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 P. Moore Brings Down the AIDS Paradigm (Part I)

Scientist has attacked critics nastily, but can’t change core of innate honesty

Endorses core of dissident doubts, then hides sabotage behind facade of belligerent loyalty to paradigm

Psychological torment detected by observers

moore1.jpgRather deplorably, John P. Moore of Cornell has received a certain amount of ragging and even contempt for his efforts to defend the HIV∫AIDS paradigm against all comers.

Scientists and journalists who passionately criticize the unprecedented raft of inconsistencies in the science of the supposed global HIV∫AIDS pandemic, and the shameless rationalizations used to shore up its ideology, tend to think badly of Moore. They imagine he has abandoned his personal integrity to act as chief goon for his mentors and patrons in the field, which include the renowned David Ho, whose efforts at developing a vaccine against HIV have become ever more ineffectual as time and money spent has expanded.

moore.jpgThis is why one site (You Bet Your Life) put together this shockingly impolite composite of John Moore’s photo and an image of a macaque. which is the kind of monkey that Moore tests HIV microbicides on at Cornell. The artwork is by the irrepressible science critic Harvey Bialy, whose email tangles with Moore are legendary.

Bialy’s jaundiced view of Moore is certainly understandable in the light of the embattled Cornell researcher’s disrespect for dissidents on the Web and in email, including one to this writer, whom he first saluted for our literary prowess (as he saw it) and civil debating style but then suddenly informed in email that we were “homophobic” and “covered with slime” for being so. Our sin was not to condemn someone else’s “homophobia”, it seemed. Moore has put up a brief libel to that effect on his paradigm promoting site, AIDSTruth, to tell the world his inaccurate assessment, an act which in itself is flattering to the content of this humble blog, since it shows that he is unable to disagree with our site on any scientific basis.

NAR articles are generally well enough written to accurately reflect the dangers of AIDS denialist sites in their capacity to mislead and hurt innocent, vulnerable people, particularly those infected with HIV who are seeking answers and information about what choices to make.

(Moore’s email to NAR – click Tab below:)
We referenced the NAR site in our article in the IAS Newsletter Article, posted on AIDSTruth, because the NAR articles are generally well enough written to accurately reflect the dangers of AIDS denialist sites in their capacity to mislead and hurt innocent, vulnerable people, particularly those infected with HIV who are seeking answers and information about what choices to make. It seemed worth alerting AIDS health care professionals to the existence of the NAR site, so that they can take steps to counter its misleading (although generally well presented) information.

Anthony Liversidge is a much smarter and more dignified man … I guess (he) understands all this too, which is why he maintains the NAR site to a standard that is satirical but generally not abusive and offensive (you should not, however, interpret this comment as meaning I have ANY respect for his opinions, which are based on misunderstandings about HIV science).

(later email reversing his respect) We will be adding a specific comment regarding your site’s role in, and exploitation of, (some other writers’) homophobic attacks (in email) on a gay man. That sort of conduct is utterly shameful, and goes far, far beyond what is acceptable, even on the internet. For you to not only not condemn what happened, but to go so far as to exploit it, shames you and your web site, something that will be duly noted. The slime of offensive conduct sticks, Mr. Liversidge, and it has stuck to you as well, I’m afraid. You should be thoroughly ashamed of your behavior. I had regarded you as somewhat more civilized than Bialy, but I was in error – you are cut from the same cloth..

The Nancy Padian page

jekyll-and-hyde.jpgIn fact, the inaccuracies and weakness of the defenses of the paradigm mounted at AIDSTruth is widely celebrated by connoisseurs of paradigm challenges, and it is a useful reference source for critics of HIV∫AIDS that we recommend as often as the NIAID page The Evidence that HIV causes AIDS, and the Durban Declaration, as examples of the modest quality of reasoning sufficient to support disbursement of tens of billions in research funding by the NIAID in the last two decades..

