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.

NAR wins Clinton’s ear for a moment

Exchange in MOMA establishes Bill is no puppet of NIAID

His actively critical position same as Jim Watson’s: the drugs work don’t they?

Always willing to plunge into the fray on behalf of our faithful readers, we followed the master plan announced on NAR yesterday and a) attended the showing of “Pills, Profits and Protest: Chronicle of the Global AIDS Movement” at CUNY and b) won the ear of President Clinton for a moment, which, even though we were surrounded by a press of rival admirers clamoring for the blessing of his attention, succeeded in prompting a remarkable exchange on the dread topic of the Virus and its powers.

At CUNY, the little publicised event attracted about thirty people, almost all women, to this showing of an hour long video by co-directors Ann-christine d’Adesky, Shanti Avirgan and Ann Rossetti on the successes of virtuously motivated activists in Brasil and elsewhere in winning access to damaging drugs at a cheaper price than before.

Afterwards there was a panel consisting of Shanti Avirgan (pic, right – click photos twice to make much larger), who is with the Department of Anthropology at New York University, Shirley Lindenbaum (left) a bright and fluently appreciative academic professor from the Anthropology department of CUNY and Jennifer Klot of the HIV/AIDS Program, Social Science Research Council, a lady well versed in the intellectual extrapolations of AIDS activist politics. The predictable theme of the comment was congratulations all round for the tireless efforts of all in this cause, particularly women, tied to their concern for domestic violence, and the need to pursue the same objective tirelessly in places the film had not treated, like Eastern Europe and Thailand. Brasil came in for particular honor for its early move to make the drugs available to all.

Two facts were of special interest to us: a) the expert anthropologists had neglected to consider the anthropology of medicine and science, and had no idea at all that the human motivations and behavior of medical and scientific authorities might be the same old game as that of the drug companies, who came in for universal suspicion and condemnation for their desire for profits for their shareholders. They could understand that drug companies might be motivated by profit but that doctors and scientists might be motivated by self interest to cut corners or worse as a permanent tendency of their respective tribes seemed to be beyond their consideration. Perhaps it was too far away from the ivory tower to be noticed.

But secondly and more importantly b) there was present a classic example of the drug taking patient who by his very existence seems to contradict the fears of the dissenters in HIV∫AIDS, since he had been taking, he claimed, more than the normal amount of HAART drugs for over ten years at the behest of his doctor who favored an aggressive level of treatment. According to his friends present, who included the academics who had mounted the show, he had been in hospital and at death’s door, and the arrival of HAART had saved him. Now he appeared full of vigor and full cheeked, saying he had suffered fat displacement in the past but that the phase had passed and he now felt as full of energy as he ever had.

All we can say in line with the fears of the AIDS critics is that we once again had that familiar sense that he reeked of germs, which we fancy we detect through smell and through a sensation in the back of our nose and throat, admittedly a subjective response, but frequent when we have enountered AIDS patients over the years. But in behavior our new friend was confident, energized and happy to credit the drugs with keeping him alive and well.

We will fill out the above report later and follow up on both aspects with further checking.

Extraordinary exchange with Clinton

It was bearing that anecdotal, contradictory evidence of the man’s vigor in mind anew that we then dropped in on the party at MOMA, to see if by chance we could somehow connect with either Clinton and Gates, and get them to take us seriously enough to give us the name of a staff member to send information to as to what is really going on behind the scenes in HIV∫AIDS, and what the literature actually tells us about the viability of the paradigm.

Sampling the barbecued rib and the tuna at a table in the thick of the crowd we chatted to an FT reporter about our purpose, and to our surprise – perhaps in a spirit of devilish experimentation at no cost to himself – he encouraged us to do it. So armed with this unexpected support from a fellow Englishman, we plunged into the scrum of assiduous supplicants surrounding Clinton nearby and succeeded in winning his attention and broaching the topic.

“Mr President”, we said, we have “something very important to tell you, and would like to have an email address or the name of one of your staff to send it to, and be sure you get it!” “Really?” said the great man – indeed he is great in stature, seemingly about six foot six – “What is it about?” So we told him. And to our amazement, he was hooked by the issue. Instead of physically slipping away from the idea like a startled fish, which is the way of almost all politicians and political players in this game that we have encountered in public, he actually addressed the topic.

