Damned Heretics

Condemned by the established, but very often right

I am Nicolaus Copernicus, and I approve of this blog

I am Richard Feynman and I approve of this blog

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

(Click for more Unusual Quotations on Science and Belief)

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

John Moore’s untruth

Cornell microbicide researcher posts libel of NAR on his site

His “AIDS Truth” revealed as malleable, if his propaganda war requires it

A couple of days ago, New AIDS Review achieved the signal honor of recognition as a “conspiracy theorist” and “denialist” site by none other than John “Macaque” Moore, the Cornell researcher and paradigm promoter in HIV∫AIDS whose ruthless methods of operating behind the scenes to defeat paradigm critics are notorious, as well as his conducting full scale smear campaigns against them in public by calling them names such as “denialist” and claiming, for once quite rightly, that they are “dangerous” to the cause of supplying toxic drugs to the hapless AIDS patients of the world.

The honorary mention reads as follows:

For an example of an AIDS denialist/conspiracy theorist site that is influential in those circles, see:

* http://www.newaidsreview.org

Our bursting pride was short lived however. Further news reached us by email, in the form of a jibe delivered by Moore to Harvey Bialy, the editor of the razor sharp, fully informed, witty and devastatingly impolite group blog You Bet Your Life, now a must stop for those in the know in the field of HIV∫AIDS as a sort of morning entertainment with their coffee.

Probably the biggest amusements on the YBYL site are the email exchanges between the previous editor of the site, Hank Barnes, The Moore Follies 1, 2, 3 and 4, and similar email more recently between Moore and Bialy.

In each exchange both parties attempt to score points off each other with scorn and derision, but the whiplash wit of the two HB’s in our view makes mincemeat out of the unfortunate and somewhat slower Moore. Bialy in particular runs circles around the Cornell mastermind, reducing him to a baffled stooge. A prize specimen was run on Tuesday in Comments under the post Confessions of a Subversive Grad. Student: Subversive Is No Longer So Secret:

In anticipation of today’s SGS article, I sent (in lc provocative style) a note to John advising him of its imminent publication. What I expected to receive was a version of the previous one note lie about not bothering to look at the site “except on rare occasions”, etc. What actually arrived was so much wilder than that it qualifies as a theme and variation with an additional note thrown in for bad measure. As is my habit with these exchanges, I will refrain from interlinear remarks and allow these masterpieces of ‘crafted’, self-contradiction to speak for themselves…etc.

Inspecting the email that Moore sent Bialy immediately revealed the reason why the AIDSTruth goon squad leader was willing to quote this obscure and plodding site as representative of “AIDS denialism and conspiracy theorising”, and not the dangerously expert group blog YBYL, with its star array of lethal paradigm skewerers.

From: “John P. Moore, PhD”
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 2:02 PM
Subject: Fwd: IAS Newsletter on AIDS denialists – March 2007

Dear “retiree”,
I hope you find this recently published article to be of
interest and that you post it wherever you wish (I think you must have accidentally inverted the words in your last email when you said that you publish, but I post). I had thought of mentioning you in the article, but on reflection decided that you were not significant enough, even in denialist circles, to be worth the words. Why go after the monkey when there are plenty of organ grinders around? We do, however, provide a link on AIDStruth.org to Anthony Liversidge’s
NAR site as an example of an ‘influential” AIDS denialist site that AIDS professionals need to know about. Unfortunately, YBYL just isn’t well enough written to be worth looking at, so I guess your friend Tony will be getting all the clicks to monitor.

Evidently Moore believed that a) it would annoy Bialy if the superior YBYL was left off the list b) directing HIV∫AIDS loyalists to the obscure NAR was harmless and c) he was afraid to quote YBYL for fear that he would be brought into disrepute by exposing his email exchanges with Harvey to the private derision of colleagues.

However, we thought that this false accolade might prove the basis of a friendly meeting with John P. Moore, where we could usefully get him to discuss what genuine arguments he had left, if any, to support his evidently religious belief in the HIV∫AIDS paradigm. We could also ask him to explain why, if the case of HIV in AIDS is so inarguable, he felt it necessary to attack paradigm critics with unscientific, and underhand moves, such as more than once calling their employers or partners to complain about them undermining his scientific religion.

Alas, the distinguished macaque microbicide researcher replied with an outright refusal to meet or even have an email dialogue with NAR on any basis, given that we are in his eyes the perfidious purveyors of doubt in regard to his favorite political and economic research framework.

So we were reduced to insisting for the second time that he at least revise his description of this site as an “AIDS denialist/conspiracy theorist site”. We had a pretty good idea that he was unlikely to accede to our request, but we waited, just in case. After all, the title of his site is “AIDSTruth”, and conspiracy theorists and ‘denialists’ we are not.

No conspiracy theorists, we

In fact, any discussion of conspiracy theories is relevant here in one respect only – to make sure that people know the difference between a conspiracy theory (World Trade Center etc) and a professional scientific review of the literature said to justify a paradigm (Duesberg, Bialy etc), which in the case of HIV∫AIDS condemns the paradigm as utterly wrong, a complete misinterpretation of the literature it has generated.

