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.

New Yorker slams “denialists”

Science-challenged Michael Specter takes on paradigm busters in AIDS, exposes them as ‘silly, dangerous, anti-Western nonconformists’

Evident hand holding by John Moore leads to inaccuracies, red meat for critics

John P. Moore, implacable foe of HIV∫AIDS reviewers A provoking email from Cornell researcher John P. Moore, well known for painting macaque pudenda with proposed HIV microbicides, was sent today (Sun Mar 4) to Harvey Bialy, Peter Duesberg and other HIV∫AIDS paradigm critics to alert them to the New Yorker article this week (Mar 15 issue) denouncing “The Denialists” and their “Dangerous attacks on the consensus about HIV and AIDS”.

The text of the email consisted of the following jibe:

I’m sure even a non-intellectual retiree” without a university affiliation can work out how this article came to be written….

Moore’s triumph is that Michael Specter, presumably with his and Anthony Fauci’s handholding, has managed to write his article, a quick six page summary of the situation, as a generally accurate highlighting of some of the salient facts but as usual with a subtle but effective built in bias, which presents the paradigm-busters in a poor light throughout, equating them in the mind of any skimming power reader with ignorant truck drivers dispensing home made berbal remedies, anti Western South African politicians who distrust Western medicine, and the unfortunate vitamin promoter Mathias Rath, whose enthusiasm for essential nutrients is trashed as unscientific (Rath allegedly having refused to speak to the author, presumably having read his other paradigm promoting AIDS pieces. Rath denies this, however, in a well expressed letter to New Yorker editor David Remnick.)

In other words, those who are trying to bring science and reality to bear are painted as antiscience, by invoking their less educated fellow travelers, while those who blindly support the paradigm are praised by implication as pro-Western science and enlightenment, though they are – like the writer, it appears – strangers to the massive literature of the field, and have never read the mainstream papers which defeat the assumptions that drive their emotions.

The prejudicial slant is of course seen at once in the headline and subhead, where the word “denialist” immediately triggers a strong association of HIV∫AIDS paradigm critics with the numbskulls invited by the president of Iran to his Holocaust conference in Teheran last year. The headline inside the magazine is “The Denialists” and the subhead, “The dangerous attacks on the consensus about HIV and AIDS”.

However, the advertising flap on the newstands is even more egregious. Loud and clear, it headlines “The AIDS Denialists” and subheads “Michael Specter on bad science that kills.” Precisely where this authoritative decree that the critics are purveyors of “bad science that kills” comes from is mysterious, since what little science Specter quotes is incorrect, and it is not clear that he has even heard of PubMed and how one can read the literature for oneself, even if one is a mere New Yorker writer.

No wonder John Moore is crowing – it must be a nice relief from the recent embarrassment of data showing that microbicides doubled the chances of HIV transmission. (But can this be correct, when Nancy Padian showed in the biggest study on transmission that between heterosexuals engaged in conventional sex HIV transmitted not at all? Perhaps John should call her for comfort).

There is little or no science in the piece, and what there is is too often misleading. Most egregious is the blatant parroting of the HIVNET line that nevirapine is the best thing in the world for Virus ridden pregnant women, one that has “saved hundreds thousands of infants’ lives”. It is as if Celia Farber’s article for Harpers last March was never written, or at least never read in the offices of the New Yorker.

Science ‘faction’ from a PubMed challenged scribe

Here are some of the key tidbits – factions, one might call them, a new literary device just invented for the purpose by HIV propagandists recruited in the media by John Moore and Anthony Fauci – designed to pass on the AIDS meme from the pen of Michael Specter to the prejudices of the reader without passing through the minds of either, let alone the minds of the apparently PubMed illiterate New Yorker fact checker, one Michael Peed, or editors.

What they all add up to is the theme, constantly pounded into the heads of readers, that any suggestion that the myriad inconsistencies with science and common sense exhibited by the HIV∫AIDS paradigm deserve penetrating review is not only dangerous to the public health but, well, just silly, to use a favorite Gallo word.