At first, he had the predictable reflex response that no, he had fully considered the alternative, and was convinced there was nothing in it, because it was simply too clear that those who took the anti-HIV drugs did so much better than those who did not. For some reason on some basis, however, which we will fill in later from our notes of the exact words used, he didn’t lose interest so we continued the exchange by telling him that we thought he was misled, that there was every reason to think that Mbeki was right and that we would send him something on it. One thing he did say – he was convinced that the drug trials were rotten. Could he have been reading Harper’s?

What was significant in all this was the fact that our President emeritus averred he had indeed looked into the issue very carefully, and had come to his own conclusions about it. In fact, we renewed the interchange for a moment after he had moved on by gripping him on the arm and telling him appreciatively that “at least you are a thinking politician, well done!” This got him to turn back to us yet again and assure us enthusiastically that indeed he had studied it carefully himself and not simply taken the advice of a staff member. Surely this is a remarkable statement by someone who is also the consummate politician – Clinton’s Rhodes scholar mind is as alive as ever and he is in the prime of life. No wonder he is moving mountains with his global causes.

Clinton then moved on to engage other much more distinguished greeters and we stood there for a minute contemplating him in admiration too – surely there is no man of his political stature who has combined such genuine charisma with a Rhodes scholar level of mental attention to ideas taken by all too many people as beyond their ken, curtained off in the “science” department, and here he was literally in the rosy pink of good health, emanating vibrancy and the joy of purposeful existence from every pore.

Change the constitution!

No wonder the pretty women flocked around wideyed with their digital cameras, and the personable and sleek suited men were anxious to shake his hand. Later, at the nearby Papillon Bistro Bar where the press were corralled, a tall reporter standing next to me as Clinton came downstairs and halted in the entrance area, once again surrounded by and intensely engaged with one supporter after another, exclaimed that it was a very great shame for this country that this man is prevented from running again for an office that he could now fill with so much more experience and skill than anyone else around.

And indeed, this live Clinton encounter showed us what television and the press cannot – that this is a man of almost heroic distinction in a group of dimensions – personality, political skill, celebrity flair, intellectual alertness and address, and applied idealism in the cause of human need on a global scale – probably not matched by any other in memory, at least in our experience of encountering public figures in person.

The excitement and full bodied distinction of the Clinton Global Initiative event, of the presidents of corporations and countries who have flocked to participate in his event and his cause, and the quality and energy of the personnel who now man his organization, were all immediately apparent to the visitor, and they all clearly stem from the physical charisma and eternally attentive mind of an extraordinary man.

If anything will ever change in HIV∫AIDS, it is clearly most likely if Clinton can be persuaded to review the matter again in the light of what the literature actually says, and not what he believes it says. So we intend to send him a letter outlining why he should do so, just as soon as the event is over. For today, we return to see if we can buttonhole Jimmy Carter or Bill Gates with equal success, however unlikely that may be, since Gates has in fact apparently decamped.

20 Responses to “NAR wins Clinton’s ear for a moment”

  1. McKiernan Says:

    CDC Backs HIV Test for All Between 13-64

  2. Martin Kessler Says:

    Would there be anyone who would have the where-withall and a good lawyer to sue to force an attempt at viral isolation with an independent observer like Harvey Bialy should they be forced to have an “HIV Test” and obtain a “positive” result?

  3. Claus Says:


    It’s only to be expected of an epiphanous experience of the kind you’ve shared above that fresh kindled hero-worship should have swelled your mortal chest and made your heart soar: like the wind in billowing sails seems to lift a mundane scooner from its wont element in a transport of joy into the Westernmost sun, as it smiles upon us ‘neath twilit skies the fleeting, precious instant that sees its august presence hovering on the edge of the world then extinguished in the very matter from which it liberated us a short, eternal second.

    My humble, unaccomplished self harbours similar adolescent sentiments whenever it finds itself in the company of some radiant personage or other whose money, power and sex appeal eclipses its own.

    However, may I suggest next time you nip cocktails with a president, instead of taking a his earnest assurances as surrogate markers of outstanding integrity and scholarship, you prepare your own short easy-to-read-and-comprehend publication which you press into his hand whilst you’re otherwise engaged in complimenting him on his open mind and good looks?

  4. TS Says:

    We report what happened, and the facts, not any distortion, Claus. We are not impressed by image, status, or any other elements of the kind you imply. We reported what Clinton said, and how he behaved, and our estimate of its sincerity, which was clearly high on the genuine scale. We were there, you were not, so your response is a work of imagination, fertile enough but without scientific validity. We can assure you the report is accurate. Whether things change and whether Clinton’s response is maintained only time will tell. Our guess is that there is a 20 per cent chance of briefing him further, if presented efficiently and clearly. But that estimate is a work of the imagination, though again, not distorted by hero worship.

