be quite accurate.

Futher, I expect they would be very open to having their alternative explanation (oxidative stress) deconstructed by other scientists -- it just seems that the HIV = AIDS paradigm has been so readily and widely accepted, few seem compelled to want to bother looking at (or deconstructing) any other viewpoint. Whose fault is that?

Peter Flegg Wrote:

"There are more than enough flaws in the science produced by the Perth Group themselves to merit the use of a full-time "deconstructor" to rebut their claims. I would do the job myself, but have more pressing things to do like treat .... "

I appreciate you are busy (most of us are) but might you have just a few minutes to detail some of the many flaws you suggest are part of the Perth Group's science. You do suggest there are "more than enough".

Competing interests: None declared