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.


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)

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

Blistering letter to John Moore from Harvey Bialy

Tone a welcome relief from usual submissive politesse of HIV critics

One of the ways that the HIV?AIDS paradigm is successfully maintained while flying in the face of all scientific logic is the fact that the tone of the objections coming from laymen amd laywomen is entirely too respectful of the high status and position and credentials of the paradigm leaders, which is understandable because those who object publicly are usually people who are inexpertly outside the politico-socio-medical career system which feeds off the paradigm.

Luckily science professor Harvey Bialy is neither a compromiser nor compromised. Here is his letter to John Moore, the HIV?AIDS researcher and paradigm lackey who published the recent Op-Ed piece in the New York Times to mislead the readership and conveniently fend off any question about the behavior of Times editors and reporters in this regard over the last twenty years, a chicken which has yet to come home to roost.

Professor Moore:

You have written hither and yon on the Internet, and most recently in the pages of that once excellent and independent newspaper, The New York Times, how critics of the HIV/AIDS hypothesis are not to be taken seriously. The points you raise (if such they can be called) fall within the categories of “scientific-sounding” but unverifiable “facts”, slanderous assaults, and outright fabrications.

And you have the nerve to take a salary from a reputable university.

Since you purport to know so much, I propose a simple debate at the AIDS WIKI on the etiology of AIDS. I further propose it take the following form:

I will present one fully referenced (with PDF files that the moderator can hyperlink) challenge to your favorite and livelihood-sustaining hypothesis, and you can demolish my feeble arguments in the same fashion. We will continue this for one additional round, and then move on to the next challenge. I have maybe seven such challenges.

At the end, we will have produced the first fully documented, real scientific debate on the cause of AIDS. Interesting that after 25 years none has ever been held before, Bob Gallo’s promise in the PNAS in 1989 not withstanding.

Surely this is not too much for someone possessing even a fraction of the neurons and cojones that you pretend to have. Or is it that you are only capable of boldly proclaiming your unsubstantiated “beliefs” when protected by editorial armaments as mighty as The NY Times that you know would never publish any factual contradiction of your filthy and girlish prose masquerading as an academic Op. Ed.

Yours most sincerely,

Harvey Bialy

Resident Scholar

Institute of Biotechnology

National Autonomous University of Mexico


9 June 2006

P.S. You might try reading my biography of Professor Duesberg. If you can understand the technical parts, you will actually learn something.

Shockingly rude, or no more that the obtusely servile Moore deserves for promulgating a profitable paradigm which for those who are intelligent enough to know what they are doing (possibly even Moore) might be counted as murder when the accounting for this Enron of science is finally done?

(See An Open Letter and Challenge to Prof. John Moore – from Dr. Harvey “Tryptophan” Bialy)

55 Responses to “Blistering letter to John Moore from Harvey Bialy”

  1. Mark Biernbaum Says:

    Getting tested again today sounds like a great idea, Noreen. I might follow suit. And yes, we owe thanks and appreciation to Truthseeker for all the hard work I know goes into maintaining this site.

  2. noreen martin Says:

    Why don’t all HIV postives go and inflate their statistics. We joke, however, can you see what is happening? Before long, one will be tested when applying for a job, entrance into college and on down to the high school level. It is a recruitment campaign with more and more being brought into the fold and brainwashed to go on the medicines. This is why it is so important that sites likes these stay up and running as the new media does not see the need to print the truth.

  3. Gene Semon Says:

    For everyone’s information, I’m reproducing exchanges from Aetiology with Richard Jeffereys:

    To Richard: My comments specifically addressed Ho’s model and HAART, which was the most important justification (Times’ Man of the Year, remember!?) for the cocktails you love so dearly. Now you have a new, brand new guaranteed correct theory. And you’re resorting to ad hominem because obviously I am not part of the revised standard official version of your vanguardist movement. You’ve taken a page from the playbook of Vladimir Illich. Congratulations Richard. You’re sure to make Cardinal.

    In the meantime. I will continue to make posts that are OF A PIECE and consistent with previous posts and, hopefully, move the discussion forward. If you choose to make progress measured in inches and want to belabor points endlessly, beating your chest to impress all of us with your great knowledge of T-cell dynamics, fine.

    Carl T. Bergstrom and Rustom Antia. How do adaptive immune systems control pathogens while avoiding autoimmunity? Trends in Ecology &Evolution . Volume 21, Issue 1 , January 2006, Pages 22-28


    (B)ecause pathogens interfere with immune function, immune systems must be robust against sabotage. We describe here how these challenges are met by two immune systems, the intracellular RNA interference system and the vertebrate CD8 T-cell response. We extrapolate from these two systems to propose principles for strategically robust control.

    By deploying multiple redundant defense pathways, the host can influence the evolutionary trajectory of a pathogen population. Redundant defense mechanisms reduce the selective advantage to the pathogen of knocking out a single mechanism.