    We must say that it is a sorry society we live in where men cannot be credited with exceptional qualities without being accused of stirring hero worship. This applies also to Peter Duesberg, one of the great scientists of our time, in our sober view.

  5. Claus Says:

    I’m not detracting from president Clinton’s personal qualities, which I’m sure are as exceptional as Bush Jr’s are not.

    After all it takes a lot of personality to deprive the population of an entire African country of their domestically manufactured medical supply with one single missile, then tell them to deliver proof from the rubble left that the factory bombed did NOT produce dangerous chemicals.

    To thus achieve an estimated 10,000 civilian deaths all in all without getting a single terrorist tops anything even Bush-CHeney-Rumsfeld have achieved with just one shot. And to think the man pulled it off while he was distracted the most by that “woman” he definitely didn’t have sex with. Wow!!

    Tell me something, what did you expect the man to answer? “Well Mr. TS now that you mention it, I must admit that I’ve actually never looked into the issue of HIV/AIDS myself. But the drugs seems to work candy-dandy, although I’ve heard somewhere the drug trials stink, so what the hell let’s give big Pharma a shot – just like we did in Sudan if you know what I mean winkwink, nudgenudge”

    Quite seriously, what did you expect the smoothest Don Juan around to say other than exactly what he did say?

  6. Truthseeker Says:

    Quite seriously, what did you expect the smoothest Don Juan around to say other than exactly what he did say?

    Well, since you evidently don’t see it, behind all your anti-Clinton politicking about his Sudan factory demolition (don’t forget how near he came to hitting Bin Laden and averting 9/11), and his private White House office investigation of the extent of internal cooperation, let’s have a look.

    Any public person shaking hands with a mob of adoring females and admiring men doesn’t have to interrupt it one second to deal with inappropriately timed offers to enlighten him or a staff member on a “matter of importance”, especially when the unexpected messenger is as unimpressive in appearance as the NAR staff member who unwisely attempted this unlikely intervention. How about “Thanks very much, delighted to hear about it, why don’t you call my office on Monday, we’re in the book, hello, how are you (to someone else), etc etc”, no pause in main activity, time involved effectively nil?

    No interruption of handshaking, no review then and there of the topic concerned, no paragraph long review of his thinking, no repeated return to the topic, no energetic pride in his own independent minded review, however limited in source (possibly just the State Department briefing dismissing Mbeki as a fool, please humor him, but you never know, maybe Clinton also googled briefly or asked some staff member to look into it, call Fauci or whatever, and read one or more special memos on it), and no vehement conviction in his initial answer on the topic, and no card supplied to call his right hand man. Not sure why we have to repeat all this since it was in the post, except for the card, which is not significant.

    The key point as stated before is that Clinton showed he found the topic interesting and had devoted his mind to the topic long enough to come to his own firm conclusion, though the firmness is suspect, of course. If he feels he wasn’t fully informed and isn’t fully decided then he might be firm rather than reasonable and cautious. The kind of upfront firmness he showed we thought was more than just the kind when you know that you don’t really know for sure but you know what everyone else thinks and you have checked it out for yourself sufficiently to satisfy yourself it made good sense and you don’t want to open the can of worms again, but you want your independent mind and individual effort recognized. It was somewhat more than that.

    Here we are speculating, sure, but at least we were there, so our judgement is informed by actual live experience of how he behaved. We’ll grant you that possibly our estimate of the chances of actually getting some more information into Clinton’s mind may be too high at 20%. Currently our revised estimate is 18 per cent.

    Well OK we think there is an 15 per cent chance of getting through with revisionist information, if skillfully done. Since you find our report so unconvincing perhaps we ought to reduce it further. But since the whole effort at overturning a $140 billion juggernaut by sniping at it from the Web is fueled by a foolhardy and totally unjustified optimism, we will stick at 15 to be consistent.

  7. Claus Says:

    Actually, I think it IS remarkable Clinton took the time and effort to show such a firm stance, and protest such independence in arriving at it, although I’m sure your appearance, if not comparable to the adoring and adorable young females in the pictures, was at least as respectable and dignified as any of the admiring males.

    To continue my cynical line, but allowing it to merge with your ‘foolhardy optimism’, maybe this is another sign “THEY” feel the dissident heat so much these days they’ve decided they cannot afford to ignore it any longer.

