Damned Heretics

Condemned by the established, but very often right

I am Nicolaus Copernicus, and I approve of this blog

I am Richard Feynman and I approve of this blog

Qualified outsiders and maverick insiders are often right about the need to replace received wisdom in science and society, as the history of the Nobel prize shows. This blog exists to back the best of them in their uphill assault on the massively entrenched edifice of resistance to and prejudice against reviewing, let alone revising, ruling ideas. In support of such qualified dissenters and courageous heretics we search for scientific paradigms and other established beliefs which may be maintained only by the power and politics of the status quo, comparing them with academic research and the published experimental and investigative record.

We especially defend and support the funding of honest, accomplished, independent minded and often heroic scientists, inventors and other original thinkers and their right to free speech and publication against the censorship, mudslinging, false arguments, ad hominem propaganda, overwhelming crowd prejudice and internal science politics of the paradigm wars of cancer, AIDS, evolution, global warming, cosmology, particle physics, macroeconomics, health and medicine, diet and nutrition.

HONOR ROLL OF SCIENTIFIC TRUTHSEEKERS

Henry Bauer, Peter Breggin , Harvey Bialy, Giordano Bruno, Erwin Chargaff, Nicolaus Copernicus, Francis Crick, Paul Crutzen, Marie Curie, Rebecca Culshaw, Freeman Dyson, Peter Duesberg, Albert Einstein, Richard Feynman, John Fewster, Galileo Galilei, Alec Gordon, James Hansen, Edward Jenner, Benjamin Jesty, Michio Kaku, Adrian Kent, Ernst Krebs, Thomas Kuhn, Serge Lang, John Lauritsen, Mark Leggett, Richard Lindzen, Lynn Margulis, Barbara McClintock, George Miklos, Marco Mamone Capria, Peter Medawar, Kary Mullis, Linus Pauling, Eric Penrose, Max Planck, Rainer Plaga, David Rasnick, Sherwood Rowland, Carl Sagan, Otto Rossler, Fred Singer, Thomas Szasz, Alfred Wegener, Edward O. Wilson, James Watson.
----------------------------------------------

Many people would die rather than think – in fact, they do so. – Bertrand Russell.

Skepticism is dangerous. That’s exactly its function, in my view. It is the business of skepticism to be dangerous. And that’s why there is a great reluctance to teach it in schools. That’s why you don’t find a general fluency in skepticism in the media. On the other hand, how will we negotiate a very perilous future if we don’t have the elementary intellectual tools to ask searching questions of those nominally in charge, especially in a democracy? – Carl Sagan (The Burden of Skepticism, keynote address to CSICOP Annual Conference, Pasadena, April 3/4, 1982).

It is really important to underscore that everything we’re talking about tonight could be utter nonsense. – Brian Greene (NYU panel on Hidden Dimensions June 5 2010, World Science Festival)

I am Albert Einstein, and I heartily approve of this blog, insofar as it seems to believe both in science and the importance of intellectual imagination, uncompromised by out of date emotions such as the impulse toward conventional religious beliefs, national aggression as a part of patriotism, and so on.   As I once remarked, the further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge.   Certainly the application of the impulse toward blind faith in science whereby authority is treated as some kind of church is to be deplored.  As I have also said, the only thing ever interfered with my learning was my education. My name as you already perceive without a doubt is George Bernard Shaw, and I certainly approve of this blog, in that its guiding spirit appears to be blasphemous in regard to the High Church doctrines of science, and it flouts the censorship of the powers that be, and as I have famously remarked, all great truths begin as blasphemy, and the first duty of the truthteller is to fight censorship, and while I notice that its seriousness of purpose is often alleviated by a satirical irony which sometimes borders on the facetious, this is all to the good, for as I have also famously remarked, if you wish to be a dissenter, make certain that you frame your ideas in jest, otherwise they will seek to kill you.  My own method was always to take the utmost trouble to find the right thing to say, and then to say it with the utmost levity. (Photo by Alfred Eisenstaedt for Life magazine) One should as a rule respect public opinion in so far as is necessary to avoid starvation and to keep out of prison, but anything that goes beyond this is voluntary submission to an unnecessary tyranny, and is likely to interfere with happiness in all kinds of ways. – Bertrand Russell, Conquest of Happiness (1930) ch. 9

(Click for more Unusual Quotations on Science and Belief)

BEST VIEWED IN LARGE FONT
Expanded GUIDE TO SITE PURPOSE AND LAYOUT is in the lower blue section at the bottom of every home page.