The paradigm review of a dozen papers or more dismissing HIV as the cause of AIDS has been carried in the highest scientific journals and intensely peer reviewed to ensure its accuracy in data and interpretation. We at this blog are merely going over this material to show it to the public, from which it has been withheld through the explicit censorship of Dr Anthony Fauci at NIAID who long ago put reporters on notice in print that if they raise the topic and wish to cover it with the cooperation of scientists at NIAID, they will be frozen out forever:

“We know reporters must consult more than a single source and make room for dissenting opinions. But many people consider what is in the media to be true by definition.
One striking example is Peter Duesberg’s theory that HIV is not the cause of AIDS. I laughed at that for a while, but it led to a lot of public concern that maybe HIV was a hoax. The theory has extraordinary credibility just on the basis of news coverage. My barometer of what the general public is really thinking is my sister Denise. My sister Denise is an intelligent woman who reads avidly, listens to the radio, and watches television, but she is not a scientist. When she calls me and questions my integrity as a scientist, there really is a problem. Denise has called me at least ten times about Peter Duesberg. She says “Anthony, – she is the only one who calls me Anthony – “are you sure he’s wrong?” That’s the power of putting someone on television or in the press, although there is virtually nothing in his argument that makes scientifc sense. People are especially confused when they see divergent reports about the same thing….
Journalists who make too many mistakes or who are too sloppy, are going to find their access to scientists may diminish.” – AAAS Observer, September 1, 1989.

By virtue of this unscientific edict, and the inexplicit but equally strong influence of HIV∫AIDS community politics, noone involved ever dares to raise the topic of revising the HIV∫AIDS paradigm in meetings or in public, unless to condemn the “denialists” in fiercely prejudicial terms, as our new friend John Moore, Mark Wainberg, Jeanne Bergman and other members of the HIV∫AIDS paradigm protection goon squad like to do, since they evidently lack good rejoinders to the accusations that they are peddling bad science that kills.

But we are not ‘denialists’, since we deny nothing factual in the mainstream literature of HIV∫AIDS, which is all we know of scientific reality in this field, though we know a good deal about its shameful politics.

The only thing we deny is the claim that the paradigm reflects the evidence of the mainstream scientific literature, since it does not: there is research inconsistency with every aspect of the paradigm, which is constantly contradicted by the literature and those who write it, mostly the mainstream researchers who publicly claim the paradigm is correct, even though more and more of the papers they write show quite plainly it is not.

That HIV∫AIDS researchers typically make obeisance to the paradigm in their first paragraphs makes the odd fact that their results so often disprove it all the more baffling a ‘conundrum’, which is the word the chief theorist of the paradigm, Zvi Grossman, recently used to describe the black mystery of how HIV could possible cause immune deficiency.

If John P. Moore knows the answer to this conundrum he hasn’t yet informed his fellow scientists or the general public.

If anything, the denialists in HIV∫AIDS are the mainstream researchers who deny the import of their own literature, beginning with the papers that Robert Gallo produced in 1984, which proved that the likelihood of HIV causing AIDS was approximately the same as one of John Moore’s macaques jumping over the Empire State building.

Even Dr. Gallo has conceded this in his recent testimony in the Adelaide court.

“I would say, of course, that in and of itself, 40% isolation of a new virus I wouldn’t say (proves it) is the cause.”

So John has been asked by NAR to remove the label “conspiracy theorist” site from the mention of New AIDS Review on his AIDSTruth site, as well as the prejudicial and inappropriate label “denialist”, and we wait to see if he will respond.

Moore’s deplorable tactics

This is not to say we don’t agree with Moore’s views in some respects, though for reasons he may not like. For instance, his rude dismissal in Nature of Edward Hooper’s book The River must almost by definition be correct, given the fact that HIV evidently does not cause AIDS, at least not according to the current literature of HIV∫AIDS.

What we object to is the record of how Moore has notoriously flamed his targets rather than maintained the civilities of debate and talked science instead of using smears and other prejudicial inaccuracies. What this indicates to us from outside the field is that he much prefers to win his arguments with politics rather than with science.

Given our final email exchange, our hopes that he will bother to correct his site mention of NAR seem likely to be dashed.

For what he last wrote to us rather rudely in his third email was his usual vow never to respond to

“individuals who promote the view that HIV either does not exist or does not cause AIDS, individuals that I and others choose to refer to as the “AIDS denialists”.”

Overlooking the fact that this site has never supported the view that HIV does not exist, we replied as follows:

Dear John,

That’s fine, we probably would avoid live discussion if we were in your position too, given the abject weakness of your position judged in the light of the study literature your side has created so extensively and expensively.

But for the second time kindly correct your reference to New AIDS Review as a “conspiracy theory” and a “denialist” site. We at NAR allege no AIDS “conspiracy”, since even the two decade policy of Anthony Fauci of blocking journalists interested in media coverage of HIV∫AIDS critics from using NIAID sources was explicitly stated as the Director’s policy, and is not a conspiracy. The group foolishness of HIV∫AIDS scientists is a matter of collective politics and individual mental paralysis, as far as we are concerned, even though policy and behavior is voluntarily coordinated.

The use of the word “denialist” is also wrongly prejudicial. This site stands by the mainstream scientific literature as the best measure of truth. You deny its import. So if anything you are a “denialist”. This site is not.

Otherwise, my dear chap, you must see that we will have to defend NAR against this public calumny by public complaint, and calling attention to this example of your low standards of “AIDS truth”, even when corrections are offered to you.

John, by not responding to our correction and erasing the misstatement on your site, you will only confirm that you merit no scientific standing in the HIV∫AIDS debate, since you will be showing in public that you do not care about accuracy and knowingly mislead people on the facts.

By the way, also, since you publicly and privately reject the idea of meeting with those who interpret the literature differently, you are making painfully clear that you prefer to exploit AIDS funding for your own ends, at the cost of other people’s health and lives, rather than risk examining your own ideas in live interview or public debate.

In fact, we can think of only one construction to put on your refusal to talk to opponents about your position: it is a most telling symptom of conscious (or, to be kind, unconscious) knowledge of being wrong, especially in such a prominent scientist.

Why otherwise would you be so intent on evading and escaping the logic and exposure of debate, the examination and discussion of your position, and the possible exposure of flaws in your remaining scientific arguments, if there are any?

We believe all the above is correct. Do you object to any of it, and have any reply? Whether you do or not, kindly amend your site.