    The vehemence you’ve reported, the strange fact that the great man expended so much of his charms, time and eloquence on a person of little consequence – especially the circumstance that he felt compelled to turn and repeat himself to whatever ears were listening, is perhaps a sign of the new dawn.

    With Toronto AIDS Conference and yet another entry in America’s long and distinguished (self)censorship history book – talking about the disgraceful “HIV Science and Responsible Journalism” session of course – the dissidents, as I understand, have for the first time been officially recognized as a threat in this manner. Clinton’s inexplicable willingness to ‘discuss’ the issue could be explained by AIDS Inc’s new strategy to publicly employ their biggest guns and greatest demagogues against the dissidents wherever they’re found, whenever they’re found.

    In that context I do not find it irrelevant that you were given a card and invited to contact Clinton’s ‘right hand man.’ I deem it not unlikely that TS will soon receive the impossible to refuse financial incentive he’s been waiting for so long to turn coat and utilize his nom de plume, as well as his blogging skills and experience, against his unfortunate former allies, to devasting effect no doubt.

    PS, Clint, if you’re out there, I’m also unemployed, penniless, easily impressed and shamelessly promiscuous, if you know what I mean winkwink, nudgenudge.

  8. Dan Says:

    You’ve lost me on this one, truthseeker.

    I don’t agree with everything Claus has said in this thread, but I do generally agree with his sentiments.

    Even though I voted for Clinton (peace and prosperity, kind of miss it), I don’t believe for a moment that he would even contemplate changing tack on this issue, no matter how much information he’s exposed to.

  9. Truthseeker Says:

    To continue my cynical line, but allowing it to merge with your ‘foolhardy optimism’, maybe this is another sign “THEY” feel the dissident heat so much these days they’ve decided they cannot afford to ignore it any longer.

    Claus, you have revealed an encouraging glimmer of optimism on what you write but this point doesn’t seem to be true. It is only the second tier, security officers Moore and similar, eg our distinguished but temporarily retired injured commentators Jefferys and Noble, that have made the mistake of charging out of their caves prematurely against critics and thus giving them the recognition they deserve, but long withheld.

    Fauci is on a different and more cunning level where things are less explicit in every way, and even higher and less explicit still is Clinton, Gates and Carter, whose only potential limit is the public image they live off, but who are otherwise interested in the facts, privately or publicly supplied. In this case, privately supplied, so little more will be said here on the topic until we have been working for the Clinton Global Initiative for six months, or are otherwise settled, perhaps at the American Enterprise Institute or the Heritage Foundation, as you seem to cleverly perceive from our loud appeals for a buy out in these pages.

    All we can hope for is to privately supply Clinton wih the correct analysis of this issue and thus a slowing of his efforts to rescue HIV∫AIDS sufferers around the globe by supplying them with cheaper ARVs. His public stance will presumably not change more than subtly, and never explicitly, as the example of Mbeki has shown everybody this is not a paying proposition till we pass the tipping point, wherever that hidden watershed is. However just getting Clinton to respect Mbeki’s position enough to ease off his AIDS drug push and into some other way of spearheading his global reform, would be a success, and there are plenty of alternatives now, believe me – his Global Initiative has a lot of powerful people on the move, it is quite remarkable in the public written pledges he has induced.

    Liberals had better face the fact that private enterprise chieftains may now save the world as well as exploit it, just as Reagan brought the Wall down with his Star Wars. The loathed conservatives may have had the right idea in calling on the private sector to do what government did so inefficiently, rescuing the poor and disadvantaged. However one may note that it is the more liberal rich that are the movers and shakers entrained by Clinton, and not so much the conservatives.

    Anyhow we plan to brief Clinton and the world on exactly why the HIV∫AIDS issue is a feeding trough of despond and not a wagon to hitch his star to. The hoped for result is that he quietly disengages for another flag to march under, and that he quietly advises his colleagues to do the same – Gates can easily switch to malaria etc without penalty, and Carter can too, perhaps even make it his business to take it on, if things change enough. And there are plenty of Washington conservatives who will back the change in one way or another.

    This is an insider battle amd the only change will come from the top, so it is hard to see that dissenters have any alternative to advance their position. They are defeated, otherwise, as the past 22 years have shown, even if the claims of the paradigm are sometimes as glaringly naked as Hans Christian Anderson’s Emperor.

