Comparing 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.
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. 
I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: “O Lord make my enemies ridiculous.” And God granted it. – VoltaireDuesberg’s elegant reply
The drug company financed activist and HIV enthusiast Martin Delaney of Project Inform has seen fit to write a little diatribe against the distnguished scientist Peter Duesberg, as we noted a couple of posts earlier.
This piece of confused literature has been posted by his distinguished colleague, Cornell researcher and HIV∫AIDS streetfighter John P. Moore, Goon show character manque and now chief poster of accusations of homophobia on Moore’s website AIDSTruth.org, under the title “Peter Duesberg and homophobia”.
As we pointed out earlier, these words together in the one title form a self-contradictory phrase, since homophobia and Duesberg are as far apart as a sewer and the Golden Gate bridge, or a tin of Athlete’s Foot powder and a $4000 pair of crocodile Manolo Blahnik stillettos.
The heading is oxymoronic since Duesberg’s whole effort in correcting bad science serves to save the lives of any of the gay lemmings that Delaney is leading over the precipice in HIV∫AIDS who will listen to him.
Duesberg spears Delaney’s balloon
This is why Duesberg has now sent the following letter to Delaney, which says it all:
Dear Martin Delaney,
I understand from Harvey Bialy and Anthony Liversidge that you are sending out messages on websites that I am “homophobe”.
Assuming that you as a director or ex-director of “Project Inform” are interested in verifiable information, I invite you to come to my office here at Donner Lab at UCB and check my email correspondence for the huge, indeed very huge numbers of emails I have sent out responding to self-identified gay men asking me for information about HIV, DNA chain terminators and protease inhibitors currently prescribed as anti-HIV drugs.
Based on my information of the primary consequences of these drugs on the livelihood of human cells and organisms, I typically discourage gay men and others from using these drugs. In the light of the biochemical effects these drugs were designed for my advice is: These drugs are AIDS by prescription.
On the same grounds, I would, however, encourage people to take these drugs, if I really disliked or hated them.
So – if you practice freedom of information at Project Inform, you may end up offering me a part time job after reviewing my email files.
Let me know when you come over.
Sincerely,
Peter D.
–
Peter Duesberg
Dept. Mol. & Cell Biol.
Stanley Hall
UC Berkeley
BERKELEY CA 94720
Touche, as they say in educated circles. Not much left for Delaney or Moore to say, unless they want to try bleating “But HIV causes AIDS” for the umpteenth time. We advise Moore not to bother, since we have discovered the paper he wrote recently showing that it doesn’t and can’t from about six points of view, which we shall post shortly.
Project Misinform, AIDS Truthiness
Why did Moore display Delaney’s delusional diatribe so prominently? Why all the accusations of homophobia on his site recently?
Presumably this editorial placement, along with other accusations of homophobia directed at prominent HIV∫AIDS critics, including this obscure blogger, is for lack of anything more substantial to deflect the scientifically based bunker busters of paradigm criticism directed against him by the AIDS “denialists”, his name for those who believe it is more important to review the lack of substance and success of the basic assumptions of HIV∫AIDS than it is for him to get more funding for his microbicide research at Cornell painting the undersides of macaques, which sadly has been severely called into question by a recent study that suggested microbicides actually enhanced the transmission of HIV.
From the point of view of anybody who cares about the lives and welfare of HIV∫AIDS patients of any sex or color it can only be said that there is as much useful information from Project Inform as there is truth at AIDSTruth, but what is most prominently missing from both is plain good sense.
How could a man – Martin Delaney – who is gay and presumably cares for his fellow gays – not already know how grateful so many gays are for the work of Peter Duesberg, without whom they never would have known of the sixty reasons not to believe that HIV causes AIDS, which John Moore has now confirmed, in the paper we are about to present for the delectation of all who appreciate hypocrisy, inner conflict and true “denial” at the highest level, that is, in the schizophrenic mind of Moore, a man whose assistance in making the HIV∫AIDS critics look good, and himself and his cronies bad, is beginning to look like the actions of a double agent, one who secretly agrees with the critics of HIV∫AIDS and because he is prevented by economics and politics from coming out and saying so in public -which would result in the instant loss of his position at Cornell – has to show it somehow.
This is why we urge “denialists” to go easy on John P. Moore, who may yet prove to be one of them. And indeed, a man who despite every financial pressure aids the cause of truth deserves the prize he will no doubt get in the end, possibly joining Robert Gallo (the first man to show that HIV does not cause AIDS) and Anthony Fauci (the first man to point out publicly that HIV is the best vaccine against AIDS, because it excites the production of more T cells rather than less) and Duesberg at Stockholm for defeating AIDS.
But since you cannot share a Nobel among more than three people, it may well be that he will share it with Gallo and Duesberg, so we urge him not to annoy Anthony Fauci any further by making a public nuisance of himself with silly and low level insults of his critics on the non scientific level, since Fauci will not be pleased when we reveal to the world why Moore’s claim to fame and favor with Stockholm deserves to take precedence over the director of the NIAID.