With no response so far from Moore we can merely repeat that his activities in fighting what he has described to Michael Geiger of HEAL, San Diego as his “war” on the paradigm debunkers betray, in our judgement, just how unscientific is his love for the paradigm.

For by going outside the debate to attack them in a political and underhand manner, the AIDS Truth is clearly that Moore is much more than merely a scientist who genuinely believes that the HIV∫AIDS paradigm is writ in biblical stone, and that all who reexamine the literature and debunk it are heretics to the one true religion, and lives will be lost if they are followed.

For beyond that he is clearly a scientist who believes that the paradigm is sufficiently vulnerable that he must avoid live debate at all costs with naysayers, and he must use political and psychological means to maintain it. In this he is obviously right. The paradigm is so weak that it has lived for twenty two years on artificial life support, and any exposure to bright sunlight will undoubtedly kill it stone dead.

That is why Anthony Fauci and now John Moore see fit to censor debate as much as they possibly can. That is why John Moore will not meet with us to brief us on his position even over lunch, even when we are within thirty blocks of each other and he could easily do so. This is why he likes to call this site quite inaccurately and libelously conspiracy theorist and denialist.

Having examined the issue from outside with no axe of our own to grind, we see him as the obtuse handmaiden of error rolling along in a bandwagon he joined very early in his career which is now slowly changing to a tumbril carting him to his career doom, one approaching a funding guillotine which will eventually fall on his neck whenever the toppling dominoes of the paradigm defense league reach Cornell, perhaps via the nearby Rockefeller University where he once worked, the same Rockefeller University that once ejected David Baltimore for his unscientific behavior.

This we imagine may happen after the court cases questioning HIV∫AIDS lore reach a critical mass, beginning we predict, perhaps optimistically, with the imminent decision of Judge Sullan in Adelaide to let Parenzee’s appeal go forward, on the grounds that the questions raised against the paradigm in the case have produced a reasonable doubt that cannot be dismissed by a judge who lacks the scientific expertise to arbitrate the matter.

For an unproven paradigm presumably cannot be used as grounds for a criminal conviction if the legislation on which the conviction is based was prepared on the understanding that the science was undisputed, and then the science is on appeal revealed to be a matter of serious dispute, which it is if six members of the US National Academy dispute it (Duesberg, Lang, Margulis, Rubin, Strohman, Gilbert).

That would seem to us to be the logic of the grounds for appeal in this case, and in other cases bound to come in the US as well as in Canada. Given his unconvincing bluster in Adelaide we doubt that Gallo will be any more successful as a witness for the paradigm in the US.

In the courts, the bullying methods adopted by Gallo and Moore in trying to repress review of their stock in trade do not wash, and just possibly a Congressional hearing may be on the cards as the next dominoe at some point during the unfolding of Australian, Canadian and US court hearings.

However, with the notHIV scientific truth something that if accepted will make twenty two year old monkeys out of a large swathe of top scientists and officials throughout the world, and bring science into huge disrepute, perhaps nothing like that will ever happen as long as their generation is alive. Their defense is bound to be as ruthless as John Moore’s, even if less honestly admitted.

Let’s see if we are correct in our rash Adelaide prediction, which flouts these eternal verities. Meanwhile, we await John’s correction.

46 Responses to “John Moore’s untruth”

  1. Dan Says:

    we see him as the obtuse handmaiden of error rolling along in a bandwagon he joined very early in his career which is now slowly changing to a tumbril carting him to his career doom

    How many scientists’ and doctors’ careers are based on this scientific/medical boondoggle?

    I feel for many of the people involved in HIV/AIDS…doctors, scientists, researchers, activists, journalists, and so on…as they’ve gone into it with good intentions, unaware though what they’ve gotten themselves into.

    I can understand why Moore, Wainberg and friends are acting the way they are. They’re frightened. They’ve made careers on the foundation of a homophobic, racist paradigm, centered on a retrovirus whose abilities to create medical mayhem pull out all the stops in virology, and then some.

  2. Henry B Says:

    You write “Given his unconvincing bluster in Adelaide we doubt that Gallo will be any more successful as a witness for the paradigm in the US.”

    As I read the transcript of Gallo’s testimony to the Adelaide court, the evasiveness, self-praise, never-admitting-error, blaming others for mistakes, the general TONE of his bluster, reminded me forcefully of Captain Queeg on the stand in “The Caine Mutiny”.

  3. Mark Biernbaum Says:

    They’re not frightened. Believe me. Of us? We can’t even get it together to use our real names and form a real, and active organization apologies to all those involved with RA, but it’s true.

    John Moore and Tony Fauci have nothing to fear from us.

    And that is exactly the problem. And they’ll have nothing to fear from us, until we get ourselves and our acts together, and act — together.

  4. Martin Kessler Says:

    I’m just wondering how closely Moore, Fauci, et al are watching the Austrailian case. If the Judge permits the case to appeal, I think there will be some desperate regrouping of the AIDS establishment for an appeals trial. Hopefully, the appeals case defense shows that the guy is not really infected at all and that the so-called “AIDS tests” are really invalid.

    Mark Biernbaum is correct – one of the main reasons the dissidents don’t have their act together is money. There is no financial gain. The AIDS paradigm comprises many disparate and unrelated diseases, connected by fiat – a positive result on tests that look for what are believed to be antibodies to a retrovirus that no one seems to be able to isolate much less prove uncontrovertably that the said retrovirus causes the diseae(s). Each of the diseases are usually treated differently when they’re not called HIV/AIDS. AIDS would disappear almost as quickly as it showed up if the paradigm falls apart.

  5. Mark Biernbaum Says:

    Thanks, Martin Kessler. I value you and your name.

    Meanwhile, we didn’t get the point of comment about ACT-UP, apparently. Even though it was a simple one: people have to work together. That was the point — all forgotten because of what ACT-UP did with their collective energies. That wasn’t the point.