The problem, of course, is that it is Specter that is being silly–foolish to waste his talent and the advantage of his post at the New Yorker in the supine service of inferior sources merely because they occupy high perches in the mainstream system, water carrying for the conventional wisdom when he is in the best possible position to scrutinize it and discover why a scientist of the highest ability and credentials has found himself bound to deny its validity for twenty years at such great personal cost.

Indeed, his performance is a sad contrast with the efforts of Seymour Hersh, who with his piece on Bush’s plans for Iran last week provided a lesson for Specter in not taking government handouts as gospel, but doing a little investigative work to double check whether those in power are abusing their advantage.

Here is Specter’s best factional account of what is going on in the political science of AIDS:

(Keynote opener) Zeblon Gwala is a truckdriver who is instructed by his grandfather in a dream to dispense herbal remedies from a storefront in downtown Durban to hundreds of clients who would rather pay half their pay for his ubhejane (Zulu for black rhinoceros) than take antiretrovirals from the West, even though he has “no idea how it works”, but says “people who were on the edge of death go back to work.”

Silly fellow, silly people, typical paradigm challengers with faith in magical cure-alls.

Health minister Manto Tshabala-Msimang supports ubhejane, as does the mayor of Durban and a retired professor of sociology who says antiretrovirals are “so toxic that they can cause more harm than good” – even though (according to Specter) “ARVs have proved to be the only successful treatment for the mllions of people infected with HIV”.

Even the educated South African elite are silly.

President Thabo Mbeki embraced a “powerful industrial solvent” as a cure in 1997.

Mbeki is clearly silly.

Manto Tshabala-Msimang’s “antipathy towards pharmaceutical AIDS treatments has long been an international scandal” and she “astonished participants at an international AIDS conference in Toronto by presenting a government public-health display that focussed on beetroot, olive oil, garlic, lemons, and African potatoes. Antiretrovirals were included only after furious protest.”

‘Dr Beetroot’ also silly. Who would imagine that key nutrition is relevant to African AIDS in the slums and villages of Africa? First and foremost they need AZT and protease inhibitors.
“Denying the scientific consensus about what causes AIDS” is now seen in an Australian court, where the “denialist” Perth Group “insists that AIDS in gay men results from drug abuse and repeated exposure to semen. Last month, the President of Gambia, Yahya Jammeh, disclosed that he had found a secret remedy for AIDS and asthma, and announced that he would begin to cure AIDS on Thursdays and asthma on Saturdays.”

Silly Perth denialists, meet the President of Gambia, in a juxtaposition that tells the reader all s/he needs to know.

South Africa has “the world’s deadliest AIDS epidemic. Nearly a thousand people die of AIDS every day…(and) only about two hundred thousand receive the drugs”, but there are “hints the government might be open to a new approach”, but Mbeki, an economist who is one of Africa’s most respected leaders, has never disavowed the view that HIV medicines are Western inventions aimed at maiming Africans” and has “hinted at CIA involvement in propagating the belief that HIV causes AIDS.”

Oh silly, benighted, paranoid Mbeki, to imagine that Westerners may not have African interests at heart.

At the ubhejane clinic, “the baby’s mother died of AIDS shortly after giving birth. The father died of AIDS before she was born” and all the infant has left is her old grandmother, who tells Specter she “believes in President Mbeki” while the clinic’s ex-truck driver assures him “the people who want to take those ARVs can take them, but they don’t cure anything. The side effects are like poison, and people get sicker.”

Ignorant people, silly truck driver – but wait, has the truck driver been reading the Lancet issue last year that showed that half of US AIDS patients who died died of drug effects? Surely not.

The “eminent molecular biologist Peter Duesberg” discovered cancer causing genes in a retrovirus, won an international reputation and election to the National Academy, was mentioned as a possible recipient of the Nobel Prize, “without Duesberg’s research, there might have been no significant progress in treating AIDS”, he has been highly praised by Robert Gallo, and has argued in more than a dozen papers that HIV is a harmless passenger virus, which cannot cause illness only after many years — but he is no match for Michael Specter and his informants, for as Specter tells us flatly “with HIV, more than a decade can pass between te moment a person becomes infected and the time when he becomes visibly ill. Duesberg also has written that no virus can cause disease after the body starts to produce a neutralizing immune response.”