April 22nd, 2007 at 3:24 pm
John Moore has now confirmed, in the paper we are about to present for the delectation of all who appreciate hypocrisy, inner conflict and true “denial†at the highest level, that is, in the schizophrenic mind of Moore, a man whose assistance in making the HIV∫AIDS critics look good, and himself and his cronies bad, is beginning to look like the actions of a double agent, one who secretly agrees with the critics of HIV∫AIDS
Actually, TS, I imagine I have detected a less uncompromising stance towards ‘Denialists’ lately. For instance, Prof. Moore advertizes on his website a book by Steven Epstein, strikingly named Impure Science, which seems quite sympathetic towards AIDS activists, including dissidents. Here is a typical excerpt:
The impact of the AIDS movement on biomedical institutions in the United States has been impressive and conspicuous. At the same time, as Alberto Melucci has noted, social movements often have a “hidden efficacy” which becomes apparent only over time: by challenging cultural codes and conventions, they suggest to the broader society “that alternative frameworks of meaning are possible and that the operational logic of power apparatuses is not the only possible ‘rationality.’” [ 40] Given the diverse influences that AIDS activism has already begun to exert, it seems likely that the movement will engender just this kind of shift in systems of meaning. For instance, it has rapidly become something of a cliché to say that the doctor-patient relationship will never be the same in the wake of AIDS. As Stanford AIDS researcher Thomas Merigan reflected, “The doctor isn’t the same doctor [as] when I started in practice. … The doctor in the past was somebody who made your decisions for you and held your hand; and … you would just believe in him.” [ 41] Granted, models of interaction between doctors and patients have diversified considerably in recent decades….
Since we all know Prof. Moore does not post anything he does not endorse, it must be his position as well that the dialogue between activists/dissidents and the establishment is crucial for the progress of science which would otherwise become part of the “operational logic” of political and economic “power apparatuses”.
An even more tangible example of the recognition of the important role played by dissidents and the dialogue they create is Michael Specter’s comment in his New Yorker article on The Denialists; an article I believe Moore has also endorsed, possibly even influenced according to his own hints in an email to one Harvey Bialy. If that is so, perhaps the following words were included at Moore’s behest:
Without Duesberg’s research there might have been no significant progress in treating AIDS.
These are just a few examples of the many ways in which Prof. Moore, gives support to the notion that dissidence, or denial as he call it, saves lives. It’s not difficult either to understand the good Prof’s motivation: Being a man with a fundamentally religious temperament, but also a very practical sort of man, prof. Moore undoubtedly feels he has to lay away a little treasure in the Kingdom of Heaven as he accumulates mammon on Earth. Even a wealthy man could want a bargaining chip or two when time comes to bribe the Keeper of the Pearly Gates.
April 23rd, 2007 at 3:37 pm
McD, good one. We have a copy of Impure Science on our bookshelf, though we haven’t made it our bedtime reading recently. Maybe we should. As we recall, it is one of those books which cover the topic of the objections to the ruling HIV∫AIDS paradigm extensively, and the politics of the critics and their fight to be heard, without abandoning the assumption that they are wrong, since the author or authors are hosts of the HIV∫AIDS meme. It therefore promises to be a book which finds that the paradigm is incorrect, but oddly fails to grasp the nettle. This failure to realize the consequences of its own research is a typical example of the way in which such books and article derail. Apparently examining one’s own assumptions is not a popular pastime among authors, which is understandable given they are working to some contract or other and are not free agents.
Something of the kind is shown by articles and books about the existence/non existence of God, we have noticed. For example, the Wired piece last year about the resurgence of atheism under the leadership of the Big Three, Dawking, Harris and the other guy whose name slips from our grasp at this instant, because he is less interesting and decided. The author does a fine job of quoting these guys’ best points, and then just when you expect him to wind up triumphantly concluding they have proved their point, and that God is an inherently absurd concept once he/she is given two or more attributes, since they always logically conflict, eg all powerful and all loving, he derails and dissipates into a mess of equivocal journalistic pap, presumably because the editors don’t wish to alienate the bulk of readers, who believe that God is watching over them from the ceiling.
April 23rd, 2007 at 6:26 pm
Delaney’s two pieces are pathetic smear jobs — I actually was shocked by the haughty tone that permeates both pieces, especially considering that Project Inform appears to be nothing but a money laundering organization for pharma. It is interesting to observe these organizations and how quickly these folks jump from one to the other. Recently, Jeanne Bergmann left HealthGAP for some other organization, and now Gregg Gonsalves, formerly of GMHC, seems to be stumping for a pharma lobbying group concerned with South Africa. What is clear, is that all these people are concerned about themselves first, their fellow human beings much, much later — if at all. If Martin Delaney is gay, he’s a discredit to my community. Right along with Gonsalves and Andrew Sullivan.
April 24th, 2007 at 12:24 am
In my opinion, Dr. Duesberg’s offer for Martin Delaney to go on a fishing expedition in his university office and email files is quite unwise. However affable Mr. Delaney may pretend to be, any such information or documentation of the professor’s private correspondence with gay men should not be provided, as it might be used adversarially. Martin Delaney is not to be trusted.
Though once himself a critic of AZT and recreational drugs, Mr. Delaney and his group (Project Deform?) have since become well-financed by drug companies such as Bristol-Myers Squibb and the former Burroughs Wellcome (which made AZT), and has demonstrated a hostile and demagogic atitude towards those who question the value of antiretroviral therapy for AIDS treatment or who point to recreational drugs as a cause of immunodeficiency. Delaney’s notion that anyone who criticizes the self-destructive, drug-abusing lifestyle of many fast-track urban gays is thereby “homophobic” or bigoted is absurd and self-serving, for the same lifestyle critique applies to heterosexual drug addicts.
Since at least the early 1990’s, Delaney has been a determined opponent of Duesberg and has written many letters to journals and newspapers to denounce the professor. I would urge Peter Duesberg to rescind his generous but perilous offer, and to refuse to ever open his files or correspondence to such a well-paid and well-connected enemy.