Science Guardian

Truth, beauty and paradigm power in science and society

I am Nicolaus Copernicus, and I approve of this blog

News, views and reviews measured against professional literature in peer reviewed journals (adjusted for design flaws and bias), well researched books, authoritative encyclopedias (not the bowdlerized Wiki entries on controversial topics) and the investigative reporting and skeptical studies of courageous original thinkers among academics, philosophers, researchers, scholars, authors, filmmakers and journalists.

Supporting the right of exceptional minds to free speech, publication, media coverage and funding against the crowd prejudice, leadership resistance, monetary influences and internal professional politics of the paradigm wars of cancer, HIV(not)AIDS, evolution, global warming, cosmology, particle physics, macroeconomics, information technology, religions and cults, health, medicine, diet and nutrition.

***************************************************

HONOR ROLL OF SCIENTIFIC TRUTHSEEKERS

Halton C. Arp wki/obit/txt/vds/txt/txt/bk/bk, Henry Bauer txt/blg/ blg/bks/bk/txt/bk/vd, John Beard bk, Harvey Bialy bk/bk/txt/txt/rdo/vd, John Bockris bio/txt/ltr/bk, Donald W. Braben, Peter Breggin ste/fb/col/bks, Darin Brown txt/txt/txt/txt/txt/vd, Giordano Bruno bk/bio/bio, Frank R. Buianouckas, Stanislav Burzynski mov, Erwin Chargaff bio/bk/bio/prs, James Chin bk/vd, Nicolaus Copernicus bk, Mark Craddock, Francis Crick vd, Paul Crutzen, Marie Curie, Rebecca Culshaw txt/bk, Roger Cunningham, Charles Darwin txts/bk, Erasmus Darwin txt//bk/txt/hse/bks, Peter Duesberg ste/ste/bk/txt/vd/vd, Freeman Dyson, Albert Einstein, Richard Feynman bio, John Fewster, Rosalind Franklin, Bernard Forscher tx, Galileo Galilei, Walter Gilbert vd, Goethe bio/bk/bio, Nicolas Gonzalez tlk/rec/stetxt/txt, Patricia Goodson txt/bk/bk, Alec Gordon, James Hansen, Etienne de Harven bk/txt/vd, Alfred Hassig intw/txt, Robert G. Houston txt, Steven Jonas vd, Edward Jenner txt, Benjamin Jesty, Adrian Kent vd, Thomas Kuhn, Fred Kummerow, Stefan Lanka txt/txt/vd, Serge Lang, John Lauritsen vd, Paul Lauterbur vd, Mark Leggett, Richard Lindzen, James Lovelock, Andrew Maniotis, Lynn Margulis, Barbara McClintock, Christi Meyer vd, George Miklos, Marco Mamone Capria, Peter Medawar, Luc Montagnier txt/txt/vd, Kary Mullis, Linus Pauling prs/vd/vd, Eric Penrose, Roger Penrose vd, Max Planck, Rainer Plaga, David Rasnick bio/vd/bk, Robert Root-Bernstein vd, Sherwood Rowland, Otto Rossler, Harry Rubin, Marco Ruggiero txt/txt/intw/vd, Bertrand Russell Carl Sagan vd, Erwin Schrodinger, Fred Singer, Barbara Starfield txt, Gordon Stewart txt/txt, Richard Strohman, Thomas Szasz, Nicola Tesla bio/bio, Charles Thomas intw/vd, Frank Tipler, James Watson vd/vd, Alfred Wegener vd, Edward O. Wilson vd.

