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.

John Moore escapes spitball with swift exit


Temporarily floored by absurdity, Geiger fails to act

‘Intellectual powerhouse’ researches goo and rings

According to his report filed in Bill, Melinda and Bill Comments just now, Michael Geiger of HEAL, San Diego turned up on Monday in Toronto for John Moore’s presentation in the “Novel Targets for Drug Development Session, intent on “exposing his empty bag of tricks.”

Unfortunately, Moore’s presentation on “Entry Inhibition as Models for Microbicide Development” so horrified Geiger that he managed (according to him) only to hit the back of Sam Broder’s toupee with a spitball.

This is unfortunate, since Geiger had a very good question ready, judging from his note, one which could have seen him publicly confront the New York Times Op-Ed writer on “Dangerous Quackery” with the final solution to Africa’s AIDS problem, no gel required:

Moore started his lecture out by saying one of the most bizarre statements that I have ever heard. He said that One in Four women in Africa get HIV infected from heterosexual activity! Simply not believable, as our own American Made HIV has been found to be completely non-transmitted sexually, by Nancy Padian. All should by now be familiar with Padian’s study, that showed zero sexual transmission in 370 or so heterosexual couples over a six year period.

Why can’t we just bottle up our own HIV and ship our own non-sexually transmitted HIV to Africa? That would solve the supposed HIV problem over there!

But we can sympathise with his reaction to the appalling revelation of what Moore and his hardworking group – an “intellectual powerhouse”, according to Moore, when he presented them for applause – have been up to.

Then Moore disgusted me again by talking about doing things to monkeys vaginally and anally that I have never even seen in the raunchiest of porn videos

Even if Michael’s account is a little over the top, as a report on the session, it doesn’t seem that his description of Moore’s presentation is anything but sober fact. (You can check it out on video, he notes, at this KaiserNetwork page.)

He promises it will be the most affordable goo lube in town. And best of all, “it will not be Nasty, Runny, or Smelly!”

What it adds up to is this: there can be no more vivid example of the absurd lengths to which scientific visionaries such as Moore will go before questioning whether what they are doing makes any sense at all.

No wonder Geiger was momentarily at a loss, faced with Moore’s effrontery. He went there to write a satirical report, and found the event itself was pure satire.

Just as I was took one more huff to launch, Dr. Moore called his goo team an “Intellectual Powerhouse”! I choked on this statement. I choked and could not launch. As I was choking on the silliness of his words, he said his final thank you, asked if there were any questions, all you could hear was the audience choking and no-one could even get out a question, and he slyly shuffled off the stage.

That, perhaps, is the entire story of HIV∫AIDS and the XVI International AIDS Conference, Toronto, 2006. The total sum of the foolishness on display is so staggering that it is impossible for critics to get a handhold.

All they can do is gape, and reach for a drink.

Did anyone ask the macaques?

Michael’s full posted report in Comments:

(show)

INTELLECTUAL POWERHOUSE OF VAGINAL GOO AND ANAL RINGS?

The other day, was the “Novel Targets for Drug Development Session. Dr. Moore was the third speaker, and the one that I came here to enjoy. I did not come here to join Dr. Moore in his monkey business. No indeed. I am here for much more than that. I intend to expose Dr. Moore for the not-quite-an-emperor with no clothes that he is, with no sexually transmitted virus causing AIDS in his hands. Nothing but an empty bag of tricks!

Moore started his lecture out by saying one of the most bizarre statements that I have ever heard. He said that One in Four women in Africa get HIV infected from heterosexual activity! Simply not believable, as our own American Made HIV has been found to be completely non-transmitted sexually, by Nancy Padian. All should by now be familiar with Padian’s study, that showed zero sexual transmission in 370 or so heterosexual couples over a six year period.

Why can’t we just bottle up our own HIV and ship our own

non-sexually transmitted HIV to Africa? That would solve the supposed HIV problem over there! If he shipped the supposed sex transmitted African HIV over here, it would solve his and Nancy Padian’s problem of having non-sexual HIV here in the west!

Continuing with the story, Dr. Moore was very nervous through-out his lecture. He stumbled through a lot of it, and you could cut through his nervousness with a knife. I think he knew that I was right there, and he probably knew that I was lining him up in the sight of my spitball shooter, disguised as a pen of course. He even looked RIGHT AT ME! Time stopped. Here I was, and there he was. I had him then and there, just like a deer in the headlights! But just as I had his beady little eyes

lined up in my sights, and was ready to launch my mighty spitball, he hit me first, and beat me back with his own launch and bombardment of a discertation on “Vaginal Goo and Anal Rings!” Well, you just can’t shoot a spitball when laughing, so my first opportunity was missed.

John promised to make his goo in many forms. Either gel, cream, suppositories, sponges, or vaginal and anal rings. I just know the Anal Rings are gonna be a big hit with the gay community, as they are already obsessed with nipple rings, Prince Albert Penile rings, diamond rings, gold rings, silver rings, chrome rings, leather rings, cock rings and just about any type of ring things. And the gooier, the better! He promises it will be the most affordable goo lube in town. And best of all, “it will not be Nasty, Runny, or Smelly!” What more could I want? What more could the gay community want on a Friday night? What more could those oversexed and overpopulating Africans want? These vaginal and anal ring things will be the biggest seller ever put on the world market in all of history! Is Dr. Moore an evil genius? What if his microbicide cocktail rings of goo creates 3 headed baby monkeys? Little wonder, Bill Gates wants to get in on this upcoming gooey ring thing blockbuster!

Then Moore disgusted me again by talking about doing

things to monkeys vaginally and anally that I have never even seen in the raunchiest of porn videos. He talked about inflaming monkeys vaginally to make sure they get his shiv virus, and he said that “Monkeys are Not That

Choosey”, and I am now sure this is a true fact! If monkeys are doing the goo thing with Dr. Moore, they certainly are not choosey, and have no taste! This was upsetting so I lined up my spitball shooter again for a second go at him, and just as I was launching it, Moore starts talked about doing the HAIL MARY with his monkeys, as he calls it, to protect them from “multiple repetitive challenge”!?! This sounded like some type of monkey orgy to me, and the visuals must have been just too much. Knocked me right off balance again. My projectile launched. But as my misaimed spitball flew, I think it hit Sam Broder in the back of the head, and was strangely absorbed and deflected by what must be a spitball proof toupee! I didn’t know he wore one, but it had to have been either a toupee or the thickest head I have ever known!

John went on and and on about his toxic goo and monkeys, and I needed to get just one more chance to have a shot at him. Third one is a a charm, as they say, so I awaited my chance. He wrapped up his speech by thanking his lab assistants, pharmaceutical companies, and everyone but the sexually assaulted monkeys. I lined up for my final fusillade (I only had 2 spitballs on my possesion at this time, most of the others I had brought along were confiscated by security when I boarded the plane for Toronto the other day). Just as I was took one more huff to launch, Dr. Moore called his goo team an “Intellectual Powerhouse”! I choked on this statement. I choked and could not launch. As I was choking on the silliness of his words, he said his final thank you, asked if there were any questions, all you could hear was the audience choking and no-one could even get out a question, and he slyly shuffled off the stage.

Seriously though, all jokes aside. This microbial thing is more than questionable. What will these chemicals do in utero? Or even anally? Just how safe and effective will they be for years of use. What about sperm exposed to these toxins? How about the children being born from these chemonuked sperms? I can see the point to be protected from actual STD infections, but to create a chemonuclear weapon to bombard ones most sensitive parts of the body? To bombard an obviously harmless retrovirus? Seems a bit much to me!

Just so you can witness this goo filled anti-microbe cocktail orgy and chokefest, a video of the entire event can be found at the Kaiser Video Link by clicking your

mouse on the following link:

“Novel Targets for Drug Development Session”

Dr. Moore is the final third of the video.

Check out his nervousness! I am sure some in the press will be noticing how he devoted his opening act on Sunday to trying to hide from the dissidents, and now nervously bumbling through his sessions! I am sure more than just the dissidents will be wondering what he is so afraid of!

