Science Guardian

Truth, beauty and paradigm power in science and society

I am Nicolaus Copernicus, and I approve of this blog

News, views and reviews measured against professional literature in peer reviewed journals (adjusted for design flaws and bias), well researched books, authoritative encyclopedias (not the bowdlerized Wiki entries on controversial topics) and the investigative reporting and skeptical studies of courageous original thinkers among academics, philosophers, researchers, scholars, authors, filmmakers and journalists.

Supporting the right of exceptional minds to free speech, publication, media coverage and funding against the crowd prejudice, leadership resistance, monetary influences and internal professional politics of the paradigm wars of cancer, HIV(not)AIDS, evolution, global warming, cosmology, particle physics, macroeconomics, information technology, religions and cults, health, medicine, diet and nutrition.



Halton C. Arp wki/obit/txt/vds/txt/txt/bk/bk, Henry Bauer txt/blg/ blg/bks/bk/txt/bk/vd, John Beard bk, Harvey Bialy bk/bk/txt/txt/rdo/vd, John Bockris bio/txt/ltr/bk, Donald W. Braben, Peter Breggin ste/fb/col/bks, Darin Brown txt/txt/txt/txt/txt/vd, Giordano Bruno bk/bio/bio, Frank R. Buianouckas, Stanislav Burzynski mov, Erwin Chargaff bio/bk/bio/prs, James Chin bk/vd, Nicolaus Copernicus bk, Mark Craddock, Francis Crick vd, Paul Crutzen, Marie Curie, Rebecca Culshaw txt/bk, Roger Cunningham, Charles Darwin txts/bk, Erasmus Darwin txt//bk/txt/hse/bks, Peter Duesberg ste/ste/bk/txt/vd/vd, Freeman Dyson, Albert Einstein, Richard Feynman bio, John Fewster, Rosalind Franklin, Bernard Forscher tx, Galileo Galilei, Walter Gilbert vd, Goethe bio/bk/bio, Nicolas Gonzalez tlk/rec/stetxt/txt, Patricia Goodson txt/bk/bk, Alec Gordon, James Hansen, Etienne de Harven bk/txt/vd, Alfred Hassig intw/txt, Robert G. Houston txt, Steven Jonas vd, Edward Jenner txt, Benjamin Jesty, Adrian Kent vd, Thomas Kuhn, Fred Kummerow, Stefan Lanka txt/txt/vd, Serge Lang, John Lauritsen vd, Paul Lauterbur vd, Mark Leggett, Richard Lindzen, James Lovelock, Andrew Maniotis, Lynn Margulis, Barbara McClintock, Christi Meyer vd, George Miklos, Marco Mamone Capria, Peter Medawar, Luc Montagnier txt/txt/vd, Kary Mullis, Linus Pauling prs/vd/vd, Eric Penrose, Roger Penrose vd, Max Planck, Rainer Plaga, David Rasnick bio/vd/bk, Robert Root-Bernstein vd, Sherwood Rowland, Otto Rossler, Harry Rubin, Marco Ruggiero txt/txt/intw/vd, Bertrand Russell Carl Sagan vd, Erwin Schrodinger, Fred Singer, Barbara Starfield txt, Gordon Stewart txt/txt, Richard Strohman, Thomas Szasz, Nicola Tesla bio/bio, Charles Thomas intw/vd, Frank Tipler, James Watson vd/vd, Alfred Wegener vd, Edward O. Wilson vd.