Silly, denying, high ranking Duesberg. Though it should be pointed out that Duesberg never expressed the latter thought. What he has written and said repeatedly is that a virus cannot cause illness after it has provoked an immune response which has reduced its presence to negligible or non-existent presence, as in AIDS.

At the AMFAR meeting in Washington in 1988, Anthony Fauci, the “federal governments leading AIDS expert, sat silently for hours…(but) finally erupted. “This is murder,” he said after listening to Duesberg speak. “It’s really just that simple.”

Sensible man, Fauci, cutting through the hot air of HIV denialism to the eternal verity that HIV was the cause of two quite different incipient pandemics, AIDS in the US and Europe and AIDS elsewhere. It’s the virus, stupid!

“The Internet has made it possible for every conspiracy theory to flourish. There are three basic versions of the HIV-denial credo.”

Silly, denialist conspiracy theorists, unable to agree even among themselves!

“The second argues that, even if the virus is harmful, the risks of antiretroviral drugs far outweigh the benefits: AIDS drugs are poisons, pushed by doctors corrupted by the pharmaceutical industry.”

Silly, naive mistrust of an entire profession.

“The “poison” argument has been proved untrue in hundreds of studies across the globe, among women, men, drug users, homosexuals, and infants.

Silly denialists of proven science, though we won’t mention last year’s New England Journal of Medicine and Lancet studies, and certainly not Celia Farber’s Harper expose of the shenanigans in NIAID and HIVNET. After all, poison has a certain beneficial effect on those invaded by parasites of all kinds.

“Most perniciously, there are those who argue that sub-Saharan Africa where “as many as twenty million have died–simply has no AIDS epidemic. Instead, they blame the absence of proper nutrition or clean water–factors that certainly exacerbate the effects of AIDS but do not cause it.”

Silly indeed, since obviously there is more to AIDS in Africa than that, though we won’t mention other diseases, or that malnutrition produces exactly the symptoms that most characterizes AIDS in Africa.

On the Internet where anyone can profess to be an expert, rumor sites can make all these theories seem plausible, particularly to a new generation that has not been educated properly about the risks of HIV. One site, virusmyth.net, has more than a thousand Web pages attached to it”

Silly inexpert people, taken in by thousands of pages of mis-education. Let’s not mention New AIDS Review or You Bet Your Life, on which unmistakably well informed and intelligent corrspondents, including Duesberg and other first class experts in the field, have mercilessly trounced Anthony Fauci, Robert Gallo, John Moore and their claims, on which Michael Specter seems to be drawing without any discrimination whatsoever.

“Duesberg’s influence gained new momentum when Mbeki… discovered his work (in 1999) while rooting around onthe Internet… For Mbeki and many other South Africans whose world views were defined by their struggle with apartheid, it is understandably hard to see white white men in lab coats as people who want to help them.”

Absurd Mbeki, suspicious of Western attitudes towards the dark continent and ripe for conspiracy theorists on the Net. So much for truffle hunting in cyberspace, where in fact enlightenment for Michael Specter in the form of his much beloved mainstream science is only a click or two away at PubMed, which superresource languishes unexploited by this otherwise assiduously informed writer.

“Mbeki rare addresses scientific solutions to the AIDS epidemic” even though “in 2000 he appointed a Presidential advisory panel which included Duesberg and other denialists, to study the cause of AIDS”, (because) he was so brutally repudiated by world leaders and public-health professional that he essentially ceased talking about the issue. But,… Mbeki has since urged Africans to turn away from the medicine that most of the world has come to rely on.”

Silly Mbeki, quietly resisting a paradigm that penalizes public review at any indication of such “dangerous” tendencies.