  10. Claus Says:


    Can we count on it that your letter to Clinton will be an open one: a manifesto perhaps, published to such fanfare and circumstance, and utilizing such shrewd rhethorical devices under an eye catching headline that the splash of its arrival in the presidential mailbox would stand a chance of spraying even a few droplets on the newly purchased tenth extra pair of golf shoes adorning the feet of the grey eminences you mention above – feet that, as you quite rightly point out, have been mostly employed kicking dissident butt, when not walking on water?

  11. Truthseeker Says:

    Claus, as one of our most distinguished posters, you surely appreciate that insults of however mild a nature are not indulged in by peers in public, except between inferiors, such as Richard Armitage and the Pakistani director of intelligence, as in “We will bomb you back to the Stone Age.”

    Certainly Web weenie level comments here will not be allowed to besmirch the distinction and dignity of the new superpower brokers of palliatives for global disease and poverty, William Jefferson Clinton, William Gates and James Carter, or even Hilary Rodham Clinton and Helen Gayle. Such people who enjoy global respect and influence are the only ones than can set this matter straight, and it is hardly their fault that they are misinformed by the most trusted officials of the federal government health institutions NIAID and CDC – who have been misled by the scientists who promote HIV∫AIDS, whether through foolishness or or worse.

    If you believe they are misled, how come you have not written letters and made phone calls to restore the situation, and thus have copies for us to crib from of those letters you wrote which are sure to be far more enlightened and persuasive than our own poor effort, due to be forwarded shortly (“Dear Mr Bill, Howdy: We have Biggest news for you which must be Good for you to Attend to shortly. It is about the Big Mistake which Big People in Washington have made to make Innocent Gays Sick. You must Now Call us for Update on this Situation, and we Will Tell you Important Facts, Yours Sincerely, Not a Crackpot, but Truth Seeker Himself Sir.” We are working up this as a first draft. What do you think? Any advice?).

    The final draft of this historic missive will be polished to a high degree including using six spell and grammar checkers, and the input of a friend of ours from high school. Then we release it with full fanfare on the steps of the Capitol.

  12. Claus Says:


    I think that’s a pretty good first draft. Since you invite me to come up with suggestions, perhaps you could consider rephrasing the “you must call us for an update” part. I think a small teaser would be in order to whet the presidential curiosity.

    For such a teaser or two you could simply use your own blog experience and choose between the topics that incite most (intelligible) debate, such as the flat HIV prevalence graph, then tell him he can contact for further material – or alternatively you could use the time honoured strategy of many web peddlers and inform him you will keep sendng him updates until he returns the attached ‘unsubscription to NAR form’ in three hardback copies.

    So that everybody can appreciate my intentions, I want to make it clear that I’m not Chris Wallace or otherwise part of a right wing conspiracy to besmirch Clinton’s name. There is no need or to poke fingers at me or my notes, as it was never a suggestion of mine to release personal insults into the public domain in order to generate gratuitous attention.

    However, I do believe, as does Bialyzebub if I’m not mistaken, that a quite different article with a quite different headline could have been justifiably produced from the apparently conflicting presidential statements that ‘the drugs work, but the trials are rotten.’

    But only TS was there, and so only he possesses the in vivo experience as it were + all the notes. Judgement then is the Truthseeker’s, but it seems to me he has an unused potential AK47 in his arsenal.

    Please indulge me, since the topic was specifically brought up, in stating a personal principle of the highest order: I do not believe that claims of ignorance or having been misled are EVER valid options to ANYBODY who actively seeks the power to govern and influence other people’s lives.

    He who has the temerity, the audacity, the utter lack of manners to want to ‘represent’ others should be made to swear under a Damokles sword bearing the inscription “Do or Die with the First Victim of Thy Conceit shall be the Whole of the Law!”

    Ignorance is the Cardinal Sin in a leader, not transferable not forgiveable, so no I definitely do not allow that Clinton or any of the others have been ‘misled’.

  13. Truthseeker Says:

    However, I do believe, as does Bialyzebub if I’m not mistaken, that a quite different article with a quite different headline could have been justifiably produced from the apparently conflicting presidential statements that ‘the drugs work, but the trials are rotten.’

    But only TS was there, and so only he possesses the in vivo experience as it were + all the notes. Judgement then is the Truthseeker’s, but it seems to me he has an unused potential AK47 in his arsenal.

    We are willing to ratchet up the headline drama to whatever you wish, and will change it shortly in accordance with any explicit suggestions from distinguished posters such as yourself or anyone else not too shy to post comments here, as apparently is the case now with your friend Dr Bee. As far as we can dimly understand what you are saying, you are pointing out that the fact that NAR spoke to Clinton is less important than the criticism he voiced of the drug trials, is that correct?