Adelaide a bust

Judge Sulan turns down Parenzee appeal of jail sentence

HIV∫AIDS meme triumphs on legal front

kangcloseup.jpegBad news for human rationality from Adelaide. Australia, where after ruminating for two or three months Judge Sulan of the Supreme Court of Southern Australia has decided the fate of the unfortunate Chad Parenzee, jailed earlier for having sex without confessing that he was, according to the science of Robert Gallo, harboring antibodies to the HIV virus.

Despite a court hearing where it was plain to all intelligent observers present or who afterwards read the transcript, that Gallo’s HIV∫AIDS science was exposed as senseless, being both inconsistent in theory and without good evidence of any kind, an impression most clearly conveyed by the great man himself, Gallo having testified by video transmission from his home in the USA, the Judge decided an hour ago as of this writing that Parenzee’s appeal should be denied.

On what grounds he justified this opinion we do not yet know, but we have a very good idea that the efforts of the courageous Perth Group pair (see previous post on this topic) to challenge Gallo and his fellow Australian HIV∫AIDS promoters on their science went for nought, simply because this was a political game and not a legal or scientific one.

Immovable meme

We imagine that the Judge despite showing one or two moments of Aussie feistiness and independent spirit during the case, notably when Gallo was giving his testimony, was not able to overcome the HIV∫AIDS meme which must have set up residence in his brain some twenty two years ago, and have ruled it ever since.

kangaroofighter.jpegMost of the testimony which showed that there were serious questions that could be asked about the HIV∫AIDS paradigm probably went over his head, and even if they didn’t, the insistence of the Perth pair in challenging the very existence of the virus probably lost them the case as soon as they testified. This kind of allegation has no chance against the meme once it is in the brain of a judge or anyone else.

However, their other points about the inconsistency, incredible claims, and lack of evidence for the paradigm probably showed him that there was a valid controversy behind the scenes and in a world ruled by sense should have persuaded him, during the month or two he has taken to review the case, to allow the appeal.

What the decision shows, in our opinion, is that it is politics and economics that decides this kind of case, not science, even if Judge Sulan was the sharpest of cookies and saw through the babble that Gallo produced in testifying, as he read it through again in the quiet of his chambers.

Running from buffalo

We imagine that the good Judge actually spent a fair amount of time on the phone and at lunches, dinners and parties sounding out the other influential people in his city, which is the capital of Australia, and in other centers of influence, who have to do with governing medical matters, and finding out who would approve what. A Supreme Court judge in Adelaide did not achieve his prominent post without a good bit of discreet clubmanship and subtle approval negotiation, you can be sure of that.

Far better that a no account gay man should languish in jail a few years for flouting the law, even if it was based on flawed establishment science, that the Judge should have to deal with all the social fallout for taking a stand against the thundering herd of buffalo heading in the wrong direction. Can you imagine the comment he would be exposed to in the press and at parties of the ruling classes of Adelaide? His wife surely imagined it for him.

Stand up, and stand for, or you stand still, say the idealists from their encampment outside the gates of power. On the other side of the moat, drawbridge and walls of the castle that keeps them out, however, everyone but the servants knows that the real ruling principle is observe the weathercock at all times, and know which way the wind is blowing.

kangaroo.jpegTime will tell

Perhaps Judge Sulan took his time because he was wrestling with his conscience. We like to think so. Or perhaps he hesitated, appalled at the idea of playing the provincial handmaiden to a bunch of carpetbagging crooks whose congame was all too apparent via video when Gallo testified.

But one way or another, it was probably the naivete of those who deal in ideas and in truth that made them think for a moment that the decision could run any other way. The game is politics, not science, and only political influence and celebrity wattage of the William Jefferson Clinton level can really move the mountain, we see now.

Luckily that does not seem impossible. Sooner or later, some kid of some megarich couple in a society where top hedge fund managers are now paid $2.4 billion a year – the USA – will run into the trap of HIV∫AIDS positivity one way or another, and Daddy will fork up enough money to fight the case in an American court and win.

