Bringing our scientific analysis to an end, we’ve learned a good deal about scientific research methods and how a scientific hypothesis can either stand against or fall under the weight of solid research.
The main problem with the research supporting the alkyl nitrite-AIDS hypotheses is that many of the standards of experimental design are simply not upheld.
Most experiments are in vitro (test tube) or involve mice. Results of these studies are then used by advocates to support the poppers-AIDS hypotheses, disregarding the fact that doses were not adjusted for body weight and lung size in mice, and were often administered at near toxic levels over a duration that failed to reflect human alkyl nitrite use. Under these conditions, it is simply impossible to extrapolate the findings to human beings. Not to mention that results derived from the same experimental design were often inconsistent.
Even if one fails to consider these experimental design flaws, the small number of studies supporting a connection between poppers and AIDS or KS still do not stand up under the tremendous weight of the large number of well-designed research studies incriminating viruses, not poppers or other compounds, as the causal agent in both AIDS and KS. Advocates of the poppers hypotheses seem to want to sweep this burgeoning body of research under the carpet.
To prove something is true in science, you also need try to show that the alternative is false. There are numerous web sites on the Internet that support the popper-AIDS/KS connection. I haven’t seen one that braves the waters to explore the data gathered by mainstream AIDS/KS research. The current is simply too strong to risk a swim.
"A zealot is someone who can't change his mind, and who won't change the subject." Sir Winston Churchill
