Comments on: Michael Specter in denial http://www.scienceguardian.com/blog/michael-specter-in-denial.htm Reviewing scientific paradigms and other general beliefs in the light of the scientific and professional literature Thu, 05 Jan 2012 05:57:56 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Dan http://www.scienceguardian.com/blog/michael-specter-in-denial.htm/comment-page-1#comment-4273 Dan Wed, 14 Mar 2007 14:33:52 +0000 http://www.paradigmoverthrow.com/blog/michael-specter-in-denial.htm#comment-4273 Michael, <br /> <br />It does seem strange that this article wasn't mentioned on the Colbert Report. You'd think that after writing the "answer" to Celia Farber's article, that Specter would want to trumpet his accomplishment. <br /> <br />Come to think of it, you'd think that Specter would be all over the media, proudly mentioning and referring to his piece that supposedly slams "AIDS denialism". Michael,

It does seem strange that this article wasn’t mentioned on the Colbert Report. You’d think that after writing the “answer” to Celia Farber’s article, that Specter would want to trumpet his accomplishment.

Come to think of it, you’d think that Specter would be all over the media, proudly mentioning and referring to his piece that supposedly slams “AIDS denialism”.

]]> By: Michael http://www.scienceguardian.com/blog/michael-specter-in-denial.htm/comment-page-1#comment-4272 Michael Wed, 14 Mar 2007 03:35:45 +0000 http://www.paradigmoverthrow.com/blog/michael-specter-in-denial.htm#comment-4272 Hey Dan. <br /> <br />One other thing was quite telling as well! <br /> <br />This issue of the New Yorker hit the newstands on March 4th. Later that evening, the writer, Michael Specter, was featured on "The Colbert Report". <br /> <br />However, the Colbert report interview did not mention the article at all on HIV dissention. Instead, they talked about some other story by Specter on reporters in Russia ending up dead. <br /> <br />WHAT THE HELL? <br /> <br />Was Michael Specter letting us know that he would not look into the dissent issue because he too, is afraid he will end up dead if he looks into the AIDS paradigm and speaks out against it? <br /> <br />OR? <br /> <br />Was Steven Colbert completely unwilling to mentions AIDS rethinkers as "denialists" and refused to allow the subject to be aired? <br /> <br />Not sure quite what to think, but it was very surreal that there was absolutely no mention of his New Yorker piece that hit the streets earlier that day! <br /> <br />Very strange. Very very strange. But perhaps it was a smart move on Specters part not to discuss the issue on "Colbert Report". After all, Steven Colbert always takes the opposing side from his interviewees, and it would have been soooo much fun to watch Colbert do so with HIV/AIDS. Hey Dan.

One other thing was quite telling as well!

This issue of the New Yorker hit the newstands on March 4th. Later that evening, the writer, Michael Specter, was featured on “The Colbert Report”.

However, the Colbert report interview did not mention the article at all on HIV dissention. Instead, they talked about some other story by Specter on reporters in Russia ending up dead.

WHAT THE HELL?

Was Michael Specter letting us know that he would not look into the dissent issue because he too, is afraid he will end up dead if he looks into the AIDS paradigm and speaks out against it?

OR?

Was Steven Colbert completely unwilling to mentions AIDS rethinkers as “denialists” and refused to allow the subject to be aired?

Not sure quite what to think, but it was very surreal that there was absolutely no mention of his New Yorker piece that hit the streets earlier that day!

Very strange. Very very strange. But perhaps it was a smart move on Specters part not to discuss the issue on “Colbert Report”. After all, Steven Colbert always takes the opposing side from his interviewees, and it would have been soooo much fun to watch Colbert do so with HIV/AIDS.

]]> By: Dan http://www.scienceguardian.com/blog/michael-specter-in-denial.htm/comment-page-1#comment-4271 Dan Tue, 13 Mar 2007 17:37:08 +0000 http://www.paradigmoverthrow.com/blog/michael-specter-in-denial.htm#comment-4271 <i>Until recently I always felt, on balance, it is better to ignore you people than to give you publicity. But after Harpers inexplicably published a lengthy and irresponsible piece last year I realized I was wrong.</i> <br /> <br />If this article was somehow meant to answer for Celia Farber's Harpers article, it has failed. <br /> <br />Is it a case of self-deception? Or self-sabotage? <br /> <br />To answer for Celia's article, this piece <i>should</i> have been written to actually do so. If it had Moore's hopes and dreams of slamming the "denialists" attached to it, something has gone awry. What happened? <br /> <br />Specter couldn't do it. He couldn't attack "denialism" with the force needed at this point. After so much that has happened in just the past few years (ICC, Harper's, Rodriguez, Adelaide, the list goes on...) he couldn't bring himself to launch a blitzkrieg to counter that momentum. Maybe he realized how much was riding on this article and "choked". <br /> <br />This article <i>should have been</i> a slam-dunk against "denialism". It didn't happen. Call me an optimist...but the tide has most definitely turned. Until recently I always felt, on balance, it is better to ignore you people than to give you publicity. But after Harpers inexplicably published a lengthy and irresponsible piece last year I realized I was wrong.

If this article was somehow meant to answer for Celia Farber’s Harpers article, it has failed.

Is it a case of self-deception? Or self-sabotage?

To answer for Celia’s article, this piece should have been written to actually do so. If it had Moore’s hopes and dreams of slamming the “denialists” attached to it, something has gone awry. What happened?

Specter couldn’t do it. He couldn’t attack “denialism” with the force needed at this point. After so much that has happened in just the past few years (ICC, Harper’s, Rodriguez, Adelaide, the list goes on…) he couldn’t bring himself to launch a blitzkrieg to counter that momentum. Maybe he realized how much was riding on this article and “choked”.

This article should have been a slam-dunk against “denialism”. It didn’t happen. Call me an optimist…but the tide has most definitely turned.

]]> By: Martin Kessler http://www.scienceguardian.com/blog/michael-specter-in-denial.htm/comment-page-1#comment-4270 Martin Kessler Mon, 12 Mar 2007 18:38:30 +0000 http://www.paradigmoverthrow.com/blog/michael-specter-in-denial.htm#comment-4270 To the HIV Faithful (Michael Specter et al), there are no errors in the HIV paradigm. Popes Fauci and Gallo are infallible. Contrast that to the well written article in this weeks New York Times Magazine on an unrelated but scientific subject: Dark Energy and Dark Matter. The article entitled "Out There" by Richard Panek looks at the world of theoretical physics - where gravity which happens to be "just a theory", is still perplexing to physicists, and the proposed Dark Matter and Dark Energy can't even be found (like HIV). It is nice to see that real scientists (theoretical physicists) have doubts but psuedo-scientists (AIDS related academics) have certainty. To the HIV Faithful (Michael Specter et al), there are no errors in the HIV paradigm. Popes Fauci and Gallo are infallible. Contrast that to the well written article in this weeks New York Times Magazine on an unrelated but scientific subject: Dark Energy and Dark Matter. The article entitled “Out There” by Richard Panek looks at the world of theoretical physics – where gravity which happens to be “just a theory”, is still perplexing to physicists, and the proposed Dark Matter and Dark Energy can’t even be found (like HIV). It is nice to see that real scientists (theoretical physicists) have doubts but psuedo-scientists (AIDS related academics) have certainty.

]]>