Any intelligent person not obsessed with where to find homophobia in every nook and cranny of public debate on any issue can immediately see how homophobia has contributed to distorting this discussion, and doesn’t need the further distraction of endless debate especially one involving this very ad hominem complaint.

Let’s spell it out.

1) The idea that a virus caused AIDS was immediately popular with gays because it let them off the hook of having to blame their own self-damaging behavior which ruined their immune systems and health from

a) the impact of sexual performance enhancing drugs including carcinogenic nitrites

b) obsessive cleaning which stripped their systems of the bacterial defenses which ensure proper digestion of elements needed to support a properly functioning immune system and

c) neglect of proper nourishment in the pursuit of late night erotic life styles which also starves the immune system of key elements and their crucial balance

2) Blaming a virus enabled fund raising from the public coffers and private charities to expand to disproportionate levels since

a) the public at large was supposedly threatened, and thus alarmed, and their legislators willing to pay for defensive measures

b) a virus can be researched by scientists in expensive labs in the expectation of a vaccine or other practical medical measures

c) bureaucrats, legislators, scientists and any other parties who resist this trend can be called “homophobic”

3) Anyone who blames the epidemic of immune breakdown in this country and in Europe on gay behavior can be called “homophobic.”

4) Mention and discussion of AIDS can proceed in public life without totally disgusting heterosexuals (particularly homophobic ones) with having to contemplate gay practices all of the time, since most of it can be safely abstracted in the mind to the scientific level of discussion involving diagrams of knobby sea mines, cultures, technically specified blood tests, etc.

Is that OK? Do we have to discuss it any further? Is there any reason to bring the topic up here and accuse people of homophobia? Can we get back to the science and its politics? That is the topic of this blog.

You are a magnificently sensitive and generous soul who seems to turn into a manipulative agitator whenever you bring this topic up, so why do it? Doesn’t it occur to you that the issue of whether something is politically correct or not is all too likely to reduce rather rapidly into a way to score cheap sanctimonious points at the expense of the productive discussion, which just gets halted until people either leave or calm down?

We have no idea whether people who insulted you are genuinely anti-gay or not, but we suspect that they are not but have thrown anti gay insults at you because you emphasise the topic so much, just as bears will chase backpackers who run away from them.

We want to solve the political problem of AIDS for real, by exposing the fact that the scientific literature continually contradicts the claims of the HIV∫AIDS ideology, and a discussion of how and how much homophobia plays a part still seem to us best conducted on a board for gay politics and not on a blog addressing how and why science has gone wrong in this respect, unless you have some brilliant perception (other than suggesting Robert Gallo and many other scientists are homophobic, which is probably true) which rises above the analysis of Caspar Schmidt which was only notable because it was prescient, not because it was complicated.

But perhaps you have a more profound perception relevant to putting the science back on the rails.

As far as the readership of this blog goes, moving the server disconnects from the search spiders so there will be a lull before numbers climb back again to 700 and above a day.

Have we not discussed Schmidt’s paper here? Is the focus of that paper on how homophobia created this monstrous mess? Perhaps you were being too hasty when you wrote the above sentence, which is clearly misinformed and incorrect.

And might I suggest Google Scholar search on “homophobia,” which is indeed both a scientific and political topic?

Why do I bother? I’ll answer. I won’t bother any further. Are you getting more than 20 hits per day now? Make it 19.

This is why we prefer to keep out of your disputes, Mark, with apologies. There is no rhyme and reason to your attacks except your permanent accusations of homophobia, which is not a scientific topic or a political one which affects the issue discussed here in any complicated way. Perhaps homophobia drives some people’s desire the keep the paradigm intact that ensures gay men grow ill and die. But whatever you have “just realised” is a mystery as far as we are concerned. The ad hominem attack on Bialy is right there at the beginning of the email exchange between you and Moore quoted at the bottom of the article. If that is what you mean, perhaps you ought to read it again, though as far as we are concerned it probably ought to be removed, since inattentive readers might think the calumny is correct.

As far as Moore removing our email address from his quoted email copied to others, this was certainly interesting and shows that he is like most people willing to act civilly towards those who respect him in public as a web host, nothing more. But it is a point for his side, no doubt about that. Let’s note however he still carries a completely misleading description of this blog as a “conspiracy theory” one, which it is not, and he does this even though we have requested he write a better and more truthful descriptio on his so called “AIDStruth” site, given its name after all.

But we don’t really mind since we do view the coordinated effort to parry and bury the peer reviewed articles in top journals by Peter Duesberg and colleagues completely rejecting the HIV∫AIDS paradigm, a campaign exposed when NIH memos were revealed to the public, and a strategy announced by Anthony Fauci head of NIAID in the AAAS newsletter to threaten any reporter that raised the topic with not having his or her calls returned, as a conspiracy of sorts.

The fact that the NIAID thus barred the New York Times and Frontline on PBS from covering the topic, as well as every other newspaper reporter and TV program, is quite clear from this and all other reports we have in hand. Such censorship of a paradigm review which flouts the public’s right to know has not been contradicted effectively in the literature, and which year by year is confirmed in the mainstream studies which fail to confirm and indeed entirely contradict conventional wisdom in HIV∫AIDS, certainly deserves of the label conspiracy, since it is otherwise not announced or reported by the officials and scientists coordinating it and carrying it out, even though mostly through blind cooperation.