Comments on: John Moore shoots self in foot with Amazon review of Harvey Bialy http://www.scienceguardian.com/blog/john-moore-shoots-self-in-foot-with-amazon-review-of-harvey-bialy.htm Reviewing scientific paradigms and other general beliefs in the light of the scientific and professional literature Thu, 05 Jan 2012 05:57:56 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Michael http://www.scienceguardian.com/blog/john-moore-shoots-self-in-foot-with-amazon-review-of-harvey-bialy.htm/comment-page-1#comment-3055 Michael Thu, 06 Jul 2006 04:41:30 +0000 http://paradigmoverthrow.com/blog/?p=245#comment-3055 I don't know if Mark and Robert are still checking out this thread, but here is one more item to balance in our cognitive dissonance. The NIH is now calling Human Herpes Virus 8, or HHV8, "the virus that causes Kaposi's Sarcoma". True or not? I don't know, but they obviously no longer believe HIV is the cause. They also claim that HHV8 is quite prevalent, so it still may be HHV8 and Poppers combination in 'some' patients that causes the KS thing. The link to the NIH item calling it the cause is <a href="http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-04/nioa-ldo040606.php" rel="nofollow">HERE</a> I also found HHV8 being referred to on another NIH March "Update" Newsletter somewhere on the web, but I can't find the link at the moment. Gee, does HHV8 also cause an HIV test to go false poz? Better question is "would they tell anybody in the public if it did"? I don’t know if Mark and Robert are still checking out this thread, but here is one more item to balance in our cognitive dissonance. The NIH is now calling Human Herpes Virus 8, or HHV8, “the virus that causes Kaposi’s Sarcoma”. True or not? I don’t know, but they obviously no longer believe HIV is the cause. They also claim that HHV8 is quite prevalent, so it still may be HHV8 and Poppers combination in ’some’ patients that causes the KS thing. The link to the NIH item calling it the cause is HERE I also found HHV8 being referred to on another NIH March “Update” Newsletter somewhere on the web, but I can’t find the link at the moment. Gee, does HHV8 also cause an HIV test to go false poz? Better question is “would they tell anybody in the public if it did”?

]]> By: Henry H. Bauer http://www.scienceguardian.com/blog/john-moore-shoots-self-in-foot-with-amazon-review-of-harvey-bialy.htm/comment-page-1#comment-3054 Henry H. Bauer Sun, 02 Jul 2006 04:48:11 +0000 http://paradigmoverthrow.com/blog/?p=245#comment-3054 Your remark re Bialy and Duesberg compared to vertian others, " truthseekers rather than self-promoters, counter to the modern trend.", reminded me of the wonderfully acerbic writings of Erwin Chargaff; for example, 1977. Voices in the Labyrinth, NY: Seabury. Here's a pertinent bit from it:"in our time a successful cancer researcher is not one who 'solves the riddle,' but rather one who gets a lot of money to do so. It is all quite similar to the history of alchemy, another truly goal directed, though much less costly, enterprise" (Chargaff, 1977: 89).If you haven't read Chargaff then you've missed a real treat and source of great quotes Your remark re Bialy and Duesberg compared to vertian others, ” truthseekers rather than self-promoters, counter to the modern trend.”, reminded me of the wonderfully acerbic writings of Erwin Chargaff; for example, 1977. Voices in the Labyrinth, NY: Seabury. Here’s a pertinent bit from it:”in our time a successful cancer researcher is not one who ’solves the riddle,’ but rather one who gets a lot of money to do so. It is all quite similar to the history of alchemy, another truly goal directed, though much less costly, enterprise” (Chargaff, 1977: 89).If you haven’t read Chargaff then you’ve missed a real treat and source of great quotes