But meanwhile John Moore of Cornell will crow, and those who can read the scientific literature for themselves and see how it contradicts the public claims of the scientists who write it, will have to remain patient.

Well, we can promise them a consolation prize soon – a post showing how Dr Moore himself is one of the staunchest witnesses for the prosecution of his own paradigm, simply by quoting his own papers.

Guessing game

Meanwhile, it is of interest to note that a straw poll taken in recent days among the most active critics of HIV∫AIDS found that most were unwilling to guess the outcome, but those that did broke about 50/50.

aussiesupremecourt.jpegWe are embarrassed to admit that we thought the good Judge, being full of down to earth Aussie spirit, and rebelling against the influence of carpetbaggers from the US, would allow the appeal.

Most accurate was the cynical satirist and 911 conspiracy theorist Marcel Girodian, who wrote to us:

I’m quite sure that he will not allow the appeal, because the international ramifications of that would be too destabilizing to established order. I am also sure that he has been “talked to” by the powers that be, and it has been made clear to him that he is not to allow the appeal.

Now if i’m wrong , i’ll very delightedly eat my hat. But i doubt that i’m wrong.

Democracy is just a fantasy that they use to keep the people from realizing they are slaves. All the structures of democracy are easily manipulated and corrupted, and have been so for centuries.

On the other side was the more idealist Marcos, from South America. He wrote:

I´ve been reading the testimonies and I think that the existence of a scientific controversy has become so clear that that only for itself should be proof enough for the judge to aknowledge a reasonable doubt and allow the appeal.
I see it that way.Therefore, I´m confident.
I`m not saying that the judge will take any sides in the controversy. It´s not his job.
On the other hand, if this thing doesn´t turn out to be a winner, well I won´t care… I´ll keep on and on fighting for the truth to come out. That´s the message I think we should send out to everyone.

We like to believe that the tide of history runs from Marcel to Marcos, from cynicism and disappointment to success and truth. In the end. But it may be that, as Max Planck observed, we have to wait for the retirement and even death of the current rulers before that rennaissance of science to where it should be.

“Science advances funeral by funeral,” was his rueful thought.

2 Responses to “Adelaide a bust”

  1. MartinDKessler Says:

    Marcel Girodian was correct, the judge was more like the ones in the witch trials or the Catholic Church at the time of Galileo saying : Yes, I believe you do have a point! The court should really reconsider this! (Which of course they did not.)

    The judge, probably during his vacation, where he had the time to consider the ramifications of allowing an appeal, decided that this was not the case he would like to be (in)famous for.

  2. Jeroen Says:

    [quote]Most of the testimony which showed that there were serious questions that could be asked about the HIV∫AIDS paradigm probably went over his head, and even if they didn’t, [b]the insistence of the Perth pair in challenging the very existence of the virus probably lost them the case[/b] as soon as they testified. This kind of allegation has no chance against the meme once it is in the brain of a judge or anyone else.[/quote]

    Gallo called the judge’s suggestion that an evaluation of Montagnier’s work could determine if hiv exists, “sad commentary”. That insult must have been sufficient to kill the hiv-exists-meme in the judge’s mind. The judge has probably been paid well.

    MS MCDONALD [proscecutor] CALLS
    +ROBERT CHARLES GALLO SWORN
    +EXAMINATION BY MS MCDONALD
    […]
    Q. Again I want to put a suggestion to you that’s been made in this court and that is that in effect the whole argument that HIV exists rises and falls on the first experiments conducted by Montagnier.
    A. That’s silly of course. You know that, I mean everybody knows that that’s sitting in the courtroom.
    HIS HONOUR
    Q. Not everybody, Dr Gallo.
    A. That’s sad commentary. Was it your Honour who made it?
    Q. I made that comment.
    A. Well I would regard that as a sad commentary. […] Well, Montagnier didn’t claim in his ’83 paper that HIV caused AIDS, he could not, he didn’t have the data for it, he did not and could not. So if they stopped with Montagnier’s paper they stopped with someone who didn’t say HIV is the cause of AIDS. I’m saying it and he sure said after, and I said it in the spring of ’84 for the first time.
    http://aras.ab.ca/articles/legal/Gallo-Transcript.pdf (p20)

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.


Bad Behavior has blocked 167 access attempts in the last 7 days.