PCR contamination

T.J. Fitzmaurice tjf11 at cus.cam.ac.uk
Mon Feb 20 11:14:43 EST 1995


In article <3i9ugc$il9 at panix.com>, James Scutero <jscutero at panix.com> wrote:
>ed at molbiol.uct.ac.za writes:
>>Seconded!  If J Scutero - proponent of 
>>misc.health.aids.anti-HHV.propaganda - would actually develop a 
>>thesis rather than simply quoting wildly from papers, it might be 
>>more interesting and more enlightening.  All he has done now is show 
>>he can use a paper/bibliographic retrieval system.  I fhe really 
>>doesn't like a herpesvirus as possible cause of KS, let him explain 
>>why without the leaps of faith he normally indulges in to "prove" 
>>a point.
>
>Man are you guys twisted! I was the first person to post that KS WAS caused
Yes but you posted for a long time that it was HHV-6, and you cited several
papers to backup the idea, you now seem to have done a U-turn, from your
incontrovertible position.

>think I changed my mind? The KSHV is a close cousin to HHV-6 and it is a
>herpes virus and it is the infectious agent that is the cause for KS.
Thats like saying chicken pox is caused by Herpes simplex.
And then arguing VZV is closely related so what you said is all right.
Might be and Are are two very very different things in science. HHV-6
for all we knew might have caused KS, but evidence turned out differently.
Some one usuing this kind of logic could have announced 15years ago
that KS was caused by a totally novel herpesvirus, with no evidence.
And he would have been rightly shot down in flames for saying this, as 
with no evidence anything is just ....... worth that much. He would also
be right. Being right is unfortunately not enough. You have to be able
to prove it, until then you have to say I THINK, and this is why, or 
PERHAPS this is the case. This may be what you mean in many cases, but
it is not what you say. When the story changes, scepticism hangs in.

Tim



More information about the Virology mailing list