John P. Moore’s informative lecture on abusing macaques for fun and profit:

A microbicide can be applied as a gel, crème, suppository, sponge or vaginal ring that gradually releases active ingredient, but in the most common incarnation, it is a gel. To be useful, a microbicide in the end has got to be safe for obvious reasons, effective, also for obvious reasons, but it also has to be affordable; essentially it is give-away technology. It is something that would be priced in the cents-per-usage for the developing world. Something that costs 10 bucks per use isn’t going to be terribly practical, so it has to be cheap. We always have to be aware for the need for affordability. Again, it has to be acceptable because it is going to be used in a sexual

setting, so anything that is sort of nasty or runny or smelly simply isn’t going to be used. That is a formulation issue that I am certainly not going to address today because I am going to address experiments in the monkey model and, to be honest, monkeys aren’t that choosy. ….

We did a Hail Mary experiment, which wasn’t in the paper, but I think it’s worth going over. We wanted to see if you could protect against multiple, repetitive challenges. So we put the three inhibitors, compound 167, BMS806 and C52L all at the highest doses. We have those to the macaques as a triple combination every day for five days and then did a SHIV challenge every day for five days. So they got five consecutive, daily, high-dose challenges. Obviously, all the controls got infected. Three out of the five inhibitory recipients got infected. If you put that either way, two animals were protected against five consecutive, daily, high-dose challenges, which I don’t think is all that shabby given the stringency of the model. So I think that is encouraging for the real world.

(show)

Transcript provided by kaisernetwork.org, a free service of the Kaiser Family

Foundation1

(Tip: Click on the binocular icon to search this document)

Novel Targets for Drug Development

XVI International AIDS Conference

August 14, 2006

1 kaisernetwork.org makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of written transcripts, but due to the nature of transcribing recorded

material and the deadlines involved, they may contain errors or incomplete content. We apologize for any inaccuracies.

[Applause]

I. F ADEWOLE: Our third speaker is Dr. John P.

Moore. Dr. Moore is a professor of microbiology and

immunology of the Weill Medical College at Cornell

University, New York City. He is a [inaudible] Oxford

graduate, having received his bachelor, masters, master of

philosophy, and [inaudible] degrees from Oxford University.

Dr. Moore [inaudible] is a scientist of the Pediatric AIDS

Foundation and is a recipient of a non-restricted grant for

infectious disease research from the [inaudible] Foundation.

He also holds a merit award from the National Institute of

[inaudible] on Infectious Diseases. Dr. Moore’s topic today

is Entry Inhibition as Models for Microbicide Development.

Dr. Moore?

[Applause]

JOHN MOORE, PH.D.: Thank you for that introduction.

I’m not talking about new drug targets today; I’m talking

about the use of existing drug classes or inhibitor classes

Novel Targets for Drug Development

XVI International AIDS Conference

08/14/2006

1 kaisernetwork.org makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of written transcripts, but due to the nature of transcribing recorded

material and the deadlines involved, they may contain errors or incomplete content. We apologize for any inaccuracies.

34in a different way, in a non-traditional way, not to treat

infection, but to try to prevent it by means of a topical

microbicide. A microbicide is an important arm of prevention

science strategy nowadays, simply because it is needed. With

the number of heterosexual transmissions that are occurring,

particularly in the developing world, with 80-percent of new

transmission from heterosexual intercourse, the need for

something particularly to block vaginal transmission is

extremely obvious. When you see that in South Africa, 1

woman in 4 now becomes HIV infected by the age of 22, that’s

a pretty serious issue.

A microbicide could reduce transmission and buy more

time for making an effective vaccine. Ultimately, the answer

to transmission is an effective vaccine, but we all know it

is not an easy thing to do and it will be some years yet

before that task is accomplished. In the mean time, other

prevention methods become center stage, particularly for

women to control their own protection is essential. Although

we’re all familiar with the ABC concept, most infections are

spread by unprotected sex. Abstinence and faithfulness are

not likely to protect married women or those who are sexually

abused. Women often cannot ensure that men use condoms and

condoms are also contraceptive, which means they cannot be

used when one of the desired outcomes is pregnancy. Instead,

Novel Targets for Drug Development

XVI International AIDS Conference

08/14/2006

1 kaisernetwork.org makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of written transcripts, but due to the nature of transcribing recorded

material and the deadlines involved, they may contain errors or incomplete content. We apologize for any inaccuracies.

35a microbicide could fulfill many of the prevention science

gaps if one could be developed and applied properly.

A microbicide can be defined as a chemical entity

that can prevent or reduce HIV transmission when applied at

the site of entry to the body, be that vaginally or rectally.

It is probably, but not certain, that an effective vaginal

microbicide would also work when applied rectally. That is

certainly an assumption, but there is no defined strategy

that differs at present for the two sexual transmission

routes; it’s whatever is being made for one route would be

tested for another route.

A microbicide can be applied as a gel, crème,

suppository, sponge or vaginal ring that gradually releases

active ingredient, but in the most common incarnation, it is

a gel. To be useful, a microbicide in the end has got to be

safe for obvious reasons, effective, also for obvious

reasons, but it also has to be affordable; essentially it is

give-away technology. It is something that would be priced

in the cents-per-usage for the developing world. Something

that costs 10 bucks per use isn’t going to be terribly

practical, so it has to be cheap. We always have to be aware

for the need for affordability. Again, it has to be

acceptable because it is going to be used in a sexual

setting, so anything that is sort of nasty or runny or smelly

simply isn’t going to be used. That is a formulation issue

36that I am certainly not going to address today because I am

going to address experiments in the monkey model and, to be

honest, aren’t that choosy.

What I’m going to focus on for the rest of the talk

is microbicides that are based on entry inhibitors that are

already in clinical trials as antiretrovirals and because

they may meet many and perhaps all of these criteria. They

could be safe because they’ll have a lot of clinical

profiles; effective, which I’ll demonstrate to you in the

monkey model how they can be; affordable, because we’re

talking about conventional drugs by and large; acceptable is

a formulation issue that I’m not addressing.

The simple concept is that preventing HIV from

entering cells prevents it from entering the body and

establishing an infection; an entry inhibitor stops the virus

from going anywhere. They’re generally likely to be

reasonably safe. As I say, they’re likely to be affordable,

some of them anyway. And there is good evidence of efficacy

that I will show you. The kind of inhibitors that I’m going

to review in this talk — the one the my project group is

studying in the macaque model — include compound 167, BMS-

378806, T1249 and AMD3465. They’re sort of being done for

product development, trying to move toward clinical trials.

I will also mention C52L and CD4-IgG2 for experimental

purposes.

37

Most of the work we’ve done uses the R5 SHIV, SHIV-

162P3, a CCR5-using challenge virus. In some studies, we’re

using SHIV-89.6P, which is an X4 virus with, perhaps, some

CCR5 usage.

The small molecule CCR5 inhibitor compound 167 was

Marty Springer’s at Merck. It was being developed as a

clinical candidate alongside Schering-Plough’s and Pfizer’s

Maraviroc and Vicriviroc, but Merck abandoned it for clinical

development, which was unfortunate for Marty, but it was good

fortune for us because it meant we could get a clinically

relevant, high-quality, potent CCR5 inhibitor for macaque

studies. It is every bit as good a molecule as Maraviroc and

Vicriviroc. Bristol Meyer’s, Rich Colonno’s group, has been

development attachment inhibitors, of which BMS-378806 was

the first in the family. It is not longer being developed

clinically because it is being superseded by better

compounds, but it meant, again, that we could have access to

it. This compound binds to GP120 and inhibits CD4 binding

and subsequent conformational changes associated with co-

receptor binding. It is active against both R5 and X4

strains, so it is not co-receptor restricted.

We used, in early studies that have now been

published, a GP41 fusion peptide, C52L, made by my colleague

Min Lu at Cornell Medical School. This is very similar,

related to T20 and enfuvirtide (Fuzeon), a licensed drug. It

38is clearly a peptide. Min Lu engineered it for expression in

bacteria in an effort to make it somewhere cheaper than

enfuvirtide. It blocks fusion by inhibiting late-stage

conformational changes in GP41 and, again, this is a broadly

active tropism-independent inhibitor.

We’ve since moved on to work with T1249 from

Trimeris, which was the son of T20; it was Trimeris’ next

development stage in the Fuzeon (enfuvirtide) program. It

works in same way that C52L does; it’s more potent in vitro

and in vivo than Fuzeon. It was tested in clinical trials

and showed to have substantial antiviral activity, so there

is clinically relevant safety and efficacy data on it, but it

is no longer being moved forward as an antiretroviral drug.