The prime example is AIDS elite researcher Nancy Padian’s effort to explain away the results of her paradigm defeating study, the biggest and longest look at HIV transmission between the sexes, which did not find a single instance of HIV transmission in sex between many (47) discordant heterosexual couples who took no precautions whatsoever for up to six years. As noted in an earlier post the belated excuses made by Padian for publishing a study which exploded the central pillar of the hypothesis that the world is suffering from a global heterosexual AIDS pandemic were not convincing, to say the least.
(Read them at HIV heterosexual transmission and the “Padian papermyth”
HIV heterosexual transmission and the “Padian paper myth”

One of the more egregious myths perpetrated by AIDS denialists is that HIV is not heterosexually transmitted.

Part of the “evidence” that underlies this myth is a 1997 paper by Dr. Nancy Padian and her colleagues at the University of California, San Francisco (Padian NS, Shiboski SC, Glass SO, Vittinghoff E. 1997. Heterosexual transmission of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) in Northern California: results from a ten-year study. Am J Epidemiol 146, 350-357) (1). The denialists either misinterpret or misunderstand this paper. Some internet sites/Blogs even go so far as to suggest that the “HIV/AIDS establishment” (sic) finds Dr. Padian’s work inconvenient and has suppressed it, to the detriment of her professional career. The following commentary from Dr. Padian addresses HIV heterosexual transmission, discusses what her seminal 1997 paper does actually say and, ipso facto, speaks to the absurdity of the notion that her work has been suppressed, or is inconvenient to other AIDS researchers.

Heterosexual transmission of HIV
Nancy Padian, PhD
University of California, San Francisco
HIV is unquestionably transmitted through heterosexual intercourse. Indeed, heterosexual intercourse is now responsible for 70-80% of all HIV transmissions worldwide (2). The current likelihood of male to female infection after a single exposure to HIV is 0.01-0.32% (2, 3), and the current likelihood of female to male infection after a single exposure is 0.01-0.1% (2). These estimates are mostly derived from studies in the developed world. However, a man or a woman can become HIV-positive after just one sexual contact. In developing countries, particularly those in sub-Saharan Africa, several factors (co-infection with other sexually transmitted diseases, circumcision practices, poor acceptance of condoms, patterns of sexual partner selection, locally circulating viral subtypes, high viral loads among those who are infected, etc.) can increase the likelihood of heterosexual transmission to 20% or even higher (4). Evidence that specifically documents the heterosexual transmission of HIV comes from studies of HIV-discordant couples (i.e., couples in a stable, monogamous relationship where one partner is infected and the other is not); over time, HIV transmission occurs (5). Other studies have traced the transmission of HIV through networks of sexual partners (6-9). Additional evidence comes from intervention studies that, for example, promote condom use or encourage reductions in the numbers of sexual partners: the documented success of these interventions is because they prevent the sexual transmission of HIV (1,10,11).

In short, the evidence for the sexual transmission of HIV is well documented, conclusive, and based on the standard, uncontroversial methods and practices of medical science. Individuals who cite the 1997 Padian et al. publication (1) or data from other studies by our research group in an attempt to substantiate the myth that HIV is not transmitted sexually are ill informed, at best. Their misuse of these results is misleading, irresponsible, and potentially injurious to the public.

A common practice is to quote out of context a sentence from the Abstract of the 1997 paper: “Infectivity for HIV through heterosexual transmission is low”. Anyone who takes the trouble to read and understand the paper should appreciate that it reports on a study of behavioral interventions such as those mentioned above: Specifically, discordant couples were strongly counseled to use condoms and practice safe sex (1,12). That we witnessed no HIV transmissions after the intervention documents the success of the interventions in preventing the sexual transmission of HIV. The sentence in the Abstract reflects this success — nothing more, nothing less. Any attempt to refer to this or other of our publications and studies to bolster the fallacy that HIV is not transmitted heterosexually or homosexually is a gross misrepresentation of the facts and a travesty of the research that I have been involved in for more than a decade.