    The naked truth is clear. We dissidents are, apparently, nothing much to each other. At least — nothing much enough to get together and come out and work together.

    I suppose it’s good to know. But it wasn’t the ending I was hoping for.

  6. Celia Farber Says:

    For the past 20 years, I have known the dissident–scientists and non scientists– to be almost unfailingly generous with the thing that they traffic in, and that is knowledge. Data. Information.

    They talked to me and they explained things to me, always, always, patiently, carefully. Whatever I needed to know. No matter how many times we had to go over it.

    It’s only in the last year that people have grown exhausted and started manifesting the stress. There is a sense of despair that one would hope somebody would have empathy with if you consider how long some people have been at this.

    One of the very first dissidents on earth, the searingly brilliant British former actor Michael Verney Elliot, who first brought the matter to Joan Shenton’s attention, died recently. It has made me think of how close we all used to be, how deeply we talked about everything, how we looked out for one another and truly had affection and laughter and…a circle of…intellectual identity and being. Verney had us roaring with laughter, always, whatever foreign city we convened in–from Geneva to Buenos Aires to London to Amsterdam to Pretoria…to…Berlin.

    Berlin 1993, the year Concorde toppled AZT….that was the year we really thought the madness was over.

  7. Celia Farber Says:

    Need I make clear that no, we didn’t think death was a laughing matter.

    Once we were all at a conference in San Francisco, maybe 1994. One of the AIDS bigwigs (Winkelstein, I think)stood up and castigated Kary Mullis for making the audience laugh. Red faced, he thundered: “Some of us who fight to save lives every day do not appreciate you laughing at this very serious issue Dr. Mullis!”

    To which Kary Mullis replied calmly: “Sir, we’re not laughing at the issue, we’re laughing at you.”

    And with that the audience simply exploded with laughter.

  8. Mark Biernbaum Says:

    I wish I could say that it seems like old times, then. But it doesn’t.

  9. Mark Biernbaum Says:

    This blog has been called out by Moore and his friends. I dare everyone to give them something to actually be afraid of — now that they’ve directed the world to look here.

    I’ll start.

    HIV is not a death sentence. Not even really sure what it is, but it’s not a death sentence. I’ll stand as proof of that.

  10. Dan Says:

    It’s only in the last year that people have grown exhausted and started manifesting the stress. There is a sense of despair that one would hope somebody would have empathy with if you consider how long some people have been at this.

    I’d like to say thank you to those who for so long have been trying to wake us up. I don’t know where you draw the energy from. Thank you to Peter Duesberg, Celia Farber, Harvey Bialy, Liam Scheff, Joan Shenton, Rodney Richards, Christine Maggiore, Robin Scovill, Anthony Liversidge, Rebecca Culshaw, Jon Rappaport, Neville Hodgkinson, David Steele, Stephen Davis, David Rasnick, Charles Geshekter…the list goes on and on. So many people putting their careers and often their well-being on the line to speak the truth.

  11. Celia Farber Says:


    It’s very thoughtful of you to say thank you. My biggest regret personally is that I didn’t thank other people enough and now some of them are gone.

    I don’t know if the history of the dissident movement will wind up being important, but I do wish urgently that the film that is in my head could be downloaded and saved. I wish everybody’s complete story could be recorded. We only know a fraction.

    What Burroughs Wellcome did to Meditel is a chapter of the history that has always haunted me. What happened to Jad Adams, Neville Hodgkinson, and to Joan Shenton, Lauritsen, Ortleb, Giraldo, and others, is still not properly documented. And many early dissidents were swept away from sheer…trauma and stress.

    There is an ethos of shaming that forces such testimonies into silence because nobody is (yet) supposed to talk about what was done to them. There is a fear of martyrdom and self pity. As in families, people’s real emotions are shunned.

    It’s a strange lack of empathy.

    But one day in the future when we are all un-frozen, and the template is ready, the stories will start to get recorded in full. Everything was much more strange and extreme than anybody realized at the time.

    Question is, does it matter?

    Does it matter only who prevailed, succeeded, or does it also matter who died trying?

  12. Celia Farber Says:

    TS, why not designate a thread to healthy HIV positives, one day? Just that. Let each tell their story. They can remain anonymous or not, whatever they prefer.

    ((Yes, we are inclined to think that this site should become a respository for the stories of the brave, idealistic, and decent men and women who have had the sense and courage to speak up for truth and science in this Coliseum where the Chrustians are fed to the lions, so that there can be a full record to inspire the youth of the world. Anyone who wishes to post such tales in Comments, pleasse do so. We shall start a thread with a proper post as soon as we can.- Ed.))

  13. Martin Kessler Says:

    As long as we characterize those who receive a result that is interpreted as “positive” on the pseudo-medical antibody test with the adjective HIV, we are using the language of the establishment – sort of like advertising HIV. That’s like characterizing “Intelligent Design” as a theory as an alternate explaination to the legitimate theory: Evolution. Intelligent Design is not a theory, it isn’t even a hypothesis – it can’t be tested. HIV has been proposed as an explaination to the sicknesses people have been experiencing – that has not been proven. As long as those who have received the “positive” interpretation believe they are authentically infected with HIV, we are aggrandizing the establishment whether it’s true or not.

  14. Mark Biernbaum Says:

    A note from a certain person:

    Date: March 17, 2007 12:45:00 PM EDT

    To: “Mark Biernbaum” <>



  15. Mark Biernbaum Says:

    And that will be that for me. Best of luck! I guess I better go reread Foucault.

  16. Mark Biernbaum Says:

    Mmm. One more thing that bears pointing out — for anyone who’s read the Schmidt paper on the Group Fantasy origin of AIDS. In one short email, a certain person manages to regurgitate all the hatred that is so central, according to Schmidt, to the leitmotif that helped created this situation in the first place.

