Science Guardian

Paradigms and power in science and society

I am Nicolaus Copernicus, and I approve of this blog

I am Richard Feynman and I approve of this blogComparing mainstream claims in science and technology and received wisdom in society with the published record, we defend honest, accomplished, independent minded and often heroic scientists (Peter Duesberg, Serge Lang, Harvey Bialy, Kary Mullis, Henry Bauer, Jim Watson, Peter Medawar, Erwin Chargaff, Richard Feynman, Linus Pauling, James Hansen, Fred Singer, Richard Lindzer, Rainer Plaga, Otto Rossler, Michio Kaku, David Rasnick, Rebecca Culshaw, Ernst Krebs, Mark Leggett, Adrian Kent) and their good science against the censorship, mudslinging, false arguments, ad hominem propaganda, overwhelming group prejudice and internal science politics of the paradigm wars of cancer, HIV/AIDS, evolution, global warming, collider physics, health, medicine and nutrition, as well as from time to time promoting truth in personal technology by identifying items of genuinely high quality from those whose reputation is unjustly magnified in the media.

I am Galileo Galilei, and I approve of this blog, but wish to warn the author that it is unwise to get on the wrong side of the Pope by portraying him as a simpleton, as I did, although confinement to my villa wasn't too bad a punishment.I am Bertrand Russell and I approve of this blog for three reasons - because it is for science, because it is against against religion, and because it is especially against religious belief in any scientific paradigm. This publication aims to measure truth only by the professional and scholarly literature in peer reviewed journals, well researched books, and the investigative reporting and reviews of thoughtful and informed if often unconventional academics, philosophers, researchers, scholars, authors, and journalists (John Lauritsen, Celia Farber, Liam Scheff, Robert Houston, Claus Jensen, Anthony Liversidge, James Blodgett, Jim Tankersley, John Tierney, Bob Herbert, Dennis Overbye, Marcus Cohen, Gary Null, Walter Wagner, Luis Sancho, Toby Ord and Eric Johnson) too often scorned, shortchanged or damned by publicly irresponsible scientists and other authorities living off the status quo.

Thus we hope to combat the influence of the running dog lackeys of those in power who mislead in science and society, namely compliant media editors, unquestioning science reporters, ignorant publishers, fellow traveling pharma activists and other invested parties, and their misled congregation of patients, doctors, politicians, officials, charity workers, foundation staff, celebrities, bloggers and innocent members of the confused but trusting general public who may assume that leading scientists and other gurus are not subject to the laws of human nature, by which personal rewards and group goals can trump professional conscience and the public interest.

I am Carl Sagan, and I approve of this blog, because it encourages the lay person to practice the scientific method for himself,  and to double check the verbal claims of scientists, however prominent, against the published literature and common sense.  I myself wish that I had been less gullible when I was alive, for then I would not have taken the AIDS HIV claim at face value, and I might have saved myself from standard treatment for leukemia.   After all, I did stand up for marijuana and against the political prejudice and legal suppression which prevents all of us benefiting from its educational influence.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. I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: “O Lord make my enemies ridiculous.” And God granted it. – Voltaire

Everything that one thinks about a lot becomes problematic. – Friedrich Nietzsche

A little inaccuracy sometimes saves tons of explanation. – Saki (H. H. Munro).

More Quotations on Science and Belief

Best viewed ONLY in LARGE font in current Safari or Firefox in Mac, and Firefox or Chrome in PC (IE displays all text bold). Display a single post and its comments for printout by clicking on its headline (printout won't include the scurrilous remarks appended to images which are briefly visible if the cursor is placed over them, repeat if necessary). All posts guaranteed fact checked according to reference level cited. Guide to blog purpose and layout is in the other blue section at the bottom of every home page.

(Incorporating New AIDS Review)

Oprah’s incredible Xmas journey

December 25th, 2006


Replay of South African trip rekindles joy in hearts of audience

But does “AIDS” mean only one treatment?

Oprah visited South Africa about two years ago, and celebrated Christmas by rerunning the segment this Christmas Day.

She gave clothes to poor children there, who were quite transformed by the simple gifts, which were the only decent costume they had had for quite a while, if ever. The joy that broke out in the hall was ecstatic. Children ran to hug Oprah and say “I love you Oprah”. “I love you too”, Oprah replied. She also handed out each child a box with packaged food for a month. Afterwards she broke out in loud sobs, as she walked away from the event.

((Click pics twice for maximum enlargement)).

She then visited the home of a (soon to be) AIDS orphan and then went with her to the mother lying in the hospital, hollow eyed, one eye grotesquely larger than the other, with “AIDS”, although the public hospital had no drugs to treat her, because the government had not provided any, the black doctor explained to Oprah.

Oprah broke down at this and cried in public, sobbing “I don’t understand it. I don’t understand it.” When she finished sobbing, she hugged the child for a long moment that the cameras caught in full.

Later, she tells us that she has now discovered her purpose in life, and the reason why she has never married. It is to use her voice to rescue the children of South Africa from the rural sex orgy spreading HIV among their parents.

Now, she reports from stage today, the government has agreed to supply drugs. She wants you to find the same joy in giving by doing something for these people, whose country has more people with AIDS than any other. You can contribute to her “Angel Network” which presumably will send more drugs.

Question: If the woman was not treated for AIDS, was she treated for anything else? The doctor told Oprah she was treated for her symptoms, but the response seemed to be only acquiescence to Oprah’s question in this regard. So evidently what was meant was any symptoms were alleviated as far as possible.

The mother subsequently died. If she died of TB, was she treated for TB, or not? Presumably not effectively. Why not? is there a shortage of antibiotics or whatever cures TB, or is African TB too lethal in poor people? It certainly is rampant in Africa, and a new strain is said to be causing new problems.

Bottom line: Does the diagnosis of supposed AIDS mean that they don’t bother to give a mother any antibiotics? Surely not.

But one suspects that this is a possibility. Once “AIDS” is the diagnosis, the assumption of everybody involved is that only Western drugs can save the patient.

Certainly this is the assumption of all viewers of this segment, which follows a repeat of Oprah’s “Buy Red with Bono” show a couple of weeks ago.

At this rate Dr Anthony Fauci is probably in love with Oprah, who has become the largest propaganda spokesman for the standard wisdom in AIDS short of WHO.

Audience: 7 million or more.


Bad Behavior has blocked 1096 access attempts in the last 7 days.