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.

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.

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.