If safe sex practices are followed, and if there are no complicating factors such as those mentioned above, the risk of HIV transmission can be as low as our studies suggest…IF. But many people misunderstand probability: they think that if the chance of misfortune is one in six, that they can take five chances without the likelihood of injury. This “Russian Roulette” misapprehension is dangerous to themselves and to others. Furthermore, complicating factors are often not evident or obvious in a relationship, so their perceived absence should not be counted on as an excuse not to practice safe sex.

Finally, it is a complete fallacy to allege or insinuate that this work has been “suppressed” or “ignored” by the AIDS community or unsupported by UCSF or any other institution with which I have worked. To the contrary, these findings have been seen as central and seminal to the problem of heterosexual transmission rates and the development of interventions to lower the rate of transmission and infection worldwide, many of which are being conducted by my research group. The success of my working group has been fueled, not hindered, by our research on the heterosexual transmission of HIV, attested to by our long record of peer-reviewed publications.

Nancy Padian is a Professor of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences at the University of California and she has worked on the heterosexual transmission of HIV since 1984. She is a frequent participant in annual NIH Office of AIDS Research planning workshops and has chaired the workshop on international research for the last four years. She is an elected member to the Institute of Medicine and the American Epidemiology Society. She served as vice-chair of the University of California task force on AIDS and currently directs international research for UCSF Global Health Sciences, the UCSF AIDS Research Institute and she is co-director of the Center for Reproductive Health Research and Policy.

1. Padian NS, Shiboski SC, Glass SO, Vittinghoff E. Heterosexual transmission of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) in Northern California: results from a ten-year study. Am J Epidemiol 1997;146:350-7.

2. Downs AM, De Vincenzi I. Probability of heterosexual transmission of HIV: relationship to the number of unprotected sexual contacts. European Study Group in Heterosexual Transmission of HIV. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Hum Retrovirol. 1996 Apr 1;11(4):388-95.

3. Wiley JA, Herschhkorn SJ, Padian NS. Heterogeneity in the probability of HIV transmission per sexual contact: the case of male-to-female transmission in penile-vaginal intercourse. Stat Med 1989;8:93-102.

4. Gray RH, Wawer MJ, Brookmeyer R, Sewankambo NK, Serwadda D, Wabwire-Mangen F, Lutalo T, Li X, vanCott T, Quinn TC; Rakai Project Team. Probability of HIV-1 transmission per coital act in monogamous, heterosexual, HIV-1-discordant couples in Rakai, Uganda. Lancet. 2001 Apr 14;357(9263):1149-53.

5. Ellerbock TV, Lieb S, Harrington PE, et al. Heterosexually transmitted human immunodeficiency virus infection among pregnant women in a rural Florida community. N Engl J Med 1992;327:1704-9.

6. Hunter DJ. AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa: the epidemiology of heterosexual transmission and the prospects for prevention. Epidemiology. 1993 Jan;4(1):63-72. Review.

7. Venkataramana CB, Sarada PV. Extent and speed of spread of HIV infection in India through the commercial sex networks: a perspective. Trop Med Int Health. 2001 Dec;6(12):1040-61.

8. Adimora AA, Schoenbach VJ, Doherty IA. HIV and African Americans in the southern United States: sexual networks and social context. Sex Transm Dis. 2006 Jul;33(7 Suppl):S39-45.

9. Latora V, Nyamba A, Simpore J, Sylvette B, Diane S, Sylvere B, Musumeci S. Network of sexual contacts and sexually transmitted HIV infection in Burkina Faso. J Med Virol. 2006 Jun;78(6):724-9.

10. Ghys PD, Diallo MO, Ettiegne-Traore V, Kale K, Tawil O, Carael M, et al. Increase in condom use and decline in HIV and sexually transmitted diseases among female sex workers in Abidjan, Cote d’Ivoire, 1991-1998. AIDS 2002;16(2):251-58.