]]> By: Mark Biernbaum http://www.scienceguardian.com/blog/john-moore-shoots-self-in-foot-with-amazon-review-of-harvey-bialy.htm/comment-page-1#comment-397 Mark Biernbaum Fri, 30 Jun 2006 15:16:38 +0000 http://paradigmoverthrow.com/blog/?p=245#comment-397 No offense taken, McK. In fact, I'm hopeful that there are many, many useful paradigms -- the more the better in terms of uncovering important and useful information. The more avenues for research, the more we learn. Robert's point about KS is very well taken. It arose out of a correlation. And then became a theory of causation after the actions of nitrites were well studied. This is how science works when it is at its best. Good correlations <em>generate</em> hypotheses, and then good prospective studies <em>test</em> these hypotheses. There is so much good science that could be happening, but isn't, because of the stranglehold that infectious disease has on this issue. We need to continue to push for other areas of medicine to become more involved in this. ID has dominated, and their domination has not produced the answers that we are all so interested in. It's time for them to step aside. No offense taken, McK. In fact, I’m hopeful that there are many, many useful paradigms — the more the better in terms of uncovering important and useful information. The more avenues for research, the more we learn.

Robert’s point about KS is very well taken. It arose out of a correlation. And then became a theory of causation after the actions of nitrites were well studied. This is how science works when it is at its best. Good correlations generate hypotheses, and then good prospective studies test these hypotheses.

There is so much good science that could be happening, but isn’t, because of the stranglehold that infectious disease has on this issue. We need to continue to push for other areas of medicine to become more involved in this. ID has dominated, and their domination has not produced the answers that we are all so interested in. It’s time for them to step aside.

]]> By: McKiernan http://www.scienceguardian.com/blog/john-moore-shoots-self-in-foot-with-amazon-review-of-harvey-bialy.htm/comment-page-1#comment-396 McKiernan Fri, 30 Jun 2006 03:39:51 +0000 http://paradigmoverthrow.com/blog/?p=245#comment-396 <em>As for cognitive dissonance -- while unpleasant for the mind, it is not untenable to maintain multiple conflicting viewpoints and once, and to put them in balance. : ) This is of course, what I am trying to do. How many times must I say that this is not some unwillingness to let go of a failed paradigm? I agree the paradigm has failed, but no other paradigm has the kind of proof of success, that I, as a developmental scientist, demand. Thus, I am stuck, I'm afraid, with my cognitive dissonance for now.</em> Perhaps, Dr. Mark there are more than two paradigms. A pleasant thought indeed. And perhaps you have yours and others have theirs that do not coincide with either the faux evil empirists (?) nor the faux truthseekers (?) and perhaps we/they too have legitimate cause for studying the issues and remaining on the learning curve instead of being bullied by the likes of a recently departed molecular commenter in one sector of the blogosphere. God (dog for non-believers) forbid a commenter may actually speak to the issue in a combox without getting attacked. Then again maybe we don't want to be petted, 'good doggie'. Not to worry Mark, no offense, besides, this one isn't getting a green border. As for cognitive dissonance — while unpleasant for the mind, it is not untenable to maintain multiple conflicting viewpoints and once, and to put them in balance. : ) This is of course, what I am trying to do. How many times must I say that this is not some unwillingness to let go of a failed paradigm? I agree the paradigm has failed, but no other paradigm has the kind of proof of success, that I, as a developmental scientist, demand. Thus, I am stuck, I’m afraid, with my cognitive dissonance for now.

Perhaps, Dr. Mark there are more than two paradigms. A pleasant thought indeed. And perhaps you have yours and others have theirs that do not coincide with either the faux evil empirists (?) nor the faux truthseekers (?) and perhaps we/they too have legitimate cause for studying the issues and remaining on the learning curve instead of being bullied by the likes of a recently departed molecular commenter in one sector of the blogosphere.

God (dog for non-believers) forbid a commenter may actually speak to the issue in a combox without getting attacked. Then again maybe we don’t want to be petted, ‘good doggie’.

Not to worry Mark, no offense, besides, this one isn’t getting a green border.

]]>