ACADEMICS, DOCTORS, AUTHORS, FILMMAKERS, REPORTERS AND COMMENTATORS WHO HAVE NOBLY AIDED REVIEW OF THE STATUS QUO

Jad Adams bk, Marci Angell bk/txt/txt/txt, Clark Baker ste/txt/rdo/vd, James Blodgett, Tony Brown vd, Hiram Caton txt/txt/txt/bk/ste, Jonathan Collin ste , Marcus Cohen, David Crowe vd, Margaret Cuomo, Stephen Davis BK/BK,/rdo, Michael Ellner vd, Elizabeth Ely txt/txt/ste, Epicurus, Dean Esmay, Celia Farber bio/txt/txt/txt/vd, Jonathan Fishbein txt/txt/wk, T.C.Fry, Michael Fumento, Max Gerson txt, Charles Geshekter vd, Michael Geiger, Roberto Giraldo, David Healy txt, Bob Herbert, Mike Hersee ste/rdo, Neville Hodgkinson txt /vd, James P. Hogan, Richard Horton bio/vd/vd, Christopher Hitchens, Eric Johnson, Claus Jensen vd, Phillip Johnson, Coleman Jones vds, William Donald Kelley, Ernst T. Krebs Sr txt, Ernst T. Krebs Jr. txt,/bio/txt/txt/ltr, Paul Krugman, Brett Leung MOV/ste/txt/txt/tx+vd/txt, Katie Leishman, Anthony Liversidge blg/intv/intv/txt/txts/txt/intv/txt/vd/vd, Bruce Livesey txt, James W. Loewen, Frank Lusardi, Nathaniel Lehrman vd, Christine Maggiore bk/ste/rec/rdo/vd, Rouben Mamoulian txt/txt/txt/txt/txt/doc/flm/flm, Noreen Martin vd, Robert Maver txt/itw, Eric Merola MOV, Lady Mary Wortley Montagu, Michael Moore bio/MOV/MOV/MOV, Gordon Moran, Ralph Nader bk, Ralph Moss txt/blg/ste/bks, Gary Null /txt/rdo/vd, Dan Olmsted wki, Toby Ord vd, Charles Ortleb bk/txt/bk/intw/flm, Neenyah Ostrom bk, Dennis Overbye, Mehmet Dr Oz vd, Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos ste/vd, Maria Papagiannidou bk, Thomas Piketty bk/bk/bk/bk/bk/bk/bk/bk/bk/bk, Robert Pollin txt/vd/bk, Jon Rappoport bio/bk/bk/ste/bk/bk/vd, Janine Roberts bk/bk, Luis Sancho vd, Liam Scheff ste/txt/bk/bk/rdio/vd, John Scythes, Casper Schmidt txt/txt, Joan Shenton vd/vd, Joseph Sonnabend vd, John Stauber, David Steele, Joseph Stiglitz bk/txt, Will Storr rdo Wolfgang Streeck, James P. Tankersley ste, Gary Taubes vd, Mwizenge S. Tembo, John Tierney vd, Michael Tracey, Valendar Turner rec, Jesse Ventura bk, Michael Verney-Elliott bio/vds/vd, Voltaire, Walter Wagner, Andrew Weil vd, David Weinberger bio/bk/blg/blg/BK/bk/pds, Robert Willner bk/txt/txt/vd, Howard Zinn.

*****************************************************
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 that ever interfered with my learning was my education. I am Freeman Dyson, and I approve of this blog, but would warn the author that life as a heretic is a hard one, since the ignorant and the half informed, let alone those who should know better, will automatically trash their betters who try to enlighten them with independent thinking, as I have found to my sorrow in commenting on "global warming" and its cures.
Many people would die rather than think – in fact, they do so. – Bertrand Russell.

The progress of science is strewn, like an ancient desert trail, with the bleached skeletons of discarded theories which once seemed to possess eternal life. - Arthur Koestler

One should as a rule respect public opinion in so far as is necessary to avoid starvation and to keep out of prison. – Bertrand Russell

Fraud and falsehood only dread examination. Truth invites it. - Samuel Johnson

A sudden bold and unexpected question doth many times surprise a man and lay him open. – Sir Francis Bacon (1561 – 1626)

He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that. – John Stuart Mill

Whenever you find that you are on the side of the majority, it is time to reform. – Mark Twain

Although science has led to the generally high living standards that most of the industrialized world enjoys today, the astounding discoveries underpinning them were made by a tiny number of courageous, out-of-step, visionary, determined, and passionate scientists working to their own agenda and radically challenging the status quo. – Donald W. Braben

An old error is always more popular than a new truth. — German Proverb

I am Richard Feynman and I approve of this blog

When even the brightest mind in our world has been trained up from childhood in a superstition of any kind, it will never be possible for that mind, in its maturity, to examine sincerely, dispassionately, and conscientiously any evidence or any circumstance which shall seem to cast a doubt upon the validity of that superstition. I doubt if I could do it myself. – Mark Twain