11. Katzenstein DA, McFarland W, Mbizo M, Latif AS, Machekano R, Parsonnet J, et al. Peer education among factory workers in Zimbabwe: providing a sustainable HIV prevention intervention. Paper presented at the 12th International Conference on AIDS, Geneva, June 28-July 3, 1998.

12. Padian NS, O’Brien TR, Chang Y, Glass S, Francis DP. Prevention of heterosexual transmission of human immunodeficiency virus through couple counseling. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 1993 Sep;6(9):1043-8 All in all, a very silly defense, but expected in the light of Padian’s response at the NIAID HIVNET party last year, when we congratulated her on her distinguished contribution to clarifying the (non)viability of the paradigm. “Well, there’s more (tranmission) in Africa,” she said faintly.

John Moore – hidden dissident?

This continual exposure at AIDSTruth of the problems inherent in the paradigm defense (in this case an unabashed contradiction of its zero result for couples who did not take precautions) has led some conspiracy minded theorists to suspect that the distinguished macaque researcher at Cornell is actually a secret supporter of the dissident view in HIV∫AIDS, since he expends so much energy drawing attention to HIV critical luminaries and their objections, and to the gross weakness of his scientific defenses against them.

Still, given Deadly Quackery, Moore’s embarrassingly propagandistic Op Ed tilt against “denialists” in the New York Times last year (a newspaper whose record on HIV∫AIDS stands as the most massive and egregious example of its distaste for fact checking), his enthusiasm for insulting dissidents in his AIDSTruth headlines, most recently the very accurate mathematician Rebecca Culshaw, and in email with Darin Brown, Harvey Bialy and others, and his notorious comment in email to Michael Geiger of HEAL San Diego that his idea of the rules of this debate was “all out war”,

From: John P. Moore, PhD
To: Michael Geiger
Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2007
Subject: Re: Shame on you JP!

Thanks Geiger! What you sent contains useful information we can use against you people! And we will!

“Dan” has it exactly right when he says:

“If they are able to “justify” their actions, it’s most likely because they simply see this as WAR. War against the “denialists”. Nothing more.
When you’re in a war, there are no rules.”

This IS a war, there ARE no rules, and we WILL crush you, one at a time, completely and utterly (at least the more influential ones; foot-soldiers like you aren’t worth bothering with).
John

it is understandable that many have concluded John P. Moore is no friend of truth in science.

His standards of (non) debate in science are particularly disappointing as stated on his page at AIDSTruth which details his principles of (non) engagement of HIV∫AIDS critics, Answering AIDS Denialists and AIDS Lies:

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. …Our time is better spent conducting research into HIV/AIDS and/or educating the general public about the facts about this virus and the deadly disease it causes.”

All in all, John Moore’s public face is that of a junior high priest of the HIV∫AIDS faith, who views all paradigm critics as damned heretics, and who serves as the leader of the Threat Response Team of activists and minor scientists that springs into action to apply as much intellectual and social violence as possible to defeat any intelligent investigation of the almost endless paradoxes, flaws and inconsistencies of the global AIDS meme.

But is this the real Moore, or only a facade?

The real Moore emerges

jekyllhyde.jpegSince the redoubtable microbicide tester is English born and bred, not to mention a graduate of Downing College, Cambridge, it seemed unlikely to us that John is really as belligerent as he pretends to be, especially since that university is so good at transforming crude provincial geniuses into what passes for gentlemen nowadays.

– hiding in the literature

So we went as is our habit at NAR to the scientific literature to ascertain the truth of the matter, and were happily relieved to find two seminal papers published by our renowned lab rat which testified to his honesty, integrity, and innate urge to acknowledge the truth in science ie making fundamental points supporting the accuracy of the many professional reviews rejecting the sense and evidence on which the HIV∫AIDS theoretical house of cards is built.

This was an amazing discovery, admittedly, but one which is typical of the HIV∫AIDS literature, which is something like a repository for trade secrets, written by insiders for insiders, which outsiders usually don’t try and gain access to, but if they do, they will find all kinds of revelations, which will turn their world upside down, by showing that HIV∫AIDS club members quite often show each other discoveries that they otherwise keep quiet, and make admissions they would never make in more public venues.