I’ll mention briefly, and only briefly, PRO542, CD4-

IgG2, a tetravalent CD4-based fusion protein from Progenics,

which binds to GP120 and blocks virus attachment. That is a

protein, which puts it likely to be outside of the affordable

range in the kind of amounts it would need to be used at, but

we’ve used it as a research tool. This is being developed as

an antiviral drug by Progenics and it is in phase 2.

The CXCR4 inhibitor that we’re using is AMD3465 from

Anormed from Gary Bridger’s program. That is a specific

CXCR4 inhibitor with activity only against X4 viruses. It is

similar to compounds that are in clinical trials as antiviral

Novel Targets for Drug Development

XVI International AIDS Conference

08/14/2006

1 kaisernetwork.org makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of written transcripts, but due to the nature of transcribing recorded

material and the deadlines involved, they may contain errors or incomplete content. We apologize for any inaccuracies.

39drugs to treat CXCR4 using viruses in infection, and it is a

perfectly credible compound to use in microbicide studies.

So we published at the end of last year — and I’m not

going to spend a lot of time reiterating the details of work

that was published eight months ago now — a paper by Ron

Veasey [misspelled?] on the work on compound 167, BMS-806 and

C52L. Now, the challenge virus, as I mentioned, is SHIV-

162P3 CCR5-using virus. The monkey model is the

progesterone-treated monkey model, which thins the vaginal

epithelium and renders the monkeys highly susceptible to

infection, so it is a very stringent model. We put in a

relatively high dose of virus compared to human transmission

and the vaginal epithelium is being deliberately thinned with

progesterone. All those exacerbate the risk of infection,

which means your controls get infected and you can do the

studies. But it does make the model stringent, so protection

against it is not trivial to achieve.

When we used compound 167 at 5 millimolar and we

protected 8 out of 10 animals. BMS-806 was the same

concentration and we protected 6 out of 8. Gp41 C52 peptide

to gp41, we protected 3 out of 5. Compared to 9 out of 9, it

gave statistically significant protection in each of the

arms.

We’ve since done a study, unpublished, with T1249, a

dose-ranging study applying T1249 at different concentrations to see where protection lies. It’s the first experiment we

did on this compound. We only had two animals per group, but

no protection at 0 or 0.1 megamil, but both animals that got

1 megamil and 5 megamil were protected, so it’s a titratable

response and we’re not working to fill in the gap to see just

how much can be used. This is 200 micromolars. On the scale

that Trimeris makes peptides, which is in the sort of tons-a-

year range, this becomes a practical concentration for use in

microbicide studies. So it is not out of the question in the

affordability range. We’re refining the existing dose-

response curve to identify an IC50 for in vivo protection.

We’re going to test it against other challenge viruses,

particularly X4 viruses, to see. They should block there,

but we want to test that. We, again, want to test it in

combination with other inhibitors for reasons that I will

come to in a minute. And then we need to develop a

formulation and product development strategy, which is

clearly not work that I’ll be doing; that’s work don’t by

Trimeris and others.

Now, the case for combination microbicides, in my

view, is absolutely obvious and almost inarguable. It is the

same as the arguments for using combinations for therapy.

You do not use monotherapy. For the same reason, it doesn’t

make a lot sense to use monotherapy for a microbicide. Using

combinations of inhibitors increases your breadth of coverage against divergent strains. In the real world, that is an important issue.

You reduce the probability of transmitting

viruses resistant to any single inhibitor and in several

circumstances, particularly with the entry inhibitors, can

generate genuine synergy. It is an overused term and is

often confused with additivity, but I mean genuine synergy

where two inhibitors reinforce each other’s action and reduce

the amount of compound. You create genuine dose-bearing

effects. So these are the theoretical arguments that I think

are very strong for combinations.

We did this in the published [inaudible] paper. Nine

out of nine control animals were infected; 21 out of 28

animals given 1 inhibitor were protected when we lumped them

all together; 16 out of 20 animals given 2 inhibitors were

protected; all three animals that we gave 3 inhibitors to

were protected. Because we had such good protection with

single inhibitors, it is not obvious the protection was

increased by combinations, but I think it makes sense to use

combinations. Overall, in that study, we used 51 animals and

protected 40 of them in a stringent model, so you can clearly

protect macaques.

In the real world, a microbicide shouldn’t just be

something that has to be used moments before intercourse.

Women or men if they use it rectally may want to have some

options in terms of timing. So how late after applying the

inhibitor will protection still apply? We addressed this in

the monkey model by doing delayed-challenge experiments. You

add the inhibitor — in this experiment we used the CCR5

inhibitor compound 167 — and then delay the challenge for 0.5 to 12 hours. You can see that at half-an-hour we protect 8 out of 10. At 2 hours we protected 2 out of 3. Even with a

6-hour delay, we’re still protecting 50-percent. One of the

animals was protected even after a 12-hour delay, so that

says that sustained protection might be possible. When that

is plotted out in a time course, you can see a sort of smooth gradation with the half protection for the compound 167 at about 6 hours.

We did fewer animals with BMS806 and the

[inaudible] is nice, but again, you can see that you can get

sustained protection over a six-hour period which, I think,

is quite encouraging.

We did a Hail Mary experiment, which wasn’t in the

paper, but I think it’s worth going over. We wanted to see

if you could protect against multiple, repetitive challenges.

So we put the three inhibitors, compound 167, BMS806 and C52L

all at the highest doses. We have those to the macaques as a

triple combination every day for five days and then did a

SHIV challenge every day for five days. So they got five

consecutive, daily, high-dose challenges. Obviously, all the

controls got infected. Three out of the five inhibitory

recipients got infected. If you put that either way, two

Novel Targets for Drug Development

XVI International AIDS Conference

08/14/2006

1 kaisernetwork.org makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of written transcripts, but due to the nature of transcribing recorded

material and the deadlines involved, they may contain errors or incomplete content. We apologize for any inaccuracies.

43animals were protected against five consecutive, daily, high-

dose challenges, which I don’t think is all that shabby given

the stringency of the model. So I think that is encouraging

for the real world. If you pick the hibitor combinations and

formulate them right, they could be effective.

We want to address whether an X4 virus can be

blocked. CCR5-using viruses account for almost all

infections; at least the viruses that expand in the new host

are CCR5-using. But CXCR4-using viruses can be transmitted

and I don’t think we should neglect it. So we wanted to see

whether vaginal transmission of a CXCR4-using virus can be

inhibited. Rightly or wrongly — and I have a horrible

feeling that it’s going to turn out to be wrongly — we chose

SHIV-89.6P because of its extensive use in the vaccine model.

That can use CCR5, CXCR4 and various other GPCRs in cell

lines, but in primary macaque or human PBMC, it’s only

sensitive to CXCR4 inhibitors and is completely unaffected by

CCR5 inhibitors. So in PBMC — which, of course, is not

necessarily relevant to transmission events — it’s an X4

virus. We also couldn’t find any viral load reduction when

we dosed a macaque with a CCR5 inhibitor. It’s certainly

used in CXCR4, but it’s possible that it does use CCR5 under

in vivo conditions and bear this in mind when looking at the

next results.

Novel Targets for Drug Development

XVI International AIDS Conference

08/14/2006

1 kaisernetwork.org makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of written transcripts, but due to the nature of transcribing recorded

material and the deadlines involved, they may contain errors or incomplete content. We apologize for any inaccuracies.

44

So we’ve used the Anomed AMD3465 compound and,

essentially, we haven’t gotten protection with it. With

AMD3465, 8 out of 10 animals were infected, compared to 8 out

of 9 controls. With compound 167, the CCR5 inhibitor, 3 out

of 5. When we put both together, 1 out of 2. So we haven’t

exactly achieved protection against X4 challenge virus with a

CXCR4 inhibitor. The question we’re addressing in the next

series of experiments is whether the problem there is the

inhibitor, which simply doesn’t work, or the virus, which is

unable to be blocked by a CXCR4 inhibitor. This is an

inhibitor that should work. It works well in vitro. It

should bind the receptor well in vivo, but the possibility is

that SHIV-89.6P uses both CCR5 and CXCR4 for transmission, so

that blocking neither receptor by itself is going to do the

job.