It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his income depends on his not understanding it. – Upton Sinclair

A clash of doctrines is not a disaster, but an opportunity. - Alfred North Whitehead

Fraud and falsehood only dread examination. Truth invites it. – Samuel Johnson

Man’s mind cannot grasp the causes of events in their completeness, but the desire to find those causes is implanted in man’s soul. And without considering the multiplicity and complexity of the conditions any one of which taken separately may seem to be the cause, he snatches at the first approximation to a cause that seems to him intelligible and says: “This is the cause!” – Leo Tolstoy

The evolution of the world tends to show the absolute importance of the category of the individual apart from the crowd. - Soren Kierkegaard

Who does not know the truth is simply a fool, yet who knows the truth and calls it a lie is a criminal. – Bertold Brecht

How easily the learned give up the evidence of their senses to preserve the coherence of ideas in their imagination. – Adam Smith

Education consists mainly in what we have unlearned. – Mark Twain

The mind likes a strange idea as little as the body likes a strange protein and resists it with similar energy. If we watch ourselves honestly, we shall often find that we have begun to argue against a new idea even before it has been completely stated. – Arthur Koestler

Whenever the human race assembles to a number exceeding four, it cannot stand free speech. – Mark Twain

People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. - Adam Smith

There isn’t anything so grotesque or so incredible that the average human being can’t believe it. – Mark Twain

He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that. – John Stuart Mill

It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere. – Voltaire

People are generally better persuaded by the reasons which they have themselves discovered than by those which have come into the mind of others.- Blaise Pascal.

Illusion is the first of all pleasures. – Voltaire

The applause of a single human being is of great consequence. – Samuel Johnson

(Click for more Unusual Quotations on Science and Human Nature)

Important: This site is best viewed in LARGE FONT, and in Firefox for image title visibility (place cursor on pics to reveal comments) and layout display. Click the title of any post to get only that post and its Comments for printing. All posts guaranteed fact checked according to reference level cited, typically the original journal studies. Full guide to site purpose, layout and how to print posts out is in the lower blue section at the bottom of the home page.
---Admin AL/E/ILMK---

Bob Gallo sends South African missile into New York


But the payload seems rather short on explosive

What may be an exceedingly self-incriminating document has been sent to Harpers by the chief suspects in the HIV?AIDS true denialist camp.

By “true denialists” we mean those who most vociferously deny there have been many peer-reviewed fatal flaws pointed out in the paradigm which has ruled for so long, and been so well protected by the campaign conducted by these and other HIV?AIDS defenders, who are surely the true denialists.

The signatories include the hero of HIV, Bob Gallo, we notice, as well as the odd fish who recently visited this site to stir up mischief, Richard Jefferys.

Long silence is finally broken

The document is self-incriminating because it reveals the very lack of justification for supporting HIV?AIDS that they vehemently deny in the letter. So this is the first success of the Harpers piece – Farbers has finally lured out of hiding the key people who have so successfully prevented public debate from proceeding in one of the most important, life or death paradigm challenges extant.

For instead of ignoring the Harpers piece and poo pooing it to any media reporter who asked for their reaction, which is the successful strategy paradigm leaders have followed for twenty years, they have exposed their best arguments against it, and thus all the flaws inherent in their position, for public inspection. Instead of taking their time, they have “rushed” to get the letter out, which is unwise, judging from the language used, which is rather childish, as are their demands:

To save its good reputation, Harper’s should do the following:

* Withdraw editorial support for Farber’s article and publish this withdrawal on the Harper’s Magazine website.

* Publish a retraction in the April or May issue of Harper’s Magazine and on the website immediately.

* Publish the list of errors and corrections in a prominent position on the website as soon as you have been able to fact-check it (the fact-checkers obviously should not include the individuals who “fact-checked” Ms. Farber’s article, or any other individuals suggested to you by her, or them).

* Publish a general rebuttal of the Farber piece in the April or May issue of Harper’s Magazine. One or more of the authors of the errors’ document will prepare such a rebuttal once we hear from you that you will print it.

* Undertake to review Harper’s fact-checking process, with special regard to articles on science (the common procedure of a writer suggesting fact-checkers for the article is seriously flawed).