Meanwhile Herbert Vilakazi, the academic who is “notorious
for his disdain for Western medicine” disagrees with “most researchers (who) would say that any potential medicine–herbal or chemical–nees to be subjected to the rigors of testing and analysis.” “I have personally seen hundreds of people who have taken ubhejane, and they get relief… The situation in America is one of intolerance. There are ARVs. Only one approach to treating this deadly illness is permitted”.

Nonsensical Mr Vilekazi needs to be taught the difference between the anecdotal experience of mere individuals and the reliable controlled studies from HIVNET, and to ignore any evidence that the results of those studies are interpreted to parallel the paradigm even if they appear to put a very large spanner into its central works.

Mathias Rath is reported to have evaded talking to Specter while at the same time posting lengthy letters to the editor of the New Yorker on his main Web site, and claiming that “a historic public debate between Dr Rath and The New Yorker has generated global interest”, and the government is criticized by a member of Medecins Sans Frontieres for doing nothing to stop him selling his multivitamin pills in the country’s poorest townships. “The whole thing was disgusting” she says, “and it cost lives.” She did what she could to “counteract the government’s false information” (Specter). “Rath has been criticized in public statemens by many organizations, including UNAIDS, the South African Medical Association, an the Southern African HIV Clinicians Society. In the United Stated the FDA has informed Rath that it considers advertisements on his Web site misleading.”

Ridiculous Mathias Rath, railing against the pharmaceutical drug cartel in expensive ads in the New York Times and elsewhere. Clearly he is an amateur and a menace, distributing vitamins to the poorly nourished, when he could be standing aside for the rush to deliver as many toxic ARVs to Africans as possible.“A study, called HIVNET, which found that just a few doses of Nevirapine, an antiretroviral given to the mother at the beginning of labor, and then to the infant within the first three days of life, dramatically reducing the risk of passing on the virus. The regimen is cheap and easy to use, and is now in place throughout the developing world. In just a few years, it has saved the lives of hundreds of thousands of infants.

Here we reach the point where the neglect of the investigative work of other journalists and commentators by Specter and his editors, let alone his inability or unwillingness to check PubMed for himself, apparently in favor of trusting the likes of John Moore, begins to be egregious and indeed dangerous. Have the New Yorker editors and fact checkers not read the piece in Harpers last March, where Celia Farber made it clear beyond reasonable doubt that nevirapine HIVNET research – the study is not called HIVNET, by the way, that is the research network for HIV drug efficacy trials, is there any fact checking going on here at all? – stinks, to put it mildly, and is no basis for prescribing a toxic drug to mothers or newborns. Don’t New Yorker editors read or credit Harpers?

Durban professor of epidemiology Abdool Karim, also at Columbia University in New York, tells Specter that the Durban Declaration produced in 2000 by “more than five thousand researchers who had gathered for the conference was “one of the saddest documents in modern scientific history”, as it stated “that the evidence that HIV causes AIDS is “clear-cut, exhaustive and unambiguous”, and meets “the highest standards of science””, yet Mbeki’s spokesman said that it would quickly find its way to “the dustbins of the office.”

Absurd Mbeki spokesman, trashing a document of faith expressed by so many scientists – even though they were apparently lacking hard evidence for their belief, otherwise why would they need to make a statement of faith? Do such points not occur to Specter at all when preparing this survey?

The deputy health minister Nozizwe Madlala-Routledge, who diametrically opposes the views of her boss Tshabala-Msimang on how to deal with the epidemic, pins a beaded AIDS ribbon on Specter’s lapel, calls him “our brother”, and tells him she will speak out regardless of a year long ban on her speaking on AIDS. This is not my truth. But it is the truth…we are a country in great pain and mourning. But I still believe the truth will win.”On this upbeat note, the article ends, with the flag for truth planted firmly in the pro-paradigm camp by Specter, who has not written one word in the entire piece implying that the many objections, scientific and otherwise, to this conventional wisdom deserve serious consideration any more, if they ever got it.