Jad Adams bk, Marci Angell bk/txt/txt/txt, Clark Baker ste/txt/rdo/vd, James Blodgett, Tony Brown vd, Hiram Caton txt/txt/txt/bk/ste, Jonathan Collin ste , Marcus Cohen, David Crowe vd, Margaret Cuomo, Stephen Davis BK/BK,/rdo, Michael Ellner vd, Elizabeth Ely txt/txt/ste, Epicurus, Dean Esmay, Celia Farber bio/txt/txt/txt/vd, Jonathan Fishbein txt/txt/wk, T.C.Fry, Michael Fumento, Max Gerson txt, Charles Geshekter vd, Michael Geiger, Roberto Giraldo, David Healy txt, Bob Herbert, Mike Hersee ste/rdo, Neville Hodgkinson txt /vd, James P. Hogan, Richard Horton bio/vd/vd, Christopher Hitchens, Eric Johnson, Claus Jensen vd, Phillip Johnson, Coleman Jones vds, William Donald Kelley, Ernst T. Krebs Sr txt, Ernst T. Krebs Jr. txt,/bio/txt/txt/ltr, Paul Krugman, Brett Leung MOV/ste/txt/txt/tx+vd/txt, Katie Leishman, Anthony Liversidge blg/intv/intv/txt/txts/txt/intv/txt/vd/vd, Bruce Livesey txt, James W. Loewen, Frank Lusardi, Nathaniel Lehrman vd, Christine Maggiore bk/ste/rec/rdo/vd, Rouben Mamoulian txt/txt/txt/txt/txt/doc/flm/flm, Noreen Martin vd, Robert Maver txt/itw, Eric Merola MOV, Lady Mary Wortley Montagu, Michael Moore bio/MOV/MOV/MOV, Gordon Moran, Ralph Nader bk, Ralph Moss txt/blg/ste/bks, Gary Null /txt/rdo/vd, Dan Olmsted wki, Toby Ord vd, Charles Ortleb bk/txt/bk/intw/flm, Neenyah Ostrom bk, Dennis Overbye, Mehmet Dr Oz vd, Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos ste/vd, Maria Papagiannidou bk, Thomas Piketty bk/bk/bk/bk/bk/bk/bk/bk/bk/bk, Robert Pollin txt/vd/bk, Jon Rappoport bio/bk/bk/ste/bk/bk/vd, Janine Roberts bk/bk, Luis Sancho vd, Liam Scheff ste/txt/bk/bk/rdio/vd, John Scythes, Casper Schmidt txt/txt, Joan Shenton vd/vd, Joseph Sonnabend vd, John Stauber, David Steele, Joseph Stiglitz bk/txt, Will Storr rdo Wolfgang Streeck, James P. Tankersley ste, Gary Taubes vd, Mwizenge S. Tembo, John Tierney vd, Michael Tracey, Valendar Turner rec, Jesse Ventura bk, Michael Verney-Elliott bio/vds/vd, Voltaire, Walter Wagner, Andrew Weil vd, David Weinberger bio/bk/blg/blg/BK/bk/pds, Robert Willner bk/txt/txt/vd, Howard Zinn.

I am Albert Einstein, and I heartily approve of this blog, insofar as it seems to believe both in science and the importance of intellectual imagination, uncompromised by out of date emotions such as the impulse toward conventional religious beliefs, national aggression as a part of patriotism, and so on.   As I once remarked, the further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge.   Certainly the application of the impulse toward blind faith in science whereby authority is treated as some kind of church is to be deplored.  As I have also said, the only thing that ever interfered with my learning was my education. I am Freeman Dyson, and I approve of this blog, but would warn the author that life as a heretic is a hard one, since the ignorant and the half informed, let alone those who should know better, will automatically trash their betters who try to enlighten them with independent thinking, as I have found to my sorrow in commenting on "global warming" and its cures.
Many people would die rather than think – in fact, they do so. – Bertrand Russell.

The progress of science is strewn, like an ancient desert trail, with the bleached skeletons of discarded theories which once seemed to possess eternal life. - Arthur Koestler

One should as a rule respect public opinion in so far as is necessary to avoid starvation and to keep out of prison. – Bertrand Russell

Fraud and falsehood only dread examination. Truth invites it. - Samuel Johnson

A sudden bold and unexpected question doth many times surprise a man and lay him open. – Sir Francis Bacon (1561 – 1626)

He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that. – John Stuart Mill

Whenever you find that you are on the side of the majority, it is time to reform. – Mark Twain

Although science has led to the generally high living standards that most of the industrialized world enjoys today, the astounding discoveries underpinning them were made by a tiny number of courageous, out-of-step, visionary, determined, and passionate scientists working to their