To find out the truth about Moore, one has to go tho the literature, just as one must to find out the truth about HIV∫AIDS. In public.Moore may be Mr Hyde, but in the quiet cloisters of the top professional journals he is Mr Honest Jekyll himself.

We will detail the treasure we found in our next post, since the hour is late, the post too long already, and oblivion beckons…..

17 Responses to “John P. Moore Brings Down the AIDS Paradigm (Part I)”

  1. MartinDKessler Says:

    Truthseeker, are you saying that one of the Chief Inquisitors of the AIDS Inquisition is really a Denialist? And very possibly in secret all or most of the major Inquistors (Gallo, Fauci, Ho, etc) may be also secretly part of the same group? For many of us lay “denialists”, that makes sense, because the logical arguments of the AIDS Rethinkers (Duesberg and more recently Culshaw) are easy enough for anyone with even a modicum of intelligence (much less a PhD in a scientific subject) and an open mind to comprehend. Unlike the Moranos of the Spanish Inquisition who were “Christian” in public but Jewish in secret, the current Inquisitors are hypocrites and murderous ones at that. It’s like the former late chief of Enron, Kenneth Lay, telling everyone to keep investing in Enron knowing full well the house of cards was about to collapse. (As you know Kenneth Lay had a PhD in economics – so he was no dummy even though he tried to play the fool.)

  2. MartinDKessler Says:

    The Witch Trials and the AIDS Inquisition are similar: Formely, to determine witchcraft, the Inquisitors looked for witch’s marks. Now the AIDS Inquisitors look for “HIV” antibodies. The current methods (ELISA and Western Blot) are no more scientifically valid than the former.

  3. Truthseeker Says:

    Truthseeker, are you saying that one of the Chief Inquisitors of the AIDS Inquisition is really a Denialist?

    Yes, Martin, at heart, Moore is a truthteller at heart, like all passionate and intelligent humans, but especially like all good scientists. He is in inner conflict as he tries to hew to the party line, and so the inner pressure finally has to find an outlet, in this case a paper where he acknowledges there is no Devil at work. Such conflicts always produce behavior where the person who feels guilty attacks those who make him feel guilty as if they were guilty, and is especially nasty to them. But the superficially appalling Moore is in fact an honest gentleman and a good scientist at heart, and we should all be sorry for a man whose soul was taken from him by his Vatican superiors, and he was left with the role of Grand Inquisitor, when all the time he only wanted to do good science.

  4. Dan Says:

    TS,
    I’m not sure if these last two pieces on Dr. Moore are to be taken at face value, or are somewhat tongue-in-cheek.

    I’ll take them at face value unless you state that wasn’t your intent.

  5. Truthseeker Says:

    Take them at face value, as far as his critique goes. Moore has critiqued the HIV gang and found that they have been working on false assumptions for ten years in trying to make out HIV as a danger to the system and they have to be corrected – the studies they used to assume high concentrations of gp120 in the plasma of live human beings were ill founded and the fact is that antibodies dispense with HIV and its proteins very nicely, thank you.

    You can decide for yourself whether our admiration for Moore is satirical or fully deserved.

  6. noreen martin Says:

    Until John Moore sheds his skin and announces to the world that he is a “rethinker,” I would be leery of what he says. It reminds me of Al Green’s song, The Snake, take me in old tender woman, take me in for goodness sake, take me in tender woman, Ah cried the snake. The snake cons the woman into taking him in, keeps him warm and gives him milk…then, The snake cons the woman into kissing him and then he bites her. Oh, why cried the woman, you know your bite is poisonous and now I’ll surely die. SHUT UP silly woman cried the reptile with a grin you knew damn well I was a snake before you took me in! Oh, take me in old tender woman…

  7. Truthseeker Says:

    Until John Moore sheds his skin and announces to the world that he is a “rethinker,” I would be leery of what he says.