  17. Orange Says:

    I think that debate is good-but at some point worthless. Good because lots of people are not aware that there is a debate and think that the ARV’s are the only answer. We are not given choice. Sometimes I think debatr is worthless because to many whose life work and income are based on HIV=AIDS-to debate them is to debate their “Religion” with Gallo as “God.” It is a belief so strong I watched someone show the orthodox a man in his 40’s never on ARV drugs with Hemophilia and all they say is: “There is always someone off the bell curve.” Can you think of anything more upsetting-talk about immuno-surpressive? One fights their whole life to live against everyones negativity and in the end they loose anyway because the system is built for patients to fit their paradigm. Sorry if I’m sounding negative-but I feel it’s the truth.

    In my view if someone test “positive” find a doctor-some kind of support team-who believes in you. I know it’s easier said than done but, otherwise-you go into a hospital being “HIV positive” and all your care will be filtered through that label. Everything wrong with you will be because you are not on your HIV meds-you’ll get an “HIV” Social Worker-not a regular one-everyone has their hand in this big “HIV” money pot. Thats’s how it works-in the orthodox world of HIV/AIDS “Science”-money talks and ideas are hung on to until beliefs change.

  18. Celia Farber Says:

    If you stay in this for too long, it can turn you into a person you no longer recognize. It can turn the most luminous human being into a monster, by way of its spiritual necrosis, its way of killing off all that lives, everything you cherish–finally, love itself, and the capacity to be human, to be patient and not to strike out and abuse and scream and threaten and punish. These are prison conditions, the behavior of prisoners. I do it too. But it is the most dangerous thing in the world–to start manifesting the hate that is projected.

    If I go silent, I would like you to know that it is because I had to totally heal and rebuild my own person, back to somebody who doesn’t ever bully other people, or disrespect them in any way. I have a long way to go. I understand the dissident rage very well and I forgive it very easily. This is a form of psychic torture and it can gone on for way too long.

    Remember: Kindness is all.

  19. Truthseeker Says:

    And that will be that for me. Best of luck!

    Mark, we should note for the record that this capitalized email that you have posted above from anothr distinguished contributor does not refer to outing gays, but to your view that all those who support the review and revision of the unacceptable conventional paradigm in HIV∫AIDS should give their real name as far as possible.

    What you say has great merit, for attaching one’s name to something of this kind is an act of courage in the face of reflex crowd disapproval and the sometimes vicious retaliation of Mark Wainberg types, a courage which speaks volumes for the view expressed, since it adds credentials, one of them being commitment to what one says, taking responsibility for it, and so forth.

    “Stand up and stand for, or you stand still,” “no names no pack drill”, “put your money where your mouth is” etc etc

  20. Mark Biernbaum Says:

    Thanks, TS. Only one correction. I think that the “distinguished contributor” would be better said, now at least, as “contributor who has now unfortunately distinguished himself,” etc etc

  21. Truthseeker Says:

    (cont. after interruption by Steve Jobs)

    However, let’s not forget that people may have very good reasons for keeping their names off the list. Perhaps you should ask them privately first why it is that they strongly support good science and discussion, review and revision of this paradigm, but need to remain anonymous.

    This site has a rule that people may be anonymous for that reason. All we ask in that people use intelligent pseudonyms, preferably meaningful ones, and not dimwitted and meaningless ones as so often in the junior on line world.

    Just remember, those who use their real names may never eat lunch in this town again, if Moore, Mark Wainberg, Fauci etc have their way. Of course, this is assuming that our rather new friend John Moore is not an undercover agent of enlightenment here, choosing to cloak his support for a revision of the paradigm he knows is hollow under the guise of publicising it at every turn so effectively.

    We have every reason to suspect that this is the case, and that John, our new undercover comrade in arms, will one day get the Nobel Peace prize along with Duesberg and Bialy for being one of the most important fighters for truth and beauty in HIV∫AIDS after all.

    Perhaps he may learn gentler manners then, since his inner conflict at the compartmentalising distortions he has to go through to keep his brain from wandering into reality will be finally eased.

  22. Mark Biernbaum Says:

    Oh, TS! So sad. You ALMOST showed some guts. Almost.

  23. Orange Says:


    If this is somewhat off topic I apologize. The link above is of a nightly newscast I saw a few days ago. The last piece in the broadcast is called: “The Deep.” And, I thought that it promotes the idea of how big this world is and how much science has yet to learn. It’s basically about new DNA and other things recently found in the ocean. At the end there is a quote that goes something like: “There are 10 new viruses for every new organism foundâ€? and I think that supports the idea of viruses as part of us and not our enemy. I think it can be connected to the “different” view of AIDS-because I think it gives the Dissident perspective, although most probably unwillingly, a lot of support. It starts about 19 minutes and 32 seconds into the broadcast. Science is always evolving because the world is always evolving. The big question is are the views of Doctors evolving along with the new discoveries in science as a whole? I’ve watched this broadcast a lot in the last few days because it really cheers me up-I feel a small hope for humanity again. Obviously, my answer to my question is no. But, so many new things are being found- I think that Medical Science will be in a sense ‘forced’ to evolve to benefit the grater good of humanity and not drug companies. At least-I hope with every fiber of my being that it will.

  24. Truthseeker Says:

    Oh, TS! So sad. You ALMOST showed some guts. Almost.

    Insulting the host? Oh dear. Is that right? Sometimes it seems that you are not emotionally balanced in this or other comments here, Mark, perhaps because you are so passionate in your support of the right values.

    It is not a matter of guts, it is a matter of policy, which we have stated, and the reasons for it, which we have also stated, with as many guts as we can muster, given that fact that you don’t seem to care to think about the problem socially. At least, here you show no interest in why people might have a good reason not to fall in with your urgent desires.