So this 1 out of 2, we’re going to obviously expand

into a large number of animals. We’re also going to test a

much purer CXCR4-using SHIV, SHIV-KU1. We also need to work

on formulation issues.

The X4 SHIV can be inhibited; it can be blocked.

When we did BMS806, we protected 1 out of 2, which is not

significant. C52L, though, protected both animals; the gP41

peptide and the combination protected both animals. All four

recipients of gP41 peptide were inhibited, so I would say

that we can block this challenge virus that is co-receptor

Novel Targets for Drug Development

XVI International AIDS Conference

08/14/2006

1 kaisernetwork.org makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of written transcripts, but due to the nature of transcribing recorded

material and the deadlines involved, they may contain errors or incomplete content. We apologize for any inaccuracies.

45independent. The CD4-IgG2 molecule also protected all three

animals that we challenged with SHIV-89.6P. So, again, we

can block this virus, just not with the CXCR4 inhibitor, at

least not yet.

What we want to do when we’ve got the CXCR4 inhibitor

working is a duel challenge experiment. We want to apply an

R5 virus and an X4 virus — whatever the X4 virus is we

finally choose — and we want to apply them as a mixed

inoculant and see then if we can block broadly tropic viruses

in a mixture, which is what happens in the real world. You

don’t use a single clonal virus; women and men will encounter

diversity of virus swarms, so we want to mimic this by

putting in two viruses deliberately and measure the outcome

of infection using a discriminatory viral load assay based on

RTPCR that will detect each virus independently. So that it

what we’re working towards. We can also use the method for

blocking two 2 R5 viruses.

Steve and Kevin have put together a pretty neat assay

based on detecting the OMS genes of either virus or the gag

gene of both of them to allow quantitation of the both of

them together. The assay works extremely well. We used it

to measure viral load changes in duel-infected macaques

treated with a CCR5 inhibitor a couple of years ago in a

paper by Bolinski [misspelled?], so the methodology is there.

Novel Targets for Drug Development

XVI International AIDS Conference

08/14/2006

1 kaisernetwork.org makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of written transcripts, but due to the nature of transcribing recorded

material and the deadlines involved, they may contain errors or incomplete content. We apologize for any inaccuracies.

46

The first experiment we did on this was five Chinese

macaques challenged vaginally with SHIV-162P3 and SHIV-89.6P.

One was uninfected, one was infected only with the R5 virus,

and the other three were duel infected, although in one the

R5 viral load was transient. So we’ve still got to work on

this to get more consistent infection, or else we’ll need to

up the control group significantly.

I’m going to switch to some in vitro research to wrap

it up because a microbicide needs to be effective against all

circulating HIV strains. As I said to you earlier, it

doesn’t matter if it just protects one challenged virus in

the monkey; that’s no big deal. But global diversity of the

HIV sequence is a very significant challenge for any

microbicide, exactly the same way as it is for a vaccine. A

vaccine needs to deal with broadly divergent viruses and so

does a microbicide in the real world. You can assess this

properly in the monkey model. There are only a limited

number of challenge viruses, but it has to be assessed in

cell culture systems using panels of test viruses, just as

they’re being set up to analyze the in vitro potential of

antibody-based vaccines. John Mascola [misspelled?] and

Vicky Palonici’s [misspelled?] group and David Montefure

[misspelled?] have established vaccine test panels for

neutralizing antibody-based vaccines, and we’ve adapted them

for our own use.

Novel Targets for Drug Development

XVI International AIDS Conference

08/14/2006

1 kaisernetwork.org makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of written transcripts, but due to the nature of transcribing recorded

material and the deadlines involved, they may contain errors or incomplete content. We apologize for any inaccuracies.

47

Here we’ve tested three inhibitors at relatively high

concentrations, compound 167, BMSC — which is a sort of son

of BMS806 — and C52L peptide. Wen tested alone against a

panel of — I think it’s 30 viruses, we get approximately 100-

percent blocking, a bit down from BMSC, so they’re broadly

active against all the viruses in the test panel from all the

genetic subtypes. Obviously in the double combination and

the triple combination, we’re getting 100-percent hit. So

we’re getting breadth of activity against all the viruses

from all the subtypes. When we drop the concentrations down

a thousand-fold to give it a more stringent test, the single

compounds are only hitting 10 to 30-percent, but when we put

double compounds in together, the protection rate in vitro

increases, and when we put all three in, it increases a bit

more. So this, again, speaks that combinations will act

better against divergent viruses because it means that if you

miss one virus, the other inhibitor might get it.

So how are we going to move these into clinical

trials? Of course, I’m not because I’m not a clinician and

it’s not the kind of work I do. So agreements were

established between the IPM — the International Partnership

for Microbicides — and Merck and Bristol-Myers Squibb to

develop their compounds, the companies’ compounds as

microbicides using Gates Foundation funding. That would be

done on a basis of the compounds being done on a free, give-

Novel Targets for Drug Development

XVI International AIDS Conference

08/14/2006

1 kaisernetwork.org makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of written transcripts, but due to the nature of transcribing recorded

material and the deadlines involved, they may contain errors or incomplete content. We apologize for any inaccuracies.

48away basis for the developing world, but the companies

retaining licensure for any use in the future in the

developed world, which can afford to buy it.

Studies on compounds with greater potency and breath

and activity are in progress, and I’ve shown some of them.

Obviously, suitable formulations need to be made — which

we’ll test for efficacy in macaques — and then one assumes

the IPM clinicians will test them for safety in women.

I’d like to thank the program project team that has

done this work, in particularly Ron Veasey [misspelled?], who

has done all the primate research, Robin [inaudible], Melissa

Pope and PJ Classer [misspelled?] are the intellectual

powerhouses of this team. Kevin [inaudible] and Steve

Olinski [misspelled?] have developed the viral load assay.

And all the people whose compounds I’ve mentioned — Marty

Springer, Min Lu, Rich Colonno, Gary Bridger, Bill Olsen, and

Mike Greenburg — really deserve a lot of credit, as well as

thanks, for having the vision to think in their company

environments of doing something outside the box. These are

people who’ve been developing drugs for drug use, traditional

pharmaceutical industry work, while they’re thinking

laterally and thinking, “Can my drug, my company’s drug, be

used for prevention?” I think that’s very laudable. The NIH

has funding this through a program project and Bristol-Meyers

has funded work with their compound. Thank you very much.

Novel Targets for Drug Development

XVI International AIDS Conference

08/14/2006

1 kaisernetwork.org makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of written transcripts, but due to the nature of transcribing recorded

material and the deadlines involved, they may contain errors or incomplete content. We apologize for any inaccuracies.

49

[Applause]

MALE SPEAKER: Thank you very much. I know that some

are rushing off, but we do have a few minutes available for

questions for Dr. Moore.

Perhaps I could just ask everyone as they head out to

offer one last round of applause for our presenters and thank

everyone for their participation.

[Applause]

[END RECORDING]

29 Responses to “John Moore escapes spitball with swift exit”

  1. jspreen Says:

    I checked out the final third of the video. That is to say, approximately the first 20% of the last third. After my first amazement about Moore’s tired looks and dummy talk, I fell asleep. What a boore.

    But also, and although it’s not enough to really grab my attention: I can’t believe my ears when I hear what he says and that he might actually believe what he says.

  2. Schwartz Says:

    Yeah Michael Giger is really in Toronto, no, really, he is!

  3. McDonald Says:

    Moore spoke only of South Africa when he said that 1 in 4 women ‘become infected at the age of 22′. Including the ones that die in the meantime, the ratio should become even higher as these women get older. It is not unlikely, however, that Moore was being a little bit ambiguous here to impress upon us the importance of his own research into prevention. It’s thus possible he quoted the total number of infected women wherefrom we have to subtract 20 % to get at the number of sexually infected, so to speak, women. But even if Moore made a bit free with the stats I think we all, and especially his noble sponsors, are more than ready to excuse him.