    Noreen, John Moore is not announcing he is a rethinker, we are. What he says is what he has written in the literature, which we are bringing to your attention, which is the purpose of this blog. Read it for yourself and decide for yourself what he is. We have portrayed what he is as far as we are concerned, a very honest man at heart who cannot prevent himself from speaking out against bad science sooner or later, whatever the consequences, though he tries to keep it in the family.

    Of course with a $500,000 grant from a drug company financing his current research it is a little difficult for him to wear two hats at the same time.

  8. MacDonald Says:

    Truthseeker, it is very unfair of you to call Dr. Padian silly. I don’t think you understand the full import of her words, nor the real objective of her study. Dr. Padian states in the study abstract that she set out “to examine rates of and risk factors for heterosexual transmission of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)”.

    Her important discovery after only 6 years extensive bedroom surveillance was that occasional condom use does not constitute a risk factor for transmisson of HIV. In fact, even the couples that used condoms regularly showed no seroconversions. Perhaps we take this for granted today, but at the time (1997) it must have been a milestone insight since other reasearch, like the celebrated studies of Thai military recruits analyzed by the Perth Group here:

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

    had showed that “increased condom use was associated with an increased risk for HIV-1”. Thus, in Thailand, “HIV unlike all sexually transmitted agents is more efficiently transmitted with condoms than without them”.

    Dr. Padian’s study finally reassured us, Pat Robertson and the condom manufacturers that all the newly discovered human retroviruses are nowhere as apt at jumping the latex barrier as they so recently have become at jumping the species barrier.

    The $500,000 John Moore is receiving from the pharma companies is equally well spent. He has for instance played a significant role in discovering that if one smears “chemical irritants” on the genitals of African women before (no longer dry) sex, it is possible to produce various ulcers and lesions.

    http://barnesworld.blogs.com/barnes_world/2007/02/celia_farber_re.html#comment-28561005

    Next he will no doubt take his unpublished research showing that HIV vaccinates against itself (see Part Two of this article above) a step further and demonstrate how manufactured HIV vaccinations increase the likelihood of testing positive on an HIV antibody test.

    Thus science may progress funeral by funeral, but HIV scientists need not fear for their livelihoods since it also regresses grant by grant.

  9. Truthseeker Says:

    A fine statement of cutting edge thinking in HIV∫AIDS research, MacDonald, which raises only one question: how are these advances reconciled in the minds of HIV∫AIDS researchers with the paradigm they have sold the world, the bill of goods which is now going to win yet another fine award for Bill Clinton next week from the Global Coalition to Fight AIDS, as well as a refilled federal trough of $30 billion for all supporters and followers, also will help sell red T shirts from Gap, inspire AIDS Walkathons in Central Park, etc.

    Perhaps the thought is that a knife edge to be truly sharp has to be ground from both sides. Reasonable enough. After all, this is what this blog stands for – reviewing the situation from all sides, rather than just from the side where the unquestioned premise is that HIV is the Devil of this new religion.

    However, as more and more people are finding nowadays, the faithful of any religion are not overly receptive to objective reassessment by outside parties with no built in bias. In fact, they like to behead them as soon as possible.

  10. MacDonald Says:

    Upon seeing all the president’s men, yes even the president himself, express their unreserved support for Scooter Libby, a man who has just been found guilty of betraying the confidence invested in him by the democratic system, the question arises once more, what happened to the cultured politican – the politician who has at least the basic decency to point his finger and denounce the nominal crook in the game, thereby lending a fig of hypocrisy to what we all know: that Scooter Libby is but the last in a long, honourable line of ‘heroes’, stretching from Iraq to Washington, to take a bullet for his bosses in the White House?

    This cultured politician we find in Clinton. He alone, in a supreme act of judgment, showed consideration for the voter’s Judaeo-Christian sensibilities by wagging his finger and denouncing that woman. But this is the man, Truthseeker – a man whose first and second nature is to protect the American people from all things unpleasant, whose very cigars are made of rolled up fig leaves – this is the man you would ask to tell us that it is not a virus that’s kiling poor people around the world; this is the man you expect to tell us that we cannot buy us a place in the hearts and minds of those we liberate by offering them access to the blessings of Western technology and medicine? That, Truthseeker, is not only unpatriotic, it is a kind of madness that should not go unwatch’d.

