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.

Gallo on the stand: Fauci’s nightmare


Scientific celebrity offers no valid defense to HIV∫AIDS critique save bluster

77 pages, finally, of dead paradigm for the “denialists” to dissect

The entire transcript from Bob Gallo’s somewhat undignified appearance via video in front of the Australian Supreme Court judge in Adelaide on Monday morning (Sunday evening Feb 11 in the US) is now available at David Crowe’s Alberta Reappraising AIDS Society home page, in the form of a pdf of a rather smudgy typewritten document. (Is the Adelaide Supreme Court unable to afford a computer for the court stenographer to use, or is this the cramped hand of tradition? If the 25 MB size is too big to download, readers are advised to use Adobe on the 3 MB size and not some other display software for maximum clarity).

The 77 page comedy is raw meat for the baying hounds of AIDS “denialism” (that is, any intelligent person willing to read the scientific literature critically, or the books of Peter Duesberg, Harvey Bialy, Rebecca Culshaw, Stephen Davis, or the many other critics and authors celebrated by this blog and by You Bet Your Life).

And therein lies the unprecedented status of this document and the court grilling that gave rise to it: this is the first time in history that the prophet of the HIV∫AIDS scientific cult, the chief instigator of what persuades billions that TB is not TB, drugs are not drugs, malnutrition is not malnutrition, etc but everything from a cold to a traffic accident that brings down man or woman is AIDS if HIV is present, has been put on the spit and roasted by anyone, journalist, legislator, or activist, let alone a lawyer defending a client from this scientific fairy tale (we speak judiciously, our phrase arising from a review of the best scientific literature in the field).

In fact, a prime reason why HIV∫AIDS has lasted longer in circulation than a daily paper used to wrap fish is precisely the alacrity with which Bob Gallo has till this point evaded difficult questions about his unlikely scientific boondoggle, such as “why is AIDS gay in the US and Europe and heterosexual in Africa and Asia?”

One of the most remarkable effects of Peter Duesberg’s initial broadsides fired from the pages of the highest scientific journals into the flank of Gallo’s royal HIV∫AIDS yacht was, in fact, that Gallo developed a mysterious nervous ailment.

This unfortunate health challenge prevented him appearing at the same scientific conferences as Duesberg, even when he was scheduled as the keynote speaker. The instant Gallo heard that Duesberg was going to attend, the ailment immediately created a sensitivity to family responsibilities that demanded his presence elsewhere.

This unusual psychological tic apparently was transmitted in the end to virtually every major figure in HIV∫AIDS science, including even that renowned tormenter of macaques and failed microbicide developer John P. Moore of Cornell, who actually posted a warning on the site he started last year devoted to combating AIDS “denialism” with what he represents as AIDS Truth. The notice tells readers that he will stoutly resist any application from journalist or “denialist” to get him to defend the status quo, since it needs no defense::

We will not:

Engage in any public or private debate with AIDS denialists or respond to requests from journalists who overtly support AIDS denialist causes. The reasons are:

1. The debate has been settled: HIV causes AIDS, AIDS kills, and AIDS can be treated with significant success by the use of antiretroviral therapy.
etc etc.

Meanwhile Anthony Fauci Director of NIAIDS at NIH, invaded by the same meme, has long made the evasion policy official for all bureacrats, scientists and public affairs spokespersons under his rule, ever since he blatantly advertised it in the American Association for the Advancement of Science monthly bulletin, reporting that he had told his sister that any journalist who raised the topic would not get the time of day from any scientist at NIH.

The media are great equalizers in science, which is most disturbing to us scientists. Any scientist quoted in the media becomes an “expert.” We know reporters must consult more than a single source and make room for dissenting opinions. But many people consider what is in the media to be true by definition.

One striking example is Peter Duesberg’s theory that HIV is not the cause of AIDS. I laughed at that for a while, but it led to a lot of public concern that maybe HIV was a hoax. The theory has extraordinary credibility just on the basis of news coverage. My barometer of what the general public is really thinking is my sister Denise. My sister Denise is an intelligent woman who reads avidly, listens to the radio, and watches television, but she is not a scientist. When she calls me and questions my integrity as a scientist, there really is a problem. Denise has called me at least ten times about Peter Duesberg. She says, “Anthony”–she is the only one who calls me Anthony–are you sure he’s wrong?” That’s the power of putting someone on televsion or in the press, although there is nothing in his argument that makes scientific sense. People are especially confused when they see divergent reports about the same thing. (The AAAS Observer, Sept 1, 1989; see page 162, Oncogenes, Aneuploidy and AIDS: A Scientific Life and Times of Peter H. Duesberg by Harvey Bialy (North Atlantic, 2004)

We wonder if Denise’s doubts were satisfied over the 17 years since, or whether she lost some of her early hero worship of her distinguished brother. Sisters are hard to fool.

