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. – VoltaireExpanded name
Science and Ethics Guardian – why?
Blog host disavers all moral superiority
Following the events and claims of HIV∫AIDS and its dissent over two and a half years, from January 2005 to mid-2007, with Comments open to and attracting contradictions and objections from all comers, the blog host has sadly concluded that the case against HIV as the cause of AIDS, the ruling paradigm under assessment in New AIDS Review, is complete, and there are no further arguments or supposed evidence to entertain against the debunkers who have weighed in against it.
For that reason, as we have noted, the expansion of the topic to other paradigms under review, such as human caused global warming, cancer caused by oncogenes, etc., which we have dealt with from time to time, seemed appropriate to avoid repetition.
Moreover, it has also become increasingly clear that the fundamental issue in discriminating between good science and bad science is whether the science is practiced according to genuine professional standards or not, ie without bias introduced by human nature (see the blog logo) and without the distortion introduced by censorship, bullying and other means of evading open review (see Anthony Fauci, John P. Moore, Mark Wainberg).
Ethics are fundamental
Since good science is truthseeking, and a social activity in which professional standards are maintained, it seems to us that the ethics of good and bad behavior are the fundamental rules that have to be observed to get it, and that this blog is concerned as much with those ethics as with science per se (data, observation, hypothesis and theory).
So we have expanded the title of the blog to Science and Ethics Guardian to better reflect our area of concern.
Lest this give the wrong, arrogant impression we hasten to add that this implies absolutely nothing about the behavior of the blog host, who in no way sets himself up as the example to be followed, though admittedly we do try to live a decent life in accordance with the principles we imagine lead to the greatest social happiness and personal security of all.
Calling Exxon, Shell, etc.
However, we also hurry to admit that if the representatives of large corporate entities or other fine institutions wish to offer us contributions to enable us to go forward with the work of this blog in promulgating what we think are worthwhile social goals, and those contributions are large enough, we cannot promise that we will refuse, and if we accept we cannot guarantee that our minds and our posts will not be subtly twisted in the general direction of tolerance of the self-serving views and opinions which seem to go hand in hand with such gifts in the case of other commentators.
For who are we to claim we are less human than anybody else ?
And we certainly wouldn’t want to be caught being an ethical Mrs Grundy.
SUNDAY OBSERVANCE.
There’s a man that plays and sings…
WHAT a shocking state of things,
Oh, my goodness, Mrs. GRUNDY!
There’s a man that plays and sings
In a Blackpool hall on Sunday!
Oh, what wickedness, oh, dear!
Sunday music! What a scandal!
Folks might even go and hear
Things by HAYDN or by HANDEL!
Rush and find some obsolete
Act of wise and pious GEORGES,
Which will help us to defeat
Such abominable orgies!
But here’s worse news, I declare;
Gracious patience, Mrs. GRUNDY!
Eastbourne people cannot bear
Nice Salvation bands on Sunday!
Acts, not words, again we need,
Just to show them they are silly.
Sunday Music stopped? Indeed,
They must like it, willy nilly!
(Punch, April 9th, 1892)
July 15th, 2007 at 8:03 pm
Thank you, TS,
The new name is certainly acceptable, although a prior plea some many comments back lobbied for the word ‘new’ in the title. Not to worry.
It would appear that you’ve finally recognized the HIV∫AIDS puppy was a one-trick dog all this time.
Even anonymous in the Moore bombs thread asks the pertinent question which has long been hammered to smithereens, internet-wise.
Hopefully, TS, never again will it be necessary to fall back on first -∫- principle stated on page 61, of the somewhat incomplete, Onco∫ book—paraphrased slightly as—well they’re all wrong because well, we said so, or something like that.
Good luck on the new adventure.
McK
July 15th, 2007 at 8:19 pm
By the way, I love your adjectival phrase, “Defending science … flowing through modern systems”
It will go a long way with no sentence, no period and no verbs
McK
July 15th, 2007 at 11:47 pm
Oh, Dear,
Now I lay me down with sheep,
I pray to cod my sole to keep,
If I shud die afore I wake,
Please, don’t make me cod-fish cake.
July 16th, 2007 at 12:18 am
You did not recognize the blog as the subject of the sentence, and “defending” as the verb, McK? Perhaps a moment’s inattention between glasses of the rich bounty of the Scots talent for preparing distilled liquors of the celestial kind?
“New” may be added at some later stage, just as “Ethical” may be removed once again, if such Comments as your’n can be deciphered and prove to go against it, rather than for it, which is as yet unknown since our Enigma machine is currently balking. The exact meaning and relevance of the remainder of Comment 1 and also Comment 3 also remain to be elucidated therefore, unless you can kindly rephrase them with English sentences of the kind that we were used to in the nursery, many thanks, sorry to be a bother.