In the history of science, there are many examples of the use of hypotheticals or analogies.  In the case of Einstein’s relativity, for example, one can ask another to imagine a train passing by a person and it’s horn or whistle being activated.  A person standing near the tracks would hear a sound that changes its pitch, whereas a person on the train would hear a uniform sound.  One such thought experiment should be simple enough for just about everyone to understand.  Let us imagine a time when some suggested that air is necessary for people to live.  An animal that appears to need air in the same way is put in a large, sealed glass container, and an apparatus withdraws all the air from the container.  The animal, however, does not die, but looks perfectly well �?for several days!  If this was so, just about everyone would agree that there is nothing in the air that is essential to life �?that notion was directly and completely refuted.  This is exactly what was done with a claim made in 1930 that rats required certain kinds of fatty acids.  In 1948, rats were deprived of all fatty acids and lived without any difficulties.  The researchers noted that they had provided a B vitamin to the rats that the 1930 researchers had not, and that that was the cause of the apparent ill health, not a deficiency of any kind of fatty acid.  This experiment was discussed in the Encyclopedia Britannica Book of the Year in 1948, and yet for some reason most “nutritional experts�?act as if it never occurred.  Moreover, if anyone wanted to verify this experiment, it would not be difficult or expensive to conduct.  In fact, even someone with no scientific credentials could conduct it, as long as he or she knew the basics of rat nutrition (minus the fatty acids, of course) and maintenance �?information that could be readily obtained over the internet.

 <o:p></o:p>

Here is another useful hypothetical: let us imagine that we only have a small number of choices if we want to ingest anything with more than trace amounts of fatty acids.  We can choose chicken fat, which is about 30% saturated fatty acids (SFAs), lard, which is just under 40% SFAs, coconut oil at 92% SFAs, or palm kernel oil, around 87% SFAs.  Now, we decide to ask our local nutritional expert about these choices.  This person insists that “saturated fat is unhealthy,�?and argues that lard is a “saturated fat.�?SPAN>  We point out that it makes no sense to classify lard as a “saturated fat�?because it is much closer to chicken fat than to the other fat sources at our disposal, which are highly unsaturated.  We also suggest that if lard is to be called a “saturated fat�?(even though we think it is nonsensical), then palm kernel and coconut oil should be called “highly unsaturated fats,�?and that if experiments are done, lard and the “highly saturated fats�?should not be used interchangeably.

 <o:p></o:p>

It is easy to see how ridiculous this situation is.  I point I have made in the past is that there are times in history when the best policy is what one might call “consolidation,�?meaning that the “experts�?should be asked to put all their preconceptions aside and reconsider everything they assume to be correct.  It makes sense for this to occur when many scientific predictions have been made, yet few if any have actually come to pass.  The “war on cancer�?was supposed to be “won�?by 1980, an “AIDS vaccine�?was supposed to be available by the mid to late 1980s, there was supposed to be “epidemics�?or even “pandemics�?of “Mad Cow Disease,�?“Bird Flu,�?etc., and there were supposed to be terrible “infectious disease outbreaks�?in the aftermath of the great tsunami and Hurricane Katrina.  And just the other day, a report with the following statement appeared:  �?SPAN>Experts believe the world is overdue for influenza pandemic�?(source: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/11/061112094603.htm).  We have made great strides in technology over the past few decades, yet this has not been much of a help, in general.  Under the circumstances, it is only reasonable to ask if there is any chance that at least some of the underlying assumptions are flawed, if not totally false.  The use of some simple hypotheticals demonstrates that this appears to be the case.

 <o:p></o:p>

One thing that is clearly not hypothetical is the claim that a virus is causing a deadly disease.  One virus particle cannot kill a person, or even make a person ill, on its own.  At some point, there must be an amount of virus present that present technology can detect and the reasonable mind would consider to be enough to cause the “disease�?in question.  This has never happened with “HIV/AIDS,�?and most of the people I have explained this to are surprised, if not shocked.  Moreover, particles that match the textbook descriptions of the “HI�?virus have never been found in anyone.  And, as Nobel Prize winner (in biochemistry) Kary Mullis pointed out, when he asked for the foundation study of the “HIV/AIDS�?claim, such a paper has yet to be written.  Instead, it is often the case that “HIV experts�?argue that there is an “abundance of evidence,�?apparently mistaking research for foundation or supporting evidence.  Another common mistake (or technique, if it is being used intentionally) is to cite a large number of papers from the relevant literature, along with a short statement that “there is abundant evidence,�?but with no analysis of the actual experimental findings.  The person who does this appears to be unaware of the undeniable fact that the findings of an experiment are not always in accord with the interpretation of those findings by the people who conducted the study or experiment.  For example:

 <o:p></o:p>

QUOTE: Rebecca [Culshaw] clearly has never looked at studies of the origins of HIV-1 and HIV-2.  See the attached papers, if you have any interest.

Mokili J, Korber B. ,The spread of HIV in Africa., J Neurovirol. 2005;11 Suppl 1:66-75. Review.
Zhu T, Korber BT, Nahmias AJ, Hooper E, Sharp PM, Ho DD.   An African HIV-1 sequence from 1959 and implications for the origin of the epidemic., Nature. 1998 Feb 5;391(6667):594-7.
Korber B, Muldoon M, Theiler J, Gao F, Gupta R, Lapedes A, Hahn BH, Wolinsky S, Bhattacharya T. Timing the ancestor of the HIV-1 pandemic strains. Science. 2000 Ju"  UNQUOTE.<o:p></o:p>

Culshaw replied: QUOTE: Dear Dr. Foley, If you would compose an actual presentation of the data in these "papers", which of course I have read and studied, and that you think support the counter-propositions to what I wrote, by all means do so and it will be published here, along with my reply. UNQUOTE.<o:p></o:p>

Source: http://barnesworld.blogs.com/barnes_world/<o:p></o:p>

In other words, there is a disagreement about the interpretation of the findings, and so the only reasonable thing to do when this occurs is to examine the issue in depth, point by point.  A formal, academic debate can be useful under such circumstances.  However, what taxpayers are funding (to a large degree) is a group of people who keep making predictions and promises, rarely if ever deliver on them, and refuse to even explain how they can believe that the experimental findings are in accord with assumptions that have never been demonstrated to be accurate.  I’ve also pointed out, particularly in the “saturated fat�?and “essential fatty acid�?claims, that the experimental designs clearly violate the scientific method.  Unlike politicians, however, it seems that the scientists who hold most of the power in the biomedical establishment will never be held accountable.  Rather, new promises will be made, the mainstream media will trumpet the notion that all “diseases�?will be cured within ten or fifteen years, the biomedical agencies will continue to get funding, and then the cycle will repeat itself every so often.  As I used to tell my students, one should use history as a guide.  One should not predict that a “golden age�?of peace and reason will prevail in the near future if such an age has never existed.