    Systems that have to deal with internal subversion (and the retrovirus must be demonstrated to reach that stage)* must go one step further and be strategically robust: that is, they need to function properly despite efforts to sabotage their workings. *(added to text)

    The distinction between robustness and strategic robustness becomes clear through analogy. A robust computer circuit would function effectively even if a few resistors burned out at random. A strategically robust computer circuit would function even if a disgruntled technician tried to sabotage the machine by removing precisely those resistors that were most crucial. (Added to text: if the AIDS virus can be demonstrated to be equivalent to the “disgruntled technician”, without invoking teleology, then we have something like compelling evidence.)

    RNAi is a system of post-transcriptional gene silencing that is broadly conserved across eukaryotes; it appears to have evolved as a form of adaptive immunity to prevent viruses from replicating within infected cells, by targeting foreign nucleic acids. (Added to text: something the classical virologists knew nothing about. Score one for the antidenialists.)


    Assuming an HIV “hijacks”, what about the armed guards RNAi?

    This paper can be accessed at:

    http://www.barnesworld.blogs.com/ => Science Stuff => Trends in Ecology &Evolution

    (Posted on 6/22/06)

    Response to Richard 6/24, 4:26PM

    There is a distinction between “arguing” and defining. I originally stated the possibility of CD3- cells and you replied that CD3 is part of the T cell receptor (not mentioning alpha/beta), by definition on each and every T-cell. I find examples of CD3- cells in ONE NEJM paper at hand and you hand wave about “abnormal”.

    My earlier post said “by deploying multiple redundant defense pathways, the host can influence the evolutionary trajectory of a pathogen population. Redundant defense mechanisms reduce the selective advantage to the pathogen of knocking out a single mechanism.”(authors) This was, for your consideration, a network model discussing adaptive responses and functional redundancies of T cells. “Three patients” with “abnormal CD3+CD4-CD8- cells” are suggestive of functional redundancy for the helper/memory function. I make an analogy to an emergency cooling system for a chemical plant reactor, not normally turned on. So nothing here is inconsistent with the idea that detailed understandings of lymphocyte dynamics have different schools of interpretation, which should be a given when evaluating such papers as Hellerstein.

    The leukemic effect? You’re really exercised over this one. I would say it’s an effect consistent with severe, life threatening hypersensitivity reactions of HAART NNRTIs. Other effects consistent: eosinophilia(!), lymphadenopathy, general malaise, flu-like symptoms, etc. And let’s not forget that “(mechanism and long term consequences of) redistribution/accumulation of body fat including central obesity, dorsocervical fat enlargement (buffalo hump), peripheral wasting, facial wasting, breast enlargement (are currently unknown)” (PDR, 2006)

    (Posted at 4;01PM, 6/27/06)

  4. No Name Says:


    Sorry if you don’t like my handle, but there is no more reason for me to use my name on this blog than there is for “Truthseeker” to use his. Unlike you I believe in working quietly and calmly, and have no desire to be a star gay “positive” dissident. Also unlike you I don’t think CD$ depletion has much to do with what gets called “AIDS.” In fact I am convinced the syndrome itself is incoherent and only leads us away from finding treatments for actual illnesses. I am happy for you that you are so satisfied with your so-called scientific conservatism, although in my view it is the acceptance of the existence of “AIDS” which is dogma. I am surprised to hear you so boldly praise “Truthseeker” when it was not so long ago you were attacking him and trying to lead a campaign to “out” him. I do hope further reading of the history and science will lead you to change your mind about who is and is not a dissident. I hardly see the point of claiming as dissidents people who attack us as :denialists. I will end my part of our exchange here and promise not to respond to you in the future as there really is no point in this exchange.

  5. Mark Biernbaum Says:

    Equating my honesty in using my real name in these discussions with some sort of “need” to be a gay positive celebrity is ludicrous, and insulting beyond measure. I use my name because I believe in standing behind what I say and being readily identifiable if someone wants to question my beliefs. I also use it because I have published work on gay psychology which has been widely disseminated, and if using my name can draw attention to this issue, then I think that’s a good thing.

    I find your beliefs very coherent concerning questioning the internal coherence of “AIDS”, but I frankly don’t really care who labels whomever a “dissident” or a “denialist.” I don’t require a label, exactly because I use my real name. I am simply myself.

    As for my warm regard for Truthseeker, friendships go through both good and bad phases and both parties make good and bad decisions — you know nothing of my relationship with Truthseeker. I do happen to admire him and am grateful for his dedication, and sometimes he frustrates me. Not abnormal in a friendship, I should think.

    I wonder why it is you feel it so necessary to attack me. I certainly am not your enemy in any way. But this kind of talk is clogging what was otherwise a productive discussion on this blog. If you want to continue in your crusade against me, please feel free to do so, but email me directly rather than taking up space here. And if you do me the honor of sending me an email, please do let me know who you really are.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Bad Behavior has blocked 354 access attempts in the last 7 days.