This is not to say that Specter is trying to put his finger on the weighing pad at checkout. Indeed, if the intelligent reader strips the piece of its Moore influenced angles, there is plenty of sense from those who disagree with the paradigm included in this piece. One even wonders where Specter stands in private on this issue. For in fact, on that basis, with the Moore-ish bias removed, it would be a very clear account of why there are two sides to this issue, and why the “denialist” should be attended to very carefully indeed by all those who determine policy and spending in this area, particular the very large funders like Gates, Clinton and Soros who have bankrolled the established new initiatives to combat African disease.

Indeed, while it is hard to believe that any casual reader will not be propagandized by this piece, as is usual in the mainstream media, it is possible to guess that the more hardbitten minds in law, insurance, and Wall Street and in other fields of science who typically have to put their money behind their minds will be informed and alerted to the scientific can of worms that is HIV∫AIDS in a way which may disappoint the celebrating John Moore, since they are well aware from their work how often working journalists even at the New Yorker, which gives them more time than most for getting things right, are misled in areas where they fail to adopt an investigative stance, which in this case involves failing to go to PubMed and checking out the scientific literature for themselves, which Specter evidently has failed to do, preferring to trust John Moore.

But all in all, given the way an otherwise deft piece of journalism is spoiled by prior mental framing, it really is about time that David Remnick, the editor of the New Yorker and a very fine writer and reporter in his own right, caught on to what is going on in HIV∫AIDS. But possibly the AIDS meme has taken up residence in his head, as it obviously has in Michael Specter’s, and stands ready to kill all intruding ideas that might threaten its welfare.

The New Yorker now stands as yet another journal whose high reputation will eventually be tarnished by the inevitable fall of the house of HIV∫AIDS, along with the New York Review of Books, who also entrusted its fair pages to a writer (Richard Horton, the editor of the Lancet) who was not quite up to penetrating the claims of Robert Gallo and Anthony Fauci.

Fauci must be quite thrilled at the publication of this piece. It once again establishes what Robert Gallo complained about in his testimony to the Adelaide court recently, that “no one reads the papers.”

For clearly no one at the New Yorker, despite the NIH providing easy access to more than 16 million papers on medical science from your nearest keyboard, is PubMed literate. Perhaps they should simply hire some first year student at Mt Sinai as a part time intern.

Short of that, Anthony Fauci, John Moore, and the rest of the media bullies who have preserved the HIV∫AIDS bubble from pricking by media outsiders for twenty two years, will probably succeed for another twenty.

Unless, that is, the wave of court cases around the world begins to unearth the extent of the missing science in HIV∫AIDS, and the vast paradigm’s grotesque inconsistency with itself and with the study data it has spawned.

Which, come to think of it, a certain judge in Adelaide may publicly recognize any day now. Either that, or John Moore will be sending around another triumphantly rude email.

59 Responses to “New Yorker slams “denialists””

  1. Truthseeker Says:

    The newsletter is posted on AIDStruth, and besides that, I sent you text copy. Dave has it. If you still need it email me and I will forward. You really must deal with this article.

    In pdf.

    At any rate, to me it seems a gigantic plus for anybody and everybody to actually read the Moore et al. piece, and let curiosity further do its job

    Exactly. The dumb troops may just find it confirming, but the intelligent will follow up the leads.

    The distinction between alert and asleep, leaders and followers, is very important in this issue. The leaders know what they do, whether they admit it or not. They compartmentalise, knowingly, at the cost of blocking off information, knowingly, at the cost of other people health and lives, knowingly. Unlike the troops, they are not self deluded.

    What is ironic is that those who most fiercely try to kill off dissent with violent frontal attack, backstabbing, and so on, do the most to attract attention to the existence and critique of the denialists.

    Oops, should be writing this in a post, of course.

  2. Celia Farber Says:

    I did look at the article Mark Biernbaum urges us to deal with. I feel simply that it validates my theory that the extremists in the AIDS establishment are in the grip of something truly agonizing for them, which we cannot help them with. Their reaction to AIDS “denialists” is best characterized not as hostile but as phobic.

    They abhor the idea of any contact, exchange, penetration. IE–a phobia.