    If you have something to say on either the policy or the reasons for it, feel free, we are not political geniuses.

    Obvously the email you received was intemperate, to say the least, and probably of the moment (in fact was, it seemed clear, after we looked into it), but that is the restricted (to a few people) reaction of someone who may be fed up with your ignoring the things at stake here, one of which is that everyone has a right to decide for themselves whether they will give their real name or not, and another the price they may have to pay for doing so.

    Misplaced passion is after all what we accuse the boneheads of who support the problematic paradigm as if it was a religion and obligatory to burn the heretics on a cross of social ostracism and non funding. Let’s try to set them a good example.

    But as Celia says, perhaps this whole movement is about to self-immolate in bickering, the way mavericks tend to do, unless they keep their eye on the ball.

    You’re a good man, Mark, perhaps you should pour your extra passion into reviewing the paradigm again until you feel you can commit yourself to rejecting it completely, and then carrying that conviction to others, rather than trying to convince others they should all go public, when that might cut them off completely from access to information and resources they need to resist effectively.

    After all, you wouldn’t suggest that our most useful new recruit, John ‘Mad Macaque’ Moore, reveal his true colors, would you?

  25. Mark Biernbaum Says:

    We’re all a bit too complacent regarding homophobia here. And whether or not (a certain person) wrote what he did in a fit of passion, TS — he wrote it. The unconscious expresses itself best when stressed. Those were his true feelings. That others find them acceptable or excusable — well, that says a lot, I think, about the company I’ve been keeping. It certainly has served as a wake-up call. I certainly cannot, in good conscience, attempt to wake up other gay men, given the fact that sentiments like these exist amongst the dissidents.

    I’ve no need to review the paradigm. I rejected it outright right here on this blog.

    Courage comes in one form in this debate — and one form only. Announcing your name and intentions to fight. Everything else, I’m afraid, is just a lame excuse for hiding in the shadows. And (this person) was fine with his being known worldwide on YBYL — so his objections here do not have anything to do with the anonymity you find so compelling — they have everything to do with his hatred for gays. This is Psych 101, TS. Very simple stuff. Try reasoning it out again. Maybe this time, you’ll get it right.

  26. Mark Biernbaum Says:

    I think it sadly appropos that anyone that Moore directs here now will see what lies beneath the surface. Certainly, any gay man directed here by Moore will come away with — hmmm — you can finish that thought.

  27. Truthseeker Says:

    Homophobia is not the topic of this blog, Mark. Nor was it the trigger for the email as far as we can see. Therefore we will remove the whole sequence, unless you or anyone else objects. A very distinguished contributor has already objected to its remaining on the site, though apparently unwilling to say so in public.

    You yourself say above that this site is not going to give the right impression if it displays such messages. Why you wish to post it is not clear. We have objected in the past to this kind of distraction. The topic of this blog is the science and politics of the HIV∫AIDS paradigm. Speculation as to the homophobia of actors in this drama is only relevant as a general factor,and particular accusations by participants in Comments against people who have sent them email they object to, and display of the email, is not relevant and is distracting and alienating, as far as we can see.

    Much as we hate to expunge the record, it seems necessary in this case, for the very reason you have stated. It associates the site with a personal dispute in an issue that is only of general interest to its purpose.

  28. Truthseeker Says:

    I’ve no need to review the paradigm. I rejected it outright right here on this blog.

    You have accepted that HIV is not the cause of AIDS in any way? If so, congratulations.

  29. Celia Farber Says:

    I object to one person posting another person’s emails on the Internet, regardless of their content.

  30. Truthseeker Says:

    In this case it was a group email, which perhaps lets Mark off the moral hook to some extent. Group email is considered public by the courts when suing for libel. In this case, however, it was very personal, and clearly not intended for public consumption. Posting it contravenes another principle, too, of not washing dirty laundry in public.

    That is why it has been anonymized, and Mark, if you don’t mind, please stop trying to put the names back.

  31. Truthseeker Says:

    Remember: Kindness is all.

    But Celia, we believe we are kind, and have been kind all our life. For example, we always help old ladies cross the road, pat friendly dogs, and have been patient with the deluded, but it hasn’t done us any good at all, sad to report.

    Even when we were kind to John P. Moore, and invited him to lunch to confess his sins, he merely replied that it wasn’t “a tea party”, and he had no intention of communing with reformers of our ilk.

    In fact, we believe he has kept the offending post up on his not so truthful site, referring to NAR inaccurately as an influential “conspiracy theorist/denialist site”, so kindness has only resulted in his maintaining his bad behavior, like a child.

    What children need, as Supernanny shows weekly, are boundaries and discipline, as well love and kindness. Otherwise they just take advantage in competing for more and more attention.

    Or as in this case, Moore and Moore attention.

  32. Michael Says:

    I am sure we can turn a negative into a positive.

    I think, that with just a bit of tweaking, MacDonald’s letter and Mark’s post is quite appropriate to this thread!


  33. Celia Farber Says:

    I have no idea what we are talking about anymore.

  34. Truthseeker Says:

    Good one, Michael. He He. Oops, sorry, blogger should maintain serious unruffled demeanor at all times to preserve dignity and authoritative judgement, and humor is considered a non leadership quality, unless heavy footed, among the clergy and congregation of the religion of which our friend John is the enforcer (ten Hail HIVs please, before breakfast, lunch and dinner, or else excommunication). And after all there are thousands of lives and so forth at stake among the misguided, at whom we have no right to laugh.

    But John, we are not laughing at the topic, we are laughing at you (thanks Kary). And you know what? A sense of humor (genuine, including the ability to laugh at oneself) is a fundamental indicator of decency among men, like the love of animals, or music.

    Indeed it is the litmus test of a good scientist, as we know from one on one chats with the great, such as the inveterate giggler Jim Watson, or the epitome of a decent scientific thinker Peter Medawar, God rest his soul.