  11. Truthseeker Says:

    Excuse us, MacDonald but as we understand it the honorable gentleman that is William Jefferson Clinton did not wag his finger and denounce the delightful wench with whom he had dallied but on the contrary, he denied all carnal knowledge of her, even if in many dictionaries the definition of the word he used (“sex”) is narrower than some of his listeners might have imagined. In this he followed the principles laid down in days of yore in Merrie England, which still breeds the only type that can honestly lay claim to the title “gentleman” in this morally disordered world. The principle referred to in this case is the rule that a gentleman does not sully the name of any lady in public, and preferably not even in private, even when he is stretched on the rack by a media lynch mob and Conservative prosecutor.

    You are suggesting that such a man is not interested in bringing Western medical technology to the benighted natives of the darkest corner of humanity’s first continental abode? Sir, you are surely misguided in this. Perhaps you misunderstand. The aim of NAR coincides precisely with that of Bill Clinton, as was shown in our last public meeting. It is to examine he foundation of HIV∫AIDS science by comparing it with its own literature, and see whether the two coincide. Whatever the answer, we both surely aim for the same ideal, which is to bring the best possible Western science and technology to bear on the health and welfare of the native population of Africa, so that it may fully achieve the destiny for which it is cut out, according to Mbeki’s immortal phrase, the one characterizing this century as “The African Century”, which we wholeheartedly support, even if it has to be achieved by the Chinese turning the sub-Sahara into their own economic sweatshop.

  12. MacDonald Says:

    Yes I believe Sir William aims to bring the best possible solutions to bear on a broad spectrum of problems whose different solutions are not always easily conciliable within the American politician’s traditional framework. Hence the utilitarian calculus, suggested by the blog host’s own predecessors in the noble science of economics, which aims to compare the moral value of different courses of action by exchanging their expected costs and benefits into units of utility that can be counted and stored much the same way dollar bills can be counted and stored.

    Unfortunately the econo-moral science practiced by all politicians suffers from the same drawback as defective viruses in that it is incapable of infecting a single seeker of office unless it hitches a ride on a previous moral ‘helper’ perspective. The ultimate utility of Western/American intervention is thus calculated differently according to one’s political, geographical, cultural, social, spiritual point of view.

    I am pleased to see that Clinton has given his gentleman’s word to the host that his aim is “to examine he foundation of HIV∫AIDS science by comparing it with its own literature, and see whether the two coincide.” But perhaps the truthseeking one has misunderstood the great man, or perhaps Sir William of the World did not express himself clearly enough for fear of seeming disagreeable to such a fervent admirer. My guess is that he agrees on principle with the basic proposition put to him by NAR, but that he thought it is the explicit task of others to carry out that investigation rather than his personal god given aim – which shows that the great man endearingly enough does have a few common traits, for which politician wouldn’t declare himself in favour of the basic principles of scientific investigation, whether he understands their implications or not, but excuse himself when it comes to evaluating the evaluations of the experts? Certainly not Sir George Dragonslayer Bush.

    The denunciation which escapes you, no doubt because you have omitted to keep a copy of popular Jewish history on your bedtable ever since you decided to play hooky instead of obeying when your wise and well meaning parents sent you to the edificatory Sunday school meetings (and see what’s become of you), is contained in the words “that woman” and their inflection, which signals Clinton’s Adamic denial of original sin by way of distancing himself from the fruit of his own rib.

  13. Truthseeker Says:

    That woman

    MacDonald, you have made a point which strikes to the heart of the matter and leaves us speechless and shuddering at the heinous perfidy of using such a phrase about a young woman who gave her heart to him as Boss of the World and another one way tribute that cannot be mentioned here but which many men no doubt prefer, at least in the United States where intersexual negotiations seem to focus inordinately on matters of the flesh.