    I no more than looked at the article…and there it was, this phobia so clearly expressed in the blue, murky image of budding virus particles, accompanying an article about human beings, ie “The AIDS Denialists.”

    That is to say, we are the new infection, to be eradicated at any cost. I am not going to make any attempt whatsoever to “deal” with that. I am a writer, a journalist– not an infection.

    And who are “we?” There is no skin color or race or ideology that could have lent coherence to the instinct to question surrounding reality, so the stigma had to be engineered and they found it in the spittle word “denialist.”

    In Life Unworthy of Life: Racial Phobia and Mass Murder in Hitler’s Germany, by Daniel M. Glass, the scholar and historian presents voluminous evidence that the Jews in Germany during the rise of the Reich were not the objects of hatred so much as phobia. The Jew was the infection to the bloodstream of Germany.

    Glass writes: “Phobias represent the failure of the self to contain and regulate its overwhelming fear. The group saves itself and its own equilibrium by turning that failure into a qualified success: forcing the other to serve as object of the Kultur’s violent phobic reactions. Death lurked in the Jewish skin, in its potential to carry infection. The Jew-as-death was psychically enforced by convincing the Volk that to touch Jewish flesh, even to have friendly contact with it, was to risk self-destruction because of its power to infect the individual and thus the entire cultural group.”

    “Civilization did not have the moral strength to protect individuals from the technology it created and the power of that technology to turn life into death. But how could it? Political interest lay not in protecting a morality of empathy, care, and restraint, but in facilitating the free flow of violence generated by the cooperation of science, technology, the professions, political action, and fantasies driving the practices of death.”

    “The real enemy, however, lies in the disowned part of ourselves emotionally composed in large measure of hate and fear….Projection…disguises the real cause of our hate and fear, the foreigner that lives within us. If we could acknowledge this presence in ourselves and face it directly, we might be spared the phenomenon of dumping unwanted or despised self-objects into an other invested with properties of abjection. But of course we do not. We refuse to own the paranoia and demystify its power. We isolate the foreigner as other. We transform this presence into an alien double of ourselves. Herein lies the root of prejudice, discrimination, racial violence, and murder.”

    “Through its hallucinatory power, abjection breaks limits, erodes boundaries, and forges violent and destructive definitions of reality….It turns all social judgement, rules, and moralities aside….Abjection mobilizes killing in the service of an ideal.”

    The Jew as death.

    Sound familiar?

    These people who are running the AIDS industry are abjecting “us” (we who have nothing in common) into a collective mark of death. Look at the New Yorker headlines, cited here. No, Mark, I will NOT “deal” with that. My ancestors did.

    I am Jewish, on my father’s side, and so have spent some time thinking about the Holocaust and what the hell went on. My father has taught me a lot about WW2, and particularly about the often obscured stories of those who resisted the madness. They were hated and spat upon, in their day. The Wallenberg family, as is well known, was least proud of Raoul, and Sweden only managed to name a street after him some time in the 1980s.

    For anybody who still thinks this is not a profound psychosis we are in I suggest an immediate reading of Glass’ book as well as the ur-source itself, Canetti’s Crowds and Power.

    I won’t be addressing anything further. The New Yorker article by Michael Specter has nothing to do with me or my work. Or as the Who song has it: ‘I don’t need to be forgiven.’

    Harper’s knows this and understnds it. The only engagement with these people is bound for irrationality and a refusal to absorb information. They are not seeking any kind of exchange, they are seeking to pulverise that which they hold in abjection.

    Don’t participate. I certainly won’t.

    I don’t care what they write, draw, threaten, take away, stink up.

    I don’t work for them. I don’t work for anybody. I just sketch what I see and hear. Then I move on.

    I have required a bigger and bigger canvas each year, to draw this thing. Now I don’t want to look at it anymore, because I finally understand what it is and what it is is pure fear, pure hate.

    That’s what AIDS is.

    Now, either be part of it, or oppose it, with its counterpart.