    Peter Duesberg passes this litmus test with flying colors. So of course does the sharp toothed Cuernevaca chihuaha, whose mirth flies into realms unreachable by the ordinary mortal, except when one reads his email dances with Moore, which would tickle the funny bone of an electric eel. May even be written by an electric eel for all we know.

    Thank God for humor, and for John’s lack of it, which allows him to post such things as if they spoke for him, when they speak so well for his merciless Nemesis and the insurgency he leads.

  35. david burd Says:

    Thinking of mirth usually absent from the usual dry-as-good-martini science, Sir Duesberg is the champion. I particularly appreciate his Alumni Talk (1993?) when he was mentioning how someone without B-cells was like leaving your door open on Telegraph Ave. in Berkeley -“anything might move in.” At any rate, the NY Times, bastion of Lawrence Altman, their last Sunday Magazine featured how cosmologists cannot explain (much less figure out the questions) why they posit that 94% of the entire matter of the Universe is unaccounted for – without any sane hypotheses coming forth.

    Hence they are counting on a multi-billion new generation of particle accelerators currently being constructed and planned for to provide them tools to figure out even the questions!

    This reminds me of the billions now being spent for creating hiv vaccine(s), a cosmic practical joke in its own right! Something (the vaccine) to give the World’s poor unwashed in Africa and India, etc., the ability to produce hiv-antibodies! Which is, of course, the hallmark of a doomed individual as pronounced back in 1984, and continuing today.

    So, combining two different realms, I suggest the completely perplexed cosmologists should spend some brain power (and of course billions of dollars) on how HIV could actually be the cause of all the missing matter in the Universe! Hell, HIV performs miracles everyday in Fauci’s World that far surpass the mysteries of black holes and double-dwarf X-ray stars that we are supposed to believe as told by todays cosmologists! But, at least they admit, unlike Moore and Fauci, some incomprehension.

  36. Truthseeker Says:

    But, at least they admit, unlike Moore and Fauci, some incomprehension

    Alas yes, they comprehend their incomprehension, and are willing to admit it, therefore. Whereas Moore and Fauci don’t even comprehend their incomprehension, unless of course they are lying, which is beyond the realm of possibility, of course.

    Well, not beyond the realm of possibility that they are lying to themselves. But of course Moore would never lie to himself. He is too busy lying to others, and it would be too confusing to lie to himself as well, Or is it the other way around?

    Whatever, he is an honest man, and we shall prove it in our next post, which will show how his recent article in the International AIDS Society newsletter is a prominent piece of promotion for the achievements of his supposed opponents over the past two years.

    It is already written out but we are looking for more pictures of monkeys to put with it.

  37. Martin Kessler Says:

    Doubt and dissent characterize both real science and the AIDS Dissenters. Certainty and consensus characterize the AIDS Establishment and religions.

  38. MacDonald Says:

    I find it troubling that the attitude of the editor of this blog towards those he claims to be trying to inform, even save, is one of condescension and disinterest:

    Anthony L Mar 17

    I just skim this stuff not worth eyeing it word by word by word. Also all Web stuff too easily misinterpreted to react to ((without great care – Ed.)).

  39. Orange Says:

    I think he is honest-he did not read the whole thing and is not saying he did-thus by being honest he left the door open for criticism. That’s what being honest does. I wish the mainstream would do that-but to them if one lived forty years without AIDS drugs-it’s just because they are ‘off the bell curve’ no room for talking, thinking, or publicly admitting that maybe they did not do all their homework. For the orthodox-for the people who base others lives and make their livings off of HIV=AIDS there is no room to admit wrong doing.

  40. MacDonald Says:

    Oh I’m sure the blo’ host is honest when he says he doesn’t read. Here are some further honest speculations from a perfect English gentleman.

    from Anthony L

    You complain about non scientific antics when you do them in spades yourself. Have to be honest with you it looks as if you are gay and have all kinds of overreactions and paranoia that a non gay such as myself doesnt easily see. You seem to be doing a Mark in that regard

  41. Truthseeker Says:

    MacDonald, in the absence of your previously urbane good humor you have been asked to keep off this blog. Kindly honor the request of the blogger. You are being a divisive force, distracting from the discussion which saves lives to air your personal prejudices and opinions to the detriment of other posters. Keep them for private email as we do.

    We are not ashamed of not spending the time poring over Comments that you do, since we are interested in the actual discussion and the points relevant to that, and not in your fuming over the fact that others do not see the things the way you do, and sending them obscene and insulting emails to teach them better.

    Perhaps if you expressed yourself more clearly and straightforwardly people would get your points and you would not be driven to resort to capitalized email expostulations of a derogatory nature to drive them home, a singularly self defeating activity if there ever was one.

  42. mark Says:

    Thank you, Truthseeker, for adhering to Whitehead’s philosophy that intercourse should be of persuasion rather than force, or its cousin irrationality. The irony being that gentle persuasion is indeed forceful.

    As a gay man, I hear all too often the misperceived injustices seen by my brothers from all quarters disagreeing with them on some point or another. From blacks, whites, and gays; all groups can become Don Quixotes charging at windmills of imaginary slights only to miss the real compulsions by governments, and in this case the National Institutes of Health, to force a deadly paradigm on us all.

  43. Mark Biernbaum Says:

    Oh my. I suppose I should feel like a celebrity. All this attention. I suppose it illustrates well how people project qualitites, characteristics, and even motivatons onto the virtual image of others that is available to them on line.

    If one were to take what has been written here literally, one would guess that everyone who posts here is an intimate of mine, so confident is everyone in their conclusions. But no one here is an intimate of mine. That I, for reasons not entirely clear, have become some sort of lightning rod for gays and straights alike to project assumptions and generalities upon, is clear.