    Moore deserves our forgiveness and gratitude even more considering it was not an easy task for his team to achieve all those ‘multiple, repetitive, sometimes delayed, high-dose vaginal challenges’. In at least one case the results were not satisfactory:

    The first experiment we did on this was five Chinese macaques challenged vaginally with SHIV-162P3 and SHIV-89.6P. One was uninfected, one was infected only with the R5virus, and the other three were duel infected, although in one the R5viral load was transient. So we’ve still got to work on this to get more consistent infection, or else we’ll need to up the control group significantly.

    We understand this must have been a setback. The good news is that Moore can collaborate with Nancy Padian on that one. If they combine those remarkable brains of theirs, they’re just bound to produce something really infectious.

    We note also that in vivo trials showed that just a single compound was disappointingly effective in preventing transmission, so that the justification for challenging human females with multiple toxic compounds was not readily forthcoming.

    because we had such good protection (in monkeys) with single inhibitors, it is not obvious that protection was increased by combinations, but I think it makes sense to use combinations.

    It’s always encouraging when AIDS scientists think outside the box, and outside what the science actually shows. . .
    Fortunately Moore’s results were more promising in vitro, the AIDS scientists’ alchemystical cauldron, where it seems one substance really can transform into another:

    when we put double compounds in together, the protection rate in vitro increases, and when we put all three in, it increases a bit more. So this, again, speaks that combinations will act better against divergent viruses because it means that if you miss one virus, the other inhibitor might get it.

    There’s a happy ending after all. All the sponsor drugs will be used to develop microbicide cocktails, not a single left on the shelf, even if they for untold reasons should be considered less suitable for oral use.

    But Moore is not the only one on this amazing team, who’s able to think outside the box:

    Marty Springer, Min Lu, Rich Colonno, Gary Bridger, Bill Olsen, and Mike Greenburg — really deserve a lot of credit, as well as thanks, for having the vision to think in their company environments of doing something outside the box. These are people who’ve been developing drugs for drug use, traditional pharmaceutical industry work, while they’re thinking laterally and thinking, “Can my drug, my company’s drug, be used for prevention?” I think that’s very laudable.

    Isn’t that remarkable? The drug donors have had the imagination to think “Hey waitaminit! Whatever can be applied via one orifice, can be applied via another. And in this way chances are that my… I mean my company’s, drugs will always find a ready slot in the market.” As we noted above, convergence of interests makes for happy endings

    But the best way to end is by looking forward. The series of experiments also included several future challenges to Moore himself and his powerhouse team. One notable conundrum was this:

    The question we’re addressing in the next series of experiments is whether the problem there is the inhibitor, which simply doesn’t work, or the virus which is unable to be blocked by a CXCR4 inhibitor

    Moore’s genius is more lucidly displayed than ever in this revolutionary approach to rethinking failure. Who but he could have come up with the idea that it’s maybe not the cure but the virus there’s something wrong with?

    All in all a heroic effort. To show insurgents’ hearts are in the right place, we’ll do more than sing “Drugstore Truck drivin’ Man”. We will help Moore along by repeating the memorable words of the sorcerer, David Ho, to his erstwhile apprentice: “hey psstt, John… it’s the virus STUPID!”

    (All Moore quotations from the official Kaiser transcript)

  4. Michael Says:

    Just checking in for a moment and gotta run! First time in Toronto, and lots to do and hard to find a network connection when I need one! Got a moment myself today to look at the KAISER video link,

    and I was amazed to see the crosshairs lined right up on Moore in the video! How appropriate! I’m working on getting one of those crosshair target aimers for my glasses or my spitball pen, and I will definitely nab him next time!

    bye all!

  5. GS Says:

    My first International AIDS conference finished on Friday. As a graduate student, who works in the field of “HIV research”, I had to keep tight lips regarding my true feelings about the etiology of AIDS. I was, however, pushed to the limit several times by the unempirical statements made by “some of the world’s best” scholars. While I could not challenge these men and women (as it would be similar to repeatedly beating one’s head off the wall), I do feel as if people should be aware of the sheer lack of science behind their statements.

    – “HIV, the virus which causes AIDS” was mentioned 16 times in the 18 sessions I attended. Not once was this statement referenced. Why does a field that has reached a consensus need to continuously reiterate the simplest of non-empirically evaluated “facts”?
    – John Moore made statements about universities and other organizations asking not to be associated with AIDS dissidents, and claimed that this was proof of how wrong these men and women are. When organizations that receive funding from pharmaceutical companies and government agencies (who support certain beliefs) ask not to be associated with people who hold opposing beliefs, why are those who have been shunned by the organizations automatically considered to be wrong? Seems like simple politics, not a test for evidence.
    – In a sickening scene, Dr. John Bartlett joked about the lack of science behind the timing of treating HIV infected patients. He claimed that people are given drugs when their CD4 count is 350 because the scientific studies showed no improvement in CD4 cell counts when patients were given drugs at counts of 500, but did show benefit at CD4 counts of 200. Bartlett claimed that because 200 was considered to be too low, the brains behind treating HIV decided that the best time to treat was half way between 500 and 200 CD4 counts. Why is it okay to joke about the lack of science in HIV research, but not okay to question conclusions based on such research? A roomful of laughing MDs may not have been aware of the research of Sheppard Siegal (McMaster University), who has shown that the body can be classically conditioned to produce the opposite effect of a drug. The opposite effect is produced to maintain homeostasis. Drugs that kill CD4 cells, therefore, could possibly be the reason increases in CD4 cells are seen in individuals taking HAART.
    – Sessions on “mastering HIV infection” and “CCR5 antagonists” where both amazingly contradictory. Scholars highlighted the many dangerous side effects of HAART, but they also promoted the use of HAART in non-infected individuals as a mechanism of prevention. Why are we attempting to kill a generation of people with dangerous drugs?
    – Another sad occurrence was my discussions with HIV infected individuals, who have carried the virus with no signs of disease for 15-20 years, and are preparing to start HAART on the basis of a viral load measure. Not being a doctor, I was obligated to remain quit about my true feelings with regards to this matter. I ask, however, what the hell are we doing giving healthy individuals chemotherapy?

    I apologize for the poor grammar of this piece. I am in an airport waiting for my flight. I did, however, need to rant about the lack of common sense displayed at this conference. If you would like to hear more let me know. I attended each day from 7am to 8pm. I may even be able to write more clearly once in a more comfortable area.

    GS

  6. mark Says:

    GS: It would be very insightful to hear more from someone who was there. If you have time, post more. Thanks.

  7. Celia Farber Says:

    Yes, mystery guest, please do! (Post more.)I have reported extensively from these ghastly “conferences” over the years. One dispatch here:

    http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/cfgeneva.htm

    …and many more contained in a book of collected works (and new writings) of mine that Melville House Press published this year called “Serious Adverse Events: An Uncensored History of AIDS.”

    Below I have attached an outtake from an article I wrote in 2000, ending in a quote from somebody whose identity I cannot reveal, but what a quote, about what it is exactly that is “going on” and being expressed at these AIDS conferences…(Read to end)

    From “Science Fiction” (GEAR, 2000, Celia Farber)

    Leafing through POZ, I read the fine print that follows every protease ad. In each and every one, it states that the drugs have killed people. In the advertisement for the drugs.

    Yet the accompanying text warns in parental tones about the importance of staying on the drugs no matter what.

    Be smart, one ad for the Glaxo drug Combivir advises: Without your HIV drugs, there’s nothing to stop the virus from making billions of copies of itself. Next time you’re tempted to skip a dose or two, think again… HIV drugs should be taken on time, every day. That’s the only way known to keep enough of each drug in your blood at all times to fight HIV.

    How, I ask Joe Sonnabend, could all of this hype take place? How could David Ho be made Man of The Year? How could the eradication theory be extolled? How is it possible if David Ho’s science is as bankrupt as all this?

    Sonnabend pushes his glasses up onto his forehead and looks at me almost quizzically. Then he shrugs slightly.

    “He had a really good publicist.”

    ***

    Ho’s publicist was a man named David Corkery, from the PR firm Fenton Communications. “We took over to manage the cascade of publicity that ensued after he was made Man of The Year,” says Corkery, flatly refusing to discuss the matter any further. “David Ho did not create all this,” is all he will say, referring to the hype.

    I set off in search of ground zero, a beginning, a place where the tornado started turning. I call people who work on the inside of the AIDS machine. They all speak — angrily, but fearfully — of a pharmaceutical industry that makes its presence felt to reporters, scientists, doctors, and AIDS activists. As Dr. Sonnabend put it, “The drug companies are present in some way in virtually every single moment of my professional career.”