    Be calm. Be gentle. Look around. Glean. It is not our job to solve anything, and certainly not our job to dissuade others of seeing things their way, and logging that vision in the eternal record where all of our thoughts, deeds, actions, words, and feelings are ultimately recorded. Everybody gets to design exactly what they want to be, so there is nothing to worry about.

    (Except our own conduct.)

  3. david burd Says:

    Oops too for me; the years fly by — Gallo’s con job not being April, ’94, but ’84, and showing an example of how very long HIV fictions have been layered into people’s minds by the daily news and why it is even harder, compared to those not so immersed in iconic newspapers (as the NY Times), to jackhammer out the rock-hard deposits. Our highly educated colleagues ever believing their guardian press cannot grasp now it has turned into a lapdog for the NIH-pharma-biotech Mega-industry.

    U.S. Federal spending alone (with much of it spent on propaganda for the public) is documented by The Kaiser Foundation with its annual pie-chart showing federal budget appropriations for HIV/Aids, with $22.8 Billion for 2007, and about to be $25 Billion for 2008. It now totals to $200 Billion since 1984 — all for paving the HIV asphalt highway. To put this into perspective, for the last 5 years, spending for HIV/Aids has been exactly 8/10th of one percent of the entire federal budget. Add tens of billions of dollars for pharma advertising on top of this for guardrails. As David Rasnick said many years ago, advertising works. No doubt John Moore gets very well paid for his job at Cornell promoting HIV fear, probably with some trickling down of Federal monies.

  4. Mark Biernbaum Says:

    Y’all could have learned a thing or two from all the wretched ACT-UP meetings I went to. We learned about organizing, the power of a uniform message, and how to grab media attention and keep it. And it worked, as you all know.

    How wonderful it would be if the “dissidents” could do the same. Dissent really does work better when you work with one another. Single dissenting voices sing a lonely song.

    These are things that John Moore and his friends know very well. We should take a lesson.

  5. Celia Farber Says:


    You don’t mean that do you? “It worked?”

    What ACT UP did?

    It did not work. It worked only to perpetuate something nobody wound up happy with. It was shot through with fear and intimidation and that only produces compliance, because people become scared and cowed.

    So the media became scared and cowed and reproduced ACT UP’s proclamations.

    And we lost a generation. And 20 years.

    Not to say I don’t know what you mean, because I do. I am only saying what you already know, namely that what ACT UP did did not work.

    People like you speaking out, continuing to I mean, that will work. Enough false authorities, invented powers, oracular medicine–enough.

    Now it’s the weavers of truth who each tell what they know. The truth resides in people who test positive and or whose loved ones have tested positive. Every single story is part of the truth. This will take time.

  6. mark Says:

    There is an interesting article on poz.com that gives Larry Kramer’s self-congratulatory speech on ACT-UP’s twenty-something year anniversary. He takes personal credit for all he perceived ACT UP as doing and derides everyone else as not doing anything.

    ACT UP did work to force the FDA to fast-track AZT and ddI. But it failed in that both drugs’ long term effects caused death. The fast track legacy continues with the Vioxx deaths.

    ACT UP did work to force more government funding for HIV research. But it failed in that twenty years later that research has yielded nothing but toxic drugs.

    ACT UP did falsely empower gay men in the 80s. But it failed in that twenty years later gays are called openly “faggot” (at least Reagan only said it behind closed doors), and called immoral. Even Larry would admit that.

    ACT UP is almost as dead as the 1/2 million gone from AIDS in the US. The construct of AIDS has largely gone to Africa.

  7. Maurice Says:

    I tried to post this yesterday but got a new error message which I don’t recall…something about “parameters” I think


    TS, I would think that any publicity that John Peemore gives to your site can only help! I mean, you know the old saying, the only bad publicity is no publicity. He may stupidly be sending a lot more people to your site.

    I must confess to slapping my hand against my forehead from time to time when I read your musings about “why would he do this?…a reputable institution like Cornell…” etc.

    I will make it easy for you. AIDS religionists do it because they are CORRUPT! Cornell does it because Cornell is CORRUPT! The New Yorker does it because the New Yorker is CORRUPT, as is every other media establishment in our state-corporate controlled media.

