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. – VoltaireHow science works – some background
Now hold on, you might be saying after reading the introductory post below, why is this blog even necessary? Surely debate is free and open in every field of science, where all issues get thoroughly debated on the basis of evidence and reason? This is the way, after all, that good science must work.
Well, not in fact. As far as this fine, Platonic ideal of science is concerned, no Sir. Or as the Goomba Guide to Science might put it, Fah-geddabaht it!
In fact, it has been nearly fifty years since Thomas Kuhn, in his famous The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, built an entire book around this very point. His well known, but currently ignored, conclusion was that in practice, science is struggle. That is to say, change and progress in the theory of science, like the rest of the academy, come about through political revolution and overthrow. Scientific leaders and their favored ideas are not lightly displaced.
In real life, the sorry truth is that in virtually every scientific field, debate on any challenge to an existing major theory or paradigm (the broadly held idea on which recent progress is built) is most enthusiastically stifled, at least in the beginning, by those on top.
The powers that be in the field, who in almost every case are personally benefiting from the status quo (merely coincidence, of course!) are happy to reject every attempt to publish anything which threatens to undermine the world view upon which they and their work stand.
As in every field of human endeavor, those at the top of the hill are ready to kick back down the hill any challenger trying to replace them. So the difficulties of publishing objections to the prevailing wisdom, let alone replacing faulty but widespread beliefs, are very great. Only the strong survive the obstacle course, and many don’t.
On the other hand, many do, and some will win the Nobel for their contribution, which becomes the ruling wisdom in its turn. And when the time comes, they in their turn will kick newcomers back down the hill if they can.
Now, how does this apply to AIDS? As it happens, the science of AIDS is undoubtedly one of the most egregious examples of this unhappy trait, where scientists appear to put self-preservation ahead of truth, and join activists and others in repressing debate. And there are many, many signs that this has allowed bad science to thrive, and led to a massive diversion of funds and effort as people of goodwill and sense who are trying to save lives may have been led down the garden path. So many signs, in fact, that many believe this is the case, and AIDS is very bad science.
This blog will examine these signs as they crop up in the endless mainstream news flow about AIDS and the “AIDS pandemic.”