Now we have a public appearance of Gallo in the hot seat with a defense lawyer demanding answers, a questioner not showing any of the signs of fawning acquiescence which has so far marked mainstream science journalists enquiring into the rationale which supports Gallo’s profitable paradigm.

The result is to blow away the camouflage that has hitherto concealed the sheer absurdity of what Gallo has persuaded the world to swallow and reveal it, so to speak scientifically and medically, as the biggest pile of Swiss cheese ever palmed off on an unsuspecting public as prime beef.

Gallo fudges in Clintonesque style

The full 77 pages is worth ploughing through if you are familiar with the unplanned caper which somehow has expanded into a global religion outpacing Christianity, since the comic pirouettes danced by Gallo in his masterly evasions of the true science of AIDS (ie that signalled by the literature that has piled up since his 1984 claim, which now contradicts the authority that spawned it at every turn) are a wonder to behold.

Where evasion won’t do the trick he brings on the heavy guns – enough scorn and derision to freeze the bones of any innocent enquirer, though in this case, the skeptical questioner being an Australian lawyer intent on freeing his client from the shackles of Gallo’s imprisoning pseudo-theory, there is not the usual effect seen when it is imposed on the lapdog lickspittles of the Western press.

For unlike them the Australian lawyer is not frightened into worrying about his career for having doubted the globally celebrated, double Lasker plus 25 other awards winning, most scientifically referenced and impactful, international conference leading, jet setting, prime source on HIV∫AIDS, the co-discoverer of HIV himself, the retired if slightly tarnished star of the National Cancer Institute and now grand old man of retrovirology (as far as the media and Wikipedia are concerned) and leader of human virus hunting in the world today as professor of medicine and of microbiology and immunology and director of the 300 person Institute of Human Virology at the University of Maryland Biotechnology Institute, the former being now the flagship of a chain of such centers of research into human virology which is spreading around the world in response to Gallo’s suggestion in his book, “Virus Hunters” (Basic, 1991).

Today rethinkers around the world are poring with jaundiced eye over the remarkable document that has resulted. One who cannot contain his excitement is Michael Geiger, who writes “I just read Gallo’s transcript and I am stunned and amazed. I am not sure if Gallo was defending HIV or if this was simply a roundabout way to do a public admission of guilt or perhaps a practice session for upcoming trials.”

Here are a few prime excerpts:

1) Gallo’s empire building propaganda initiative for a ring of Institutes of Human Virology around the world is successfully metastasizing globally with sister institutes now in place or promised in seven major cities: “there is one now in Nigeria, in Bejaia and one in Monterey, Mexico that will be ready this coming year, one plant for Guaitara, Mexico, ideas for one in Brazil and ideas being discussed for one in Beijing, and one in Jakarta, Indonesia.”(p4)

Of interest is his use of the word “plant”, as in industrial plant designed to make product to sell, with poetic overtones of “plant” as in “fake supporter or product or report inserted into a group or system or a newspaper to lure, decoy, entrap, swindle or defraud the unsuspecting victim, and also “colonize” (see any dictionary).

2) A vaccine, Gallo says, is still, after 22 years, one of his “two closest or greatest current interests” (p4 and 5) but he seems unable to confirm any real progress other than the usual eternal excitement over the prospect and the possibility, which may “reach a very important milestone by the end of this year’s springtime, which will tell us whether we should be – I don’t like to use the word ‘excited’ with HIV but whether we’ll be really, really interested in this candidate”, and his explanation of how it might work may even suggest to some readers that his stature as a leading scientist is a little overpromoted:

“We are all vaccinated against polio but, if we all have a vial of polio within fluid to drink, we’ll all get infected. You’re not protected against infection, but our immune system will have some weeks for recall, and it will clear the virus and the problem is over. With HIV it is too late; within a few days it’s integrated its genes so, if we make a vaccine after two or three weeks, too bad, you’ve got viral genes in your body. When that vaccine response goes down that virus is going to take off again, so I’m of the school that says it’s all or nothing at all. We have to go for broke. We have to develop a vaccine that develops antibodies that blocks at the entry of the virus into the cell, and that is really difficult.