    CORRUPTION is what is behind all the bullshit we are having to endure in this ridiculous epoch of world history.

    And you’re not going to end it by reasoning with them. No matter how many wonderful editorials you write, no matter how much the facts are on your side, it doesn’t matter. The facts are not relevant. What is relevant is raw power. They have the power, they have the corruption, and they will kill billions before they would even consider coming clean.

    The truth would destroy them. It would destroy Peemore, it would destroy Cornell, it would destroy the NYT and CNN and BBC and the US government and the pharmaceutical, science research and Doctor Industries. It would end US “science leadership” in the world and destabilize the world population, possibly making the masses really angry, enough to mass in the streets and try to take the world back from the corrupt Lords of the earth.

    “They” won’t let that happen.

    And my prediction is, that judge will not send the appeal onward, because he is going to be tampered with by the unseen hand.

    Just as I strongly suspect Manto was made sick in a covert operation in order to destroy her credibility. Even if she doesn’t die, she no longer has any credibility. Nobody will take health advice from a woman perceived as unable to even keep herself healthy.

    Not that the situation is hopeless, but I feel that the only effective route is to communicate with the people on a grassroots basis, one to one, and on the internet. It is largely a waste of time to think that you’re going to persuade the corrupt ones who have the power, to see the light. Corruption blinds one totally.

    They will never admit being wrong. As I predicted in this article, perhaps the only way out for Aids Inc. is to assert something like “the virus is mutating into a harmless form.”

    That prediction was validated a year or so ago, when we saw new headlines, “AIDS virus is weakening,” which were obviously floated as a trial balloon. But apparently Aids Inc. were still having so much fun living the high life that they refused to pursue this avenue out, and the trial balloon popped.

    Since Aids is a political, not a scientific disease, reasoning with them won’t work. These people are not interested in truth, only power. They will not accept responsibility or punishment for their actions. So we must force them to revive “the virus is mutating into a harmless form” as the way out.

    All that we can do is pressure them, continue to turn the screws on them, by making as many people as possible aware of the murderous falsity of “Aids Science.” The easiest way to do this is to introduce the subject to other people who are receptive to dissident thought…i.e., dissidents in other fields, who know all too well how difficult it is to be a dissident, and have their own experience of going up against the corruption of those in power, particularly the mass media.

    9-11 skeptics, for one example. That is a very big movement, much bigger than ours. These are people who have broken free of the thought police who patrol the gates of both “liberal” and “conservative” dogma. We should work on educating the alternative health and natural living people who are fighting against Codex. Ex-hippies. Other marginalized groups.

    Then they will start telling others, and awareness can snowball, to the point that the establishment feel threatened enough to reluctantly terminate this party (and what a swell party it was!) that they’ve had at the expense of the taxpayers and millions of ruined lives.

    So, John Peemore, if you’re reading this, I propose that you and your colleagues latch onto “the virus is mutating into a harmless form” in order to save your collective asses. You won’t go to jail and won’t be sued. You won’t swing like Saddam did, though you are far more deserving of it than he was. You will keep your mansions and Mercedeses.

    Of course after you implement this solution, I will brag to everybody on the net that it was my idea. But it won’t matter. The Big Media will never report what I say.

    So do it, fella! You’ll feel better about yourself and be able to sleep at night.

  8. Dan Says:

    TS, I would think that any publicity that John Peemore gives to your site can only help! I mean, you know the old saying, the only bad publicity is no publicity. He may stupidly be sending a lot more people to your site.

    Between Moore and Specter these past couple weeks, the so-called “denialists” are getting quite a bit of free publicity. Makes me wonder if there’s some self-sabotage going on with the orthodoxy at the moment.

  9. Mark Biernbaum Says:

    Maurice is right. They have the power. We have some smart folks, and a homophobe or two. And the facts, but as Maurice indicates, and I agree, those are irrelevant.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Bad Behavior has blocked 354 access attempts in the last 7 days.