    To repay this precious gift with a public renunciation of any relationship whatsoever by using this horrendous phrase to imply that the distance between them had never been closed on any front was not the act of a gentleman but a bounder, and we completely withdraw our defense of his actions on this ground.

    A gentleman would have said something like “Monica is a fine young woman. A gentleman does not discuss his private relationship with any woman, even if it costs him the Presidency, so to hell with you, Sir, and your grand jury.”

  14. MacDonald Says:

    Alas, that precious and much coveted gift by its very nature will often seem quite ordinary to the receiver once received, especially when he discovers that more was given than bargained for, and that more than bargained for is usually demanded in return.

    Still no degree of post-coital disgust should ever induce a man to slight what he has just received, precious or not, for the simple reason that few women have anything else to offer.

  15. Truthseeker Says:

    Sir, you are slighting the very name of Woman, and founding your view, we believe, on a statistical error known as pre-selection, since you are overlooking the fact that all intelligent men (those that read this blog, for example) have little to do with women who are not supremely attractive to them, other than their sisters etc, and this is not a random sample by any means. In fact, if they troubled to pay some attention to women on some other parameter, they would multiply by at least one order of magnitude the number who had something else to offer. Selecting out just those who one finds personally attractive is not a random sample, and results very often in not very much being offered other than the temporary delights of carnal paradise, and what is more the analysis is complicated by the fact that women who do not return the compliment will offer very little, and also may be booked, and therefore out of the game. The number from this overall sample who will have something else to offer will naturally be exceedingly low.

    If however we broaden our selection to include all intelligent women, mutually attractive or not, we find a cornucopia of talent beneath the surface in almost every case. Any European should know this, surely. In particular, women are masters of the social universe, since they naturally have a very good memory for faces, and spend much of their time thinking about people and their hidden motives. As we understand it, it is only the enlightened disinterest they have in gaining personal power which prevents them from ruling the business and political universe. As civilization advances, and male violence is brought under control, we predict that they will eventually rule most countries and most large corporations. This is already evident in the number of female leaders of nations that have emerged in the last few years.

  16. MacDonald Says:

    Damn! I thought I could smuggle a misogynist comment in there under cover of all the gentlemanry and perhaps get to see my name in red ink on JP’s PC blog. But I guess nothing gets by our host when it comes to the fair, intelligent and increasingly powerful sex.

    I have been a scoundrel, I own it.

  17. Truthseeker Says:

    Well, let’s not go overboard here, MacD, we didn’t mean to suggest that we don’t recognize the truth in what you say, we were merely adopting a statistical perspective for balance. Even those who love women dearly as a race and a phenomenon have to admit that the times we have a rational and well reasoned conversation with these marvelous beings are few and far between. We put this down to the problem of statistical overlap also – the number of women who are attractive enough to listen to being few, and the number of them who are intelligent being fewer, it is hard to find both in one person outside the leading institutions of scholarship and learning who seem to make attractiveness a criterion of acceptance once they have a large number of applicants, even though it has nothing to do with intelligence as far as we know – but there is also the problem that women have a marvelous way of integrating the world into a kind of unity, so that they are unable to see it from any other point of view than their own.

    This is why they are more often religious, we imagine, since once having adopted some kind of all-encompassing ideology it is almost impossible for them to step aside and examine it for sense. The fact that some can do this, especially if they are also very attractive and intelligent, is what makes the existence of Rebecca Culshaw, whose book is considered by many now the first thing to hand to someone asking about the HIV∫AIDS paradigm challenge, a marvel to behold and a reason to kneel and thank the God of Truth. We particularly admire such people, as we have made clear in the past, even though we have been deplored as insufficiently PC. We wish we knew more examples, but we can’t think of any, except the Polgar sisters who have reached such prominence in world chess.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.


Bad Behavior has blocked 292 access attempts in the last 7 days.