We expect a satisfactory response from Harper’s by Monday evening. Regards, Nathan Geffen.”

Presumably this is a tribute to the reputation of the magazine, which they call “prestigious” in their letter, and that they have detected that many people they know are taking it seriously. Harpers’ “influence” is apparently making itself felt. Perhaps those who prepared this overconfident broadside should have reflected on the source of that influence, which is that Harpers is run by intelligent and worldly people who operate outside the circle of influence of those who hold the purse strings which influence other media, such as the drug companies, since they are financed by a foundation.

Have HIV defenders shot themselves in foot by saying too much?

The precipitate nature of the communication and its political naivete are indicated by the crude terms in which it is expressed and the silliness of its demands, all of which are based on the assumption that Harpers doesn’t know what it is talking about and can easily be cowed into submission with scientific expertise.

Apparently the singers are not fully conscious of the fact that Farber is the most seasoned investigator of their shenanigans around, having been at it for twenty years, equal to ourselves but busier, and that the article took about two years to go through rewriting and expansion, editing and checking.

The one thing they can be sure of is that unlike the easily frightened Alexander, the blogger of DailyKos, it will take more than a little questionable scientific blather to get Harpers to do any more than ignore them, a nice twist that will serve the political defenders of HIV?AIDS a dose of their own medicine. Probably this overly strong reaction will only add to the Harpers momentum in the circles that count.

The one thing it will do is to provide a record that can easily be referenced by anybody who wishes to check out the strength of the arguments on either side without going to the scientific literature, which is the only reliable and up to date source. You can be sure that all serious paradigm challengers will be poring over this document.

They will certainly pick apart many of the statements made in the pdf criticising Farber for “56 errors”, which are expounded in no fewer than 36 pages. This is certainly an asset for those who support Harpers/Farber, for the longer the reply the more opportunity there is to make mincemeat out of it. From an initial skimming it seems to contain much that was standard in the early days of HIVB?AIDS theory which is now out of date, and much that has been decisively exploded in Duesberg’s papers. Presumably this reflects Bob Gallo recycling his old ideas, apparently unaware of some of the literature which now completely contradicts, for example, the possibility of a heterosexual AIDS epidemic.

We’ve only glanced at it and will post later on any egregious errors we discover, but already we have to note that we see correlation being asserted as causation, responses which avoid the point, appeals to authority compromised by drug company connections (as are some or all of these spokesmen, one suspects, not that this affects the argument), “errors” which are simply subjectively contradicted, “errors” which are true but are explained away, responses which are merely denials of misconduct, “errors” which are referenced as true in Duesberg papers, contradictions which are themselves false statements (PCR cannot count the amount of HIV in the blood, it merely can multiply what it finds, according to its inventor), “errors” contradicted by a reference that can itself be contradicted by another reference, “errors” contradicted by bad logic, “misleading statements” which are correct but they don’t like the phrasing, “errors” contradicted by out of date HIV theory abandoned in the leading mainstream literature (HIV is not held to “directly” kill T cells any more), “errors” contradicted by meaningless exceptions, errors” contradicted by claims that overlook the effect of treatment, “errors” proved by claims that so contradict mainstream literature that they amount to falsehoods (“most HIV transmission is through heterosexual sex”), “errors” proved by the use of logic that would also invalidate HIV theory, objections to the “denialist” case as “holocaust denial”, attacks on the credibility of various people quoted by Farber, and other specious nonsense.

On the whole it is difficult to imagine this amounts to much more than sticking the neck out to have it chopped off. The attempt to demean Duesberg’s authority and reputation seems likely to backfire, particular since it is claimed that most cancer authorities consider his new cancer hypothesis “pseudoscience.” Tell that to those who invited him to speak at the NCI, and the editors at Scientific American.

We detect the hand of Bob Gallo in this kind of schoolboy calumny. We were thinking of him the other day with fondness, as a consummate rogue who was charming in his bullying way. Now, however, he is old, like every major player in this affair. How tragic it must be to have spent your life making career capital out of mistakes great and small, especially a giant one which attacks the health of people all over the world instead of saving it, as Gallo MD once promised to do.

Let’s hope for his sake that he is able to maintain the belief to the end that he was right, and that HIV was really the scourge of the world, and he defended us all against it.