Having thus described the problem as being the ability of the insidious HIV to enter and hide from antibodies in the cell, Gallo goes on to describe the difficulty of developing “sterilizing immunity” ie a vaccine that blocks the virus from entering the cell as one that is confounded by the rate at which HIV changes into other varieties of itself, even “micro variants ad nauseam, just endless micro variants” within an an individual. “These are the challenges of a vaccine”…which he believes he may now have solved.

“We have learned out how to make antibodies that are broad across the different strains of HIV. It doesn’t mean we have the answer because this immune response will have to last and we haven’t achieved that yet.”

But as to the challenge of the defense in this case that “

if you know so much about HIV ..why haven’t you found a cure for it … you know, I would say that is just silly…If I know everything about Mt Everest there is to know; every cape, every rock, every stratum, every bush or every tree, I still can’t climb it until you develop the helicopter for me… After all, there are many microbes that have been around a long, long time that we desperately need vaccines for that have been around much longer than HIV. Malaria being one obvious example; a bacterium that is a parasite – a bacterium tuberculosis is another one. How many examples would one want. The question has no meaning.”

Gallo’s optimism is always inspiring – is there any reason why some kind of ‘vaccination’ might not work in the future against malaria, if the nanotechnologists really get going? – but we wait to get through the entire transcript to find out if anyone asked him how a vaccine against the insidious hiding and multimutating HIV might work any better at provoking useful antibodies than HIV itself.

Perhaps he should be put in touch with Dr Fauci – are they on speaking terms these days? – whose great achievement recently as noted here earlier was to acknowledge that HIV provoked T-cell multiplication, as one might expect.

Since as Duesberg has long pointed out the arrival of the antibodies reliably provoked by HIV results in wiping out the level of HIV in the blood to undetectable levels, and the number of T cells inhabited by active virus is at most 1 in 10,000, and more likely 1 in 100,000, precisely why one needs a vaccine remains one of the many “conundrums” of HIV∫AIDS science, upon which Gallo’s account throws no light at all, as usual.

Of course, here we are speaking medically and scientifically. There is clearly (to those in the field from David Ho downwards) a very important financial and economic reason why a vaccine development effort should continue ‘ad nauseam’, to coin a phrase, and that is, AIDS scientists have to eat and pay for their labs, grad students, air travel, wives, children, dogs, cars, and vacations.

Since we are only on page 8 of 77, this post will now end, and the rest of the transcript will be dealt with in a multi-post sequel, in recognition of its importance of a document which contains the seeds of the final downfall of a vexed and vicious paradigm – if the world is ever persuaded to pay attention.

Will it be persuaded? Not if the brave Fauci and his pr staff at NIAID have anything to do with it, that we predict. But perhaps they are preoccupied with this year’s HIV/NET meet, where one of the topics behind the scenes will no doubt be the reduction of funding for various important activities of the movement to bring AIDS drugs to a world where “everyone has AIDS”, including the dwindling supply of dollars for the vaccine effort compared with the hopes and dreams of those involved.

More coming up: Our further posts on the Transcript will include an admission by Gallo that 40% incidence is not good proof of HIV causing AIDS (“Kevin Borick: Do you agree that the isolation of HIV from only 40% of patients is not proof that HIV causes AIDS? Robert Gallo: I would say of course, in and of itself 40% isolation of a new virus I would not say is the cause.”)

Other admissions include using a misleading electron micrograph photo, that looking for HIV in patients is looking for a needle in a haystack, that cell particles may be confused with virus, and so on. But it is also clear that Gallo’s skill at fudging and confusing the issue is as high as ever, and for rethinkers to get excited about his testimony as finally pulling the lid off the can of worms that is HIV∫AIDS for the public to see clearly is premature.

Rather, it is more his attitude which is the giveaway, and Gallo’s obvious fast talking. The evasions will be clear to the knowledgeable who read the transcript closely, but whether Judge John Sulan was able to keep up is another question. Our impression is that the defending counsel Kevin Borick was thrown by Gallo’s shell game, and wasn’t quite as fast to nail the right shells as he could have been. But the Judge seems to have tried to help him, and this bodes well for the prisoner.

We calculate that the judge is likely to send the case to appeal, and pass a few remarks of a skeptical and critical nature in doing so.

If so, the appeal might just end with an acquittal on the grounds of non-science, even if the letter of the law was broken as it stands in Australia by the prisoner flouting its rule to tell sexual partners of his HIV positive status.

If that happens, it is hard to see how Dr Fauci and his colleagues can continue to sweep the truth about HIV∫AIDS under the carpet any longer.