    Well, we thought that his trials criticism showed he was reading Harper’s, but the important thing was that he might spare five minutes to peruse follow up material from NAR, and therefore we did not wish to emphasize anything that might disturb this access, this slight possibility that he might lend an eye to a list of follow up points.

    Dr Bee’s flat HIV prevalence graph/up and down AIDS incidence graph point is certainly to be included in the short list of blatant signals that the paradigm is not viable. Others might be Dr Gallo’s proof that HIV was not involved in at least two thirds of early AIDS cases, Nancy Padian’s demonstration that the heterosexual pandemic has no engine, the recent demonstration that drugs not HIV cause AIDS, and so on.

    All comments welcome. Perhaps a list of thirty of these contradictions can be put together.

  14. Claus Says:

    As far as we can dimly understand what you are saying, you are pointing out that the fact that NAR spoke to Clinton is less important than the criticism he voiced of the drug trials, is that correct?

    My point was twofold. The first was the remarkable fact that Clinton engaged with NAR at all. However, you’ve rejected my suggestion that he might have been so responsive to a revisionist such as yourself because he was very aware there was something to respond to.

    That leaves the fact that he agreed the drug trials proving the efficacy of the drugs he himself all but peddles are ‘rotten’.
    I’ve no experience with the journalistic trade, but in view of the enormous interest whipped up by the latest Clinton interview on FOX, I’d think you’ve got something worth following up on like,


    Dr. Bee, who is in all probability a Fly, latest depicted on “Hank’s You Bet Your Life” with John Moore sitting on his shoulder, I think agrees with me as far as changing the headline (although his suggestion I’m sure would differ from mine), but that is the full extent to which I’m privy to his thoughts and motivations.

  15. Truthseeker Says:

    …my suggestion that he might have been so responsive to a revisionist such as yourself because he was very aware there was something to respond to.

    Not aware that we rejected this idea, Claus, sorry if we did, since it may well be true. As to the rest, we feel diplomacy and discretion are called for, not sensation, until the former are long unproductive. This battle is one for mind share among power brokers, it seems to us, for that is the only source of change. We are convinced that Bill Clinton is the rare politician of stature, like Mbeki, who is interested in the facts before he conducts his own fight for mind share in the population at large, whether the truth is generally known or not.

  16. Yossarian's Ghost Says:

    Sorry TS,

    Claus is right about the headline, and you are wrong about the future. You missed your one and only chance. In the favorite quoted words of my close companion, McK, “You coulda been a contender”.

  17. Truthseeker Says:

    Clinton needs more undermining like a hole in the head today – you didn’t watch Fox Sunday? Try YouTube.

  18. Bialyzebub Says:

    The Headline that Claus suggested was ALL about getting the ATTENTION of the media, and getting the great TS a decent platform, if only for a minute.

    Why you are so persistent in believing that boastful Billy is anything except a largish, empty bag that never inhaled, and never got wet with the zoftick Jewess is beyond the comprehension of any one “we” know.

  19. Truthseeker Says:

    Let’s see. a) The headline is in reserve, ready for us to trumpet at a calmer time when the great man does not have his hands full beating off the media and trying to mollify his wife and b) when an idea post can be made on the topic and not just one of those People magazine posts which crowd rival blogs, which discerning intellects should ignore if they slip in here.

    Coming soon. And by the way, the man you are scorning is now the first ever acting President of the World, able to get more Presidents both national and corporate under one roof and get more financial ($7.4 billion) and project commitments for the good of the world signed and publicly announced than both Bushes, Blair and Kofi Annan rolled into one.

    But perhaps petty private peccadillos seem more significant to those who look up from the flaming underworld aiming to fork and roast unwary VIP bottoms… we prefer to treat those in power with the enormous respect and sycophancy they so richly deserve.

    In the slight hope that we can modify their world view in at least one respect, by pointing out how it is in their long run interest to base their legacy on some other achievement than feeding drugs they already know are suspect to the sick and starving and even the healthy in Africa and Asia.

  20. jspreen Says:

    (don’t forget how near he came to hitting Bin Laden and averting 9/11)


    Maybe you should just rub your eyes and wake up about Bin Laden and 9/11 like so many others have already done. Then maybe you will also be able to see a wider picture about other scandals like the HIV=AIDS=Shit, that all those scams stand not by themselves and that any politician on the level of Bill Clinton cannot possibly be unaware of what’s going on.

    You started to open his eyes on a cocktail.

    Let me laugh.


Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

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