    “It is absolutely extraordinary,” says Dr. Miles, who says he has been on various drug companies blacklists for saying negative things about their products. “People don’t realize all the myriad ways that doctors benefit from the drug companies.

    “For example, let’s say that drug company A likes the message that Dr. C is talking about, they can give a research grant to Dr. C and because it’s listed as a ‘research grant,’ people will say, ‘Oh well, this is above board,’ when in fact it’s nothing more than a glorified under-the-table payment.

    “Now, let’s say that you are Dr. C, and you have a $250,000 research grant from company A. What is the likelihood that you are going to say anything bad about their drugs? Zero. At best you are going to say nothing.”

    Miles has felt the heat of this situation personally, being one of the few mainstream AIDS doctors who stood up and resisted the hit-hard-hit-early mania.

    “Just go to the U.S. Public Health Service web site. Under federal law they have to disclose who they have taken money from. It’s right there. Some of these doctors have taken money from 15 to 20 different companies. If 20 companies that are in the business of making money for drug treatment are giving you money, can you honestly stand up and say, ‘Don’t treat!'”

    Another man, who for years has worked on the inside of AIDS research, implores me not to print his name, swearing he will be out of a job immediately if I do.

    “Look at the media, that’s where it happens,” he said. “Look at those earliest pieces about Ho and the cocktails that ran in the Wall Street Journal. They are just pure propaganda, pure drug company puff pieces.

    “And those reporters won the Pulitzer that year for their AIDS reporting. The pharmaceutical industry exerts a huge influence on scientists and journalists.

    “You have to understand that these AIDS journalists have very close relationships with the drug companies, with their PR people. That affects how things get reported. I mean, they fund everything. They fund all the research, first of all. There is almost no such thing as independent research. All clinical trials are paid for by the drug companies.”

    He laughs when I express alarm at this. “My God are you naive! Everybody — not just David Ho — the reporters, the doctors, everybody is part of this system. They’re all part of the same club, and they all play the same game. They all have the same, big egos.

    “And nobody — certainly not the reporters — is going to stand up and wave their finger and say, ‘This is all a big horrible machine!’ You know why? Because they’re all profiting from it.

    “Every year we go to these AIDS conferences, and all the professional AIDS-sters come in, all pumped up. And this is the moment where everybody gets blown. It’s just gross.

    “Look,” he says, “if it were not for the profit motive, there would be no incentive for drug companies to make drugs. Drugs come from drug companies. They don’t come from anywhere else. It’s an industry, okay? It’s just another industry.”

    END

    Link to entire article here:

    http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/cffiction.htm

  8. Truthseeker Says:

    A roomful of laughing MDs may not have been aware of the research of Sheppard Siegal (McMaster University), who has shown that the body can be classically conditioned to produce the opposite effect of a drug. The opposite effect is produced to maintain homeostasis. Drugs that kill CD4 cells, therefore, could possibly be the reason increases in CD4 cells are seen in individuals taking HAART.

    Precisely, GS, thank you for making that point, and many others. These people sound as if they are completely divorced from reality, and we recognize the behavior.

    Please post anything you have before it fades – a realist is the very person we need to heard from. Did you find any others? Did anyone publicly object to any of it?

    At least Horton and Garrett had the instinct to object mildly to Moore’s advice to journalists not to cover any questioning of a scientific consensus, since they weren’t qualified to assess it. Not that either of them have ever shown any sign of this impulse in two decades.

    Were there no activists there save for the agitators trying to expand the hiring of nurses?

  9. GS Says:

    Let us talk!

    Thank you Mark, Celia Farber, and Truthseeker for you interest in my experience with this conference. As a scientist who works directly with HIV, and who is capable of sympathizing with your perspectives, I must admit this conference was quite the experience. I will discuss with you each day (well, at least my experience of each day). I will, however, start by answering some of Truthseeker’s questions.
    Truthseeker – If there were other activists at the conference (other than people from developing countries wanting drugs which will undoubtedly kill them), I am totally unaware of them. This is perhaps a result of the unfriendly consequences of speaking of anything that does not suggest that HIV and AIDS are a single entity. People who complained were usually those who agreed with the orthodox perspective, but disagreed with the components of that perspective.

    Sunday August 12, 2006:

    10:15 – 12:15: Almost Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About Vaccinology: A Short Course on How Vaccines Work.

    This session was not a course on vaccines, it was a course on the politics of delivering vaccines and on giving research money to the same people who have wasted it for the last ten years. Faculty and guests discussed the methods through which they could convince people to take part in vaccine trials. Also discussed was the “ability of HIV to resist almost all immune responses via its mutation rate”. If this is the case, how come most “HIV antibodies” always bind to the same HIV proteins in ELISA tests?

    12:30-14:30: Viral Load: A Surrogate Marker for AIDS Vaccine Efficacy

    One of the highlights of this session was the attempt to make sense of Padian (1997). Faculty attempted to explain that transmission increases amongst Africans with genital herpes outbreaks. I feel, however, that a collection of STDs correlated to the development of AIDS provides evidence for Mullis’ theory of AIDS before it provides evidence of the HIV hypothesis. A 50% increase in HIV transmission, as a result of HSV-2 co-infection, only results in a small increase. This increase is just as insignificant as the initial 1/1000 heterosexual contacts that are required for heterosexual transmission.

    14:45-16:45: CCR5 Antagonists: Taking the Battle Outside the Cell

    This session was contradictory. It highlighted the toxicity of HIV drugs, but promoted their use as preventative tools. Also highlighted was the 100% guarantee that HIV would mutate to become resistant to these drugs. No matter which side of the HIV/AIDS argument you stand on, drugs that control the virus but do not eradicate the virus are seen as a pharmaceutical ploy to maintain continuous cash flow. CCR5 antagonists could be easily turned into drugs that could eradicate HIV from the body – a technique I hope to demonstrate in my future research (therefore I cannot discuss it here-sorry).

    18:00-00:00: Opening Ceremony and Concert

    This was broadcasted on live television. It was simply a demonstration of the lack of tolerance demonstrated by (the definitely unstable) Mark Wainberg. The celebrities, who also aided with this event, are another example of the brainwashing techniques used by AIDS Inc.

    I hope to get back to you soon with Monday’s events. Please accept my apologies for the writing. I am very tight on time. I would like to inform Celia Farber (sorry if I am not addressing you in the most appropriate manner) that I would be glad to contact her directly if she would like a verbal account of my experience at AIDS 2006, or my experience with HIV/AIDS in general. If this is the case I can provide Celia with an e-mail address and telephone number upon request.

    Keep up the good work guys!! Believe it or not, your attempts keep “science” more honest than it would be naturally.

    GS

  10. Michael David Says:

    GS,

    1. You have made another fan, and as TS will tell you
    I am a very tough critic.

    2. Your very last line, in fact you very last word*, however, brings me up short and does indeed tell me that the GS stands for grad student. As once upon a long time ago a GS myself, may I suggest that some variation of “unnatural” might be more correct? Post-HIV virology is the most unnatural scientific activity imaginable as you are beginning to more than discover for yourself. The attempt of all rethinkers is to correct this unnatural science back to its natural state – and maybe even drag “nature” back to its once pristine state as a scientific journal :).

    3. I hope Ms. farber takes you up on your generous offer. There ae many I am confident who would devour your story with the same gusto as that of Dr. Culshaw.

    More benzene to your engine and wind to your sails.

    *I do understand that the “science” indicates you do get this point quite well, but I could not resist writing to you anyway, and others perhaps might benefit from the explcit clairification.

  11. Michael David Says:

    GS,

    One other thing. As an actual, physical body at the Toronto AIDS show, is the photograph of Prof. Moore that is advertised as being taken during one of his poorly attended theatrical performances a reasonable likeness to his live appearance?

    Look here if you missed it before.

  12. GS Says:

    Hi Mr. David

    Thank you for the constructive criticism. I feel as if such criticism is necessary, and it is more than appreciated. I agree that contemporary science is very much unnatural.

    As for the picture…. The creature in the picture looks to be of a much calmer breed than the “beloved” Dr. Moore.