8 Responses to “Gallo on the stand: Fauci’s nightmare”

  1. Michael Says:

    I would say it is fairly obvious which way Judge Sullan is leaning by what he said to Barrister Borick after the grilling of all of the high faluting “HIV Experts” by Defendants Attorney Kevin Borick: Page 01117 932, lines 27 to 38:

    HIS HONOR: “Unfortunately, our resources are stretched but this matter really must start to take priority!-It HAS to take PRIORITY! because <b>IT IS UNFAIR TO THE DEFENDANT TO KEEP THIS MATTER GOING ANY LONGER THAN I POSSIBLY HAVE TO</b>.”

    The truth of Robert Gallo’s damning and self incriminating testimony is now and forever in black and white transcript recorded at the Supreme Court of Australia, for all the world to see! To all those who still believe in the mass hysteria of HIV=AIDS propaganda: Read it and weep boys and girls. Read it and weep.

  2. Wilyretrovirus Says:

    To all those who still believe in the mass hysteria of HIV=AIDS propaganda: Read it and weep boys and girls. Read it and weep.

    I wouldn’t break out the confetti just yet. This paradigm has shown incredible resilience so far. If Gallo came right out and said it was all a sham, more than likely his peers would label him a fruitcake and disown him.

    But, I think this is another major event, one that will be looked upon as quite pivotal, like Celia Farber’s article in Harper’s.

    Where have all the true believers in the faith run off to lately?

  3. Michael Says:

    Hi Wi! I understand what you are saying, as to actually stop and turn around something as large as this, it happens gradually. It is a process not an event. One could say it ended 20 years ago with Duesberg’s publishing. One could say it ended with Harper’s. One could say it ended with Gallo shooting himself in the foot in Australia. And one could say it does not end until there is no one left that believes HIV causes AIDS. For me, it will be the words of Gallo court in Australia.

  4. Wilyretrovirus Says:

    One could say it ended 20 years ago with Duesberg’s publishing

    Or, as TS rightly points out, one could say it ended 20 years ago with Gallo proving that HIV was certainly NOT the cause of AIDS. Seems some of his testimony readily supports that.

  5. Michael Says:

    This is the picture that Robert Gallo tried to present to the court as proof of the very moment he found HIV from a gay man.

    No wonder the judge seems to be leaning toward the defendant.

  6. Michael Says:

    Obviously another of the multitudinous effects of HIV is that it could turn gay men to stone!

  7. Michael Says:

    I forgot to wish all of the mainstream HIV espousing scientists such as Bob Gallo, Tony Fauci, JP Moore, Mark Wainberg, the 5000 signers of the Durban Declaration, and all of the HIV defenders and valiant protectors a happy Valentine’s day last week, and I belatedly wish to extend them such.

    But I see the NIH offered them all a valentine on February 14th. It was quite interesting that they would make such a claim, that a whoopdie doopdie “atomic” picture of HIV has now been obtained, just 5 days after Robert Gallo admitted that his picture of HIV was a mistake that was actually “cellular contamination”.

    And How Absolutely Convenient, and just 5 days after Gallo’s damning admission.

    But, perhaps a bit too little and a bit too late.

    And I loved the quote at the end of the puff piece about an atomic photo of HIV having just been taken, which is attributed to Tony Fauci, director of NIAID:

    “I don’t think there’s any one particular thing that, in and of itself, is the show-stopper. But I don’t think we could really make substantial, fundamentally scientifically based progress until we got this very important information,” he said.

    But I can’t help but wonder if he was actually referring to the supposedly just obtained picture of HIV or if he was really referring to the testimony of Gallo and the trial in Australia.

  8. MacDonald Says:

    Michael,

    I think Fauci was really referring to Gallo not being up to date on the newest hi-tech stuff

    Frankly speaking, I never relied on electron microscopy. I don’t think electron microscopy does much, except for the person who’s a structural biologist and wants to look at real structure. No-one uses electron microscopy [in] virology any more – nobody. It is as rare as hen’s teeth. (Robert Gallo)

    Gallo has obviously never heard of “atomic” photographs, otherwise he’d certainly have taken this opportunity to tell us how important photos are for fundamentally scientifically based progress in a field that no longer uses electron microscopy.

    But maybe all this testimony under oath in Adelaide has rubbed off on Fauci, because it distinctly looks to me like he’s saying that up until this photo was taken progress in HIV science hadn’t been “fundamentally scientifically based”.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.


Bad Behavior has blocked 386 access attempts in the last 7 days.