    Wouldn’t it be foolish of me to attempt to correct these projections through this virtual medium? It wouldn’t be possible. So, I just point the phenomenon out instead. Carry on with my best wishes — sincerely. But perhaps keep in mind how measly our knowledge is of one another, and therefore, how easy it is to build an image of another that feels consistent with one’s own beliefs. I am what you believe I am in this medium. If we actually knew each other, that might be different. For now though, I’m simply what you decide to make me, all deadly paradigms (and there are in fact, many) aside.

  44. Truthseeker Says:

    Just so there is no misunderstanding, the position of this blog is that there is no difference between gay or straight (or black or woman or Martian) when it comes to trying to discern the truth behind scientific claims, since physical reality is unmoved by political or cultural forces, however much they may affect the behavior of human beings.

    To think otherwise is to ask whether Einstein, Newton, Ernst, Duesberg, Fauci or Gallo were or are gay or not, and think that it must be found out before we assess their scientific claims. Of course, motivations for sticking to false claims is another matter. There, being gay may well be relevant to why some people stick to HIV being the sole cause or even a cause of immune dysfunction, since it lets them off the hook of being accused of behavior some may find reprehensible, which is equally unscientific an opinion.

    But motivation for belief is not a scientific consideration in assessing whether the belief is false or not. Of course, money, power, position, politics, friendship, ignorance, gayhate, nationality, education, all the human motivations in the dictionary can affect the existence of the belief in the HIV∫AIDS paradigm in any one person. The truly scientifically minded enquirer ignores all of it, however. We simply ask, does the claim match the scientific literature, and the answer to that question has long been plainly No to anyone who examines the belief without bias.

    But wait. Of course, then one has to deal with the question, does the scientific literature all make sense, and were all the studies it reports done well?

    In the case of HIV∫AIDS, it seems that the paradigm is supported by a huge literature which uses it as a premise, and occasionally warps the research knowingly or not to fit the preconception. This literature has to be set aside.

    The important point is that the undisputed results in the literature all say No, the paradigm is a non starter, and there is a complete absence of results which confirm it.

    This is what results in the absurd situation where intelligent outsiders who go along with the paradigm, like Jim Watson or Bill Clinton, are reduced to saying, The drugs work, so it must be HIV that causes AIDS.

    This of course is arguing post hoc ergo propter hoc or whatever the Latin is for After this, therefore on account of this and not a scientific argument until the study showing it is controlled for other factors. The wonderful thing about drug studies in AIDS research, as we have pointed out in posts, is that they dispensed with controls long, long ago.

    But anyway the literature shows otherwise. The drugs do not work to save lives in the long run, in fact they help keep the number of deaths up, and their perceived beneficial short term effects are explicable by papers in the scientific and medical literature which show the same effects arising from other causes, as we have noted in posts.

    Of course, if you follow the money, you begin to realize that all of it is on the side of the paradigm, like many other very strong motivations, including the political and funding advantage for the gays. But that is unscientific, so it has nothing to say about which side is right or wrong. We accuse no one of such bias, because there is no scientific evidence for it.

    Bottom line however is that, stripped of politics and human motivations, and setting incorrect interpretations of the literature aside, there is nothing in the peer reviewed literature to prove the paradigm, or even to support it. In answer to the question, where is the beef? the answer has to be, this is a bun with no hamburger.

    If this is the case, is there any real difference between the salesmen of HIV∫AIDS and the salesmen of Florida land parcels located in crocodile infested marshland?

    That is not a scientific question, so we cannot answer it.

  45. Dave Says:

    TS writes:

    The drugs work, so it must be HIV that causes AIDS.

    This of course is arguing post hoc ergo propter hoc or whatever the Latin is for After this, therefore on account of this and not a scientific argument until the study showing it is controlled for other factors.

    Also, it’s a question of which “drugs”. Surely, these tools aren’t arguing that “AZT works, so therefore HIV causes AIDS”

    They are impliedly arguing that “HAART works, therefore HIV must cause AIDS.”

    But, HAART was introduced in 1996 or so. Are they arguing that in the pre-HAART era of 1981-1995, the cause of AIDS was still an open question?

  46. Truthseeker Says:

    Are they arguing that in the pre-HAART era of 1981-1995, the cause of AIDS was still an open question?

    Yes, pretty much, we would say you are putting your finger on the key implication of the remark, which is that it amounts to an admission of the lack of other good reasons to think that HIV causes AIDS. This is what drives them to land on this association as a rather belated resolution of a puzzle which otherwise never had any better solution, which is the slack of proof that HIV causes AIDS.

    That is definitely what is implied, as far as we can see, by making this statement. We’ve always thought so. Final proof finally arrived, at last – but what a weak proof.

    Should correct the above Comment: the thing really isn’t post hoc ergo propter hoc, it is just the mistake of imagining without any proof that the beneficial effect of a poison shows it is acting against the putative cause of an illness, when it is really more likely just a temporary cure for some of its symptoms.

    Don’t read on unless you are prepared for strong stuff:

    The digestive problems of AIDS victims stem from the parasites which gather in the absence of a good immune response, which interfere with the absorption of nutrients which supply the body’s defenses and weaken them further. Some rather persuasively suggest that the parasites invoved are mostly fungal rather than bacterial, especially since PCP turned out to be fungal. So if you take the poison of toxic drugs that will kill off the candidiasis and possibly the PCP and you will feel very much better for that reason. Here the literature has to be checked to see if this is true, but it makes sense, particularly since it is not well known, as a distinguished contributor to this site has recently informed us, that gays in particular used to cleanse their relevant body parts with such vigor that they lost most of their protective flora and fauna. In other words, their passion for cleanliness led to their physical downfall, since they then became more susceptible to invaders rather than less. Poison might be the short run antidote in this case.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

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