    GS

  13. GS Says:

    Those extra features have quite the soothing effect on Dr. Moore’s apparent ferociousness.

  14. Truthseeker Says:

    GS, thanks again. Priceless stuff. Why not send an email to us here and then confidential email can proceed with whomever you wish? That would include us we hope. Absolutely confidential, of course. But please don’t sacrifice any further excellent postings.

  15. GS Says:

    Truthseeker

    I would be more than willing to communicate, confidentially, with any number of this site’s members. Please feel free the contact me at apobec3g@hush.com

    GS

  16. Michael David Says:

    I know I speak for Dr. Bialy when I write that I hope you will share his “quick and dirty ” (as we used to say in the first moleclar biology laboratory in the country way back when) experiment in cranial ‘transmorgrification’ as widely as you can, and further hope that it quickly makes its way to the computers of Cornell Medical College where “we” are certain it will be appreciated by many users of its network, even by some in the “intellectual powerhouse” of macaque abuse itself.

  17. McDonald Says:

    At least Horton and Garrett had the instinct to object mildly to Moore’s advice to journalists not to cover any questioning of a scientific consensus, since they weren’t qualified to assess it.
    Not that either of them have ever shown any sign of this impulse in two decades.

    Horton showed nothing but his instinct to cover his own behind, and Garrett thought the appropriate context in which to challenge ‘consensus’ was the South African government’s continued ‘AIDS denial’. Garret delivered the most overtly contemtuous statement about those with whom we’re supposed to work as an illustration of why it’s ok to challenge authority if and only if that authority disagrees with AIDS inc.

    Moore thought it was ok to maintain a critical attitude towards ‘science in general’, as long as it’s not HIV science, in which case criticism is morally wrong.

    In the unlikely event anybody would think these claims need to be backed up, analysis is found here: http://barnesworld.blogs.com/
    barnes_world/2006/08/signs_of_civil_.html

    GS: Beautiful summaries.

  18. Celia Farber Says:

    Thanks to McDonald and GS, for being brave and decent enough to speak up against this choking hell so eloquently.

    I haven’t read the transcript of the plenary session “HIV Science and Media Responsibility.” I do have certain masochistic tendencies but never so pronounced that I simply torture myself outright. Everybody is saying, however, that this is a must read, as unintentional political comedy.

    My thoughts about Garrett are simply that I would hope it remains part of the journalistic to be right occasionally. Her website (www.lauriegarrett.com) is a fascinating…thing to behold. Rising like a flood-swollen river with the Garrett-stamped heroica of “coming” plagues (that never came,) with dusty African children posing as a backdrop to her folded-armed Besser-Visser pose, with images of business men choking behind face masks on airplanes…I sent out the usual prayer, that one day, accuracy will once again be a value in this profession. Here is the letter she sent to Harper’s about my article in the March 2006 issue, in which she makes clear that she does not believe South African President Thabo Mbeki can think or speak for himself without clear cues from various Western Forces who cause him like a wind up doll to doubt, to cry, to be quiet, etc.

    Here’s her (never published) letter:

    I was genuinely appalled by Celia Farber’s AIDS article. It is so inaccurate that I hardly know where to begin. I was particularly disturbed to see that it dredges up denialist claims that seemed to have disappeared from public discourse six years ago at the International AIDS Conference in Durban, South Africa.
    Denialism has been embraced for some time now by South Africa’s President Thabo Mbeki. He had been quiet on the matter, as demanded by his cabinet and the leadership of the ANC, but perhaps coincident to your publication he made his first public statements on the matter.
    The damage done by denialist thinking cannot be overstated: it is killing people. I sincerely hope that Harper’s will correct the terrible damage done by this ghastly article.

    END OF LETTER

  19. McKiernan Says:

    So Celia,

    Respectfully, why didn’t you go to Toronto. This was really a big one—25 years of AIDS— and no interest by paradigm switchers (???).

    All we seem to get is rehashed p-reviewed articles or newpaper report regurgitations on what a fool abc person is/was.

    Consider Barnes World, no first hand reporting but plenty of snotty comments on his internet browsings.

  20. Celia Farber Says:

    McKiernan:

    Equally respectfully, I have attended International AIDS Conferences in the following cities,(that I can recall:)

    Washington DC
    Stockholm
    Montreal
    Florence
    Berlin
    Vancouver
    Geneva

    In addition, countless conferences that were smaller, (not pharma funded) in Buenos Aires, London, Amsterdam, San Francisco, Pretoria, etc etc

    I went in virtually all cases as a reported assigned a story to write. Why didn’t I go to Toronto?

    Because I spent over 20 years trying to glean truth, debate, motion, mind, ANYTHING from these damn things. I never felt anything but fear and confusion in those domes and I no longer see the point. It’s all Crowds and Power stuff. It’s awful. Orwellian.

    You cry for days afterwards.

  21. Michael David Says:

    Ms. Farber,

    I suspect that you must have felt like a John Birch member at a Fair Play for Cuba Committee meeting in the 60s — an analogy Mckiernan is I think old enough to fully appreciate even if you are not. And since I suspect his own politics are somewhat to the right, I might suggest that he take his own repetitive and silly advice and attend a gathering of anti-war Americans and try and convert them to a pro-Bush agenda. And contrary to his bold assertion, this was *not* a big one. According to ALl reports it was a massive flop, as well it should have been after 25 years and NOTHING to show for it.

  22. Claus Says:

    May I add to GS’s evaluation of the transmoandsoforth experiment conducted on Prof. Moore that not only does it make him look calmer; as implied in GS’s afterthought, it makes look him introspective and strangely empathetic with the sufferings of fellow creatures. Even if the Toronto AIDS Conference shows no other outcome, that would truly be a giant step for… all kinds.

  23. McKiernan Says:

    Michael David,

    Would it be too disingenuous to suggest that an opportunity to met and/or contact if not network with one or more of the twenty five thousand professionals at the 25 th AIDS Conference, may have offered a few advances of an educational nature or insights into hiv/aids. Certainly, GS’ s comment indicates at least his attendance was not a useless endeavor.

    Or as Claus adds: “Even if the Toronto AIDS Conference shows no other outcome, that would truly be a giant step for… all kinds.”

    On the other hand, I’ve asked the question several times why no dissidents showed up and the answer I’m getting get is, ‘It would have been of no benefit, and its a silly idea’.

    It reminds me of my brother after he his first employment as an attorney some years ago. This was in Detroit in the 1960’s. The Detroit Tigers were in the World Series for the first time in 20 some years. My brother announced to the law firm boss that he was taking some time off to go to the World Series home games. His boss said he couldn’t do it, he had too much work to do. My brother said, okay, then, I’m going to quit because I do not want to work for a law firm that refuses to let me go to the World Series as there may not be another opportunity for 20 more years. The next day, his boss told him to go purchase tickets for a party of ten for all the home games. There’s a message there somewhere.

    So I’ve asked the question three times and Celia actually gave a valid answer, I think. It isn’t like I was asking you all to put on your Cindy Sheehan zombie suits and show up with placards.

    Stay on the learning curve of life, you might learn something even if you’re the expert. As Shunryu Suzuki said,

    “In the mind of the beginner are many possibilities, in the mind of the expert there are few.”

    I like commenting here, as there is at least a small amount of genuine dialogue. And you’re right I didn’t vote for Castro, then again I didn’t vote for 43 either.

  24. Truthseeker Says:

    McKiernan, perhaps you would like to explain why Celia’s answer is somehow more enlightening than ours, of which you forced three. You seem to imagine that we need more good contacts in the HIV?AIDS world to ‘learn something’. There are plenty of high level events in New York where something actually happens beyond the great whale blowing off stale air, The top science people didn’t bother to go to Toronto.

    Could you double check your comment facts before publishing them? There were two reports from Toronto from Michael Geiger on Barnesworld, were there not? Seems you hungered for some kind of information from Toronto, but what was it if it wasn’t in those posts? Presumably it is what GS posted. Let’s hope he does more, then.

  25. McKiernan Says:

    TS,

    Indouble checking my comments, it was found that no statements of fact were made. McK just asked the question:

    “Why, again, didn’t a significant HIV∫AIDS persona go to Toronto to make a public statement if only symbolic.”