We recall once asking him if he would take AZT if he tested positive for HIV. He didn’t seem very keen. He said he would assess the situation carefully, or words to that effect.

Here is the page with the letter and the pdf: ACTUP offers a critique sent from South Africa

(show)

AIDS DENIALISM IN HARPER’S

March 2006

LISTING AND DESCRIBING IN DETAIL THE ERRORS IN CELIA FARBER’S

AIDS DENIALIST ARTICLE AS PUBLISHED MARCH 2006 IN HARPER’S

AIDS DENIALISM = SEEING WHAT YOU WANT TO SEE

Dear Sam Stark, Lewis H. Lapham and Roger D. Hodge

CC: Publishers and all staff of Harper’s

CC: Robert Gallo, Gregg Gonsalves Richard Jefferys, Daniel R. Kuritzkes, Bruce Mirken, John P. Moore, Jeffrey T. Safrit [co-authored response]

As promised, attached is a document listing and describing in detail the errors in Celia Farber’s March 2006 article in Harper’s. My co-authors are copied on this email. Because of the rush to get this to you, we reserve the option to make modifications to it during the next week. We do however consider it a public document.

We have categorised the errors as follows: 25 are outright false. 16 are misleading. 10 are biased. 5 are unfair. (i.e. 56 errors) These are underestimates, because in some cases we classified several errors as one. I have also not counted errors listed in table 2. Furthermore it would be unsurprising that if you properly fact-check the areas which we have not covered in detail (i.e. Farber’s allegations against the NIH, Jonathan Fishbein, the Hafford case) more errors would come to light. Every one of the errors we list should have been caught by a fact-checking team with appropriate scientific expertise. Many did not even require scientific expertise and just amount to sloppy journalism.

The printing of Farber’s error-filled piece by a prestigious magazine that has a fact-checking mechanism in place is scandalous. In contrast to the Stephen Glass case at New Republic, Farber’s distortions should have been spotted easily by a competent editor because all sources demonstrating her errors are public domain. Admittedly, spotting many of her errors requires some scientific expertise in your fact-checking team. If Harper’s does not have this scientific expertise then it is irresponsible to publish articles purporting to debunk the scientific consensus.

I note a number of disingenuous quotes attributed to Roger D. Hodge in Gay City News. In particular Hodge is quoted as stating “It was very, very thoroughly fact-checked over the course of three months,” and “A lot of what people are describing as errors are differences of opinion about the data.”

I sincerely hope these are misquotes. If they are not, it demonstrates that Mr. Hodge is unqualified to edit articles relevant to science and cannot differentiate between fact and opinion. To characterise research published in credible peer-reviewed scientific journals and the opinions of people with no track record of published AIDS research as differences of opinion is to have a very flawed understanding of truth. Farber’s article was not simply provocative or controversial, it is factually incorrect and unfair.

Hodge is further quoted as claiming that the story was not about whether HIV is the cause of AIDS. This is ridiculous. The story contains numerous assertions related to HIV as the cause of AIDS. Hodge is quoted that the story is rather about the mismanagement of drug studies and the censoring of debate. While this is certainly part of the focus of Farber’s story and an important topic to cover, Farber has covered this part of the story incompetently and unfairly.

To save its good reputation, Harper’s should do the following:

* Withdraw editorial support for Farber’s article and publish this withdrawal on the Harper’s Magazine website.

* Publish a retraction in the April or May issue of Harper’s Magazine and on the website immediately.

* Publish the list of errors and corrections in a prominent position on the website as soon as you have been able to fact-check it (the fact-checkers obviously should not include the individuals who “fact-checked” Ms. Farber’s article, or any other individuals suggested to you by her, or them).

* Publish a general rebuttal of the Farber piece in the April or May issue of Harper’s Magazine. One or more of the authors of the errors’ document will prepare such a rebuttal once we hear from you that you will print it.

* Undertake to review Harper’s fact-checking process, with special regard to articles on science (the common procedure of a writer suggesting fact-checkers for the article is seriously flawed).

We expect a satisfactory response from Harper’s by Monday evening.

Regards, Nathan Geffen

download attachment: “Errors in Farber article in Harpers” (pdf) (273 KB)

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.


Bad Behavior has blocked 1328 access attempts in the last 7 days.