    But I see you have covered your bases in noting the really big AIDS Conference will the 2008 Mexico City one in which you allow,

    “We do not think it is impossible that many more key dissidents will attend and that Bialy and Peter Duesberg will give a joint press conference in 2008, since by that time the AIDS Monolith, even if not yet past its tipping point to collapse, will be in much deeper trouble than today.”

    With respect to Ms Celia, she tacitly admitted she gets headachy at these events.

  26. Claus Says:

    McK,

    I share your interest in the question you’re asking, but I really think you’re being horrible to poor Michael Geiger now. First you overlook Michael’s presence at, and reporting from, the Toronto Conference:

    Consider Barnes World, no first hand reporting

    When TS points out that Michael in fact was there and reported on Barnes World, you imply that he’s not an important persona:

    McK just asked the question:
    “Why, again, didn’t a significant HIV∫AIDS persona go to Toronto to make a public statement if only symbolic.”

    McK, As doc Holliday complained to Wyatt Earp, “that’s a helluva thing for you to say.”
    Fair enough, Michael is no Duesberg, but neither is John Moore, so I guess we could call that tit for tat.
    And Michael did plan an OK Corral style shootout with the villain. According to his own report, he’d brought his secret weapons and was ready to use them. But you know as well as we that Prof. Moore had anticipated this move and came armed with a few aces up the sleeve himself: language so foul and suggestive that the countless hours of porn movie watching and precision spitting practice Michael had put into this wasn’t enough to prepare him, or any other primate, for the challenges presented rapid fire by the ruthless Prof. Moore. Michael missed his aim and managed only to hit a secondary target, not creating quite the public splash we’d all hoped for.
    A regrettable mishap sure, a minor setback for the insurgency, but not the lack of intention, presence or importance you make out.

  27. Michael David Says:

    McK,

    Now that you have condensed the totality of your intents to the simple question above, allow me to provide a less sarcastic answer than I did above.

    Although symbolic gestures are fine, in order for such to have even minimal effect, they must be publicized. Since the chance of any symbolic gesture receiving coverage on more than a few blogs is about as great as catching HIV (sic) antibodies from a random sexual encounter in the Castro of SF (or any place else), any symbolic gesture on the part of the poorly financed insurgency would have been a total waste of time.

    “Are we crystal”, like they say in the Hollywood marine movies?

  28. Celia Farber Says:

    Let me add some historical context, briefly:

    I was forced, when it was part of my job (at SPIN) to attend these conferences, and so my trip and hotel stay and expenses were covered. (Considerable expense, all told, to attend one of these things.) In later years, beginning with Berlin 1993, the year of Concorde, Weller, AZT’s fall–some critical/sceptical enfant terribles attended: To be precise, Joan Shenton, John Lauritsen, Hecotr Gildemeister, (I think) and a few others. (I’ll ask Joan.)

    Here is a segment I drafted for my book about how dissidents fared, physically , that time:

    OUTTAKE:

    It was at the International AIDS Conference in Berlin, in 1993, back in the days when I still attended each one, earnestly, with my name badge turned backwards, and always sitting at the back of the room, and eating alone in the cafeteria, and asking the same question over and over in my mind, namely are they crazy or am I crazy. I thought it was far more likely that I was crazy.
    I walked around like that at each conference, in Washington DC, Montreal, Stockholm, Florence, and many other capital cities over the years—praying for some kind of resolution, some kind of answer, some kind of exit point. 1993 was the year of the so-called Concorde study—a vast and lengthy trial, the first not funded by the drug’s maker—that showed that AZT was in fact shortening lives, as the so-called dissidents, myself included, had long insisted. Because of this, there were a handful of dissidents who had made the pilgrimage to Berlin, each paying their own way. It was also the year we discovered that several of the shouting, mohawked ACT UP types that were star players at these events, had been flown in first class and put up in fine hotels by various pharmaceutical companies. I remember Joan Shenton, the pioneering UK HIV dissident who ran the medical documentary team Meditel, rushing over to me: “Christian has been attacked,” she said urgently, and I followed her outside. I barely knew who Christian was, but Joan kept track of everybody. Then I remembered having seen him–a tall, skinny German man with long hair, bright green socks and white sneakers who’d been standing outside the conference center every day holding a handmade sign that read “Ab Zeum Teufel,” with the letters AZT bolded. (That means “To the devil,” in German.) There was mayhem and shouting all around the fallen man, Christian, who, it turned out, had been set upon by an angry mob of Act Upers, beaten, his sign cracked in half, and his stack of anti-AZT flyers set on fire. Joan, who spoke in a crisp BBC British accent, was demanding that the guards arrest the perpetrators. They didn’t even want to let him go to a clinic . Somebody ushered Christian away, and I think I bent down to pick up his flyers.
    I remember the stony faces of the guards, and the desperate sense I got, suddenly, that they fully endorsed this attack as righteous and good, and intended to do absolutely nothing to the attackers. I suddenly grew furious and lit out after one of them—a young French girl with a purple mohawk. I caught up with her inside the conference hall and I got in front of her. “Your people have just physically attacked a man for quietly expressing his opinion about a drug,” I said through clenched teeth. “They have vandalized his materials. Your motto is “Silence Equals Death.” How can you stand by and let this happen?”
    She almost spat in my face, and hissed: “People are dying. I don’t have time to defend some nutcase.” She pushed me aside and marched off.
    “Bitch,” I whispered.
    The conference chair—a fat red faced German man—had incited this lynchmob mood against us, in his opening address, when he declared that there were some “deranged sociopaths,” who did not believe that HIV was the cause of AIDS. He mentioned Peter Duesberg by name, and said he was insane and dangerous. On the very first day of the conference, a mild-mannered Dutch man named Peter Laarhoven had deposited a stack of articles in the press room which quoted HIV’s “co-discoverer,” Luc Montagnier as admitting he did not believe HIV alone caused AIDS. The stack of articles was seized and removed almost instantly, and Laarhoven himself was expelled from the conference hall and told he had to stay several hundred feet away from the entrance. He was actually taken away by armed guards, one on each arm, and escorted off the premises. Then he was expelled from the country.
    I remember thinking: I cannot believe this. And yet it reflected precisely the rage I myself had encountered from the very first moment that I brought up the name Peter Duesberg, six years earlier, at the magazine I worked for, strangely enough, as an AIDS reporter. It was like getting on the wrong side of a very big, furious wave—one that carried me farther out than I had ever dreamed possible. Away from safety, from respectability, from friends, colleagues, and finally from language itself. This wave uprooted, twisted, and shattered every notion I had about who I was and what I might become.
    I found this quote from a 1993 interview I did with Pete Townshend. We were discussing journeys, spiritual journeys. Mr Townshend said, memorably, and after apologizing to me in the event I was offended by his use of the word God, which I assured him I was not:
    “When you know God, you know that you’re on the right pathway. You get a biological fucking signal that you’re on the right pathway. You don’t need to be told by some priest—you know. You know what is good and you know what is bad. Good is what’s going to accelerate you on your spiritual journey and what is bad is what is going to hold you up, and it just seems to me as simple as that. So the morality of the time, any particular time, seems to be very much rooted in, invested in, and very deeply tied to, what’s going on in the street.”

  29. Celia Farber Says:

    Continued:

    So, in Berlin, 1993, we had a physical asault, vandalism, arson, extreme censorship, police escorts, and one man expelled from Germany for distributing flyers about…Luc Montagnier’s latest mutterings.

    We nonetheless returned to the Big Whale Conference in Geneva, whatever year that was. 1998?

    That year, I recall Huw Christie very politely asking a question at a press conference with Fauci, Ho, Harrington et al, and then all I emember is mayhem. Hissing and shouting. Harrington hissed: “Why don’t you people have your own conference?”

    Word was that Laurie Garrett was having a seizure of rage and almost collapsed against a wall, screaming obscenities at dissidents. The angry mobs demanded that dissidents be banned from press conferences for the duration of the conference, and a PR flak was seen scuttling over to Dr. Fauci to apologize for the rogue flight of Christie’s question, which I believe to have been on the subject of isolation.

    And let us not forget Durban, 2000, when Medecins Sans Frontier brandished a sign at a protest, yes protest, against HIV dissidents, that read: “One bullet, one dissident.”

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.


Bad Behavior has blocked 300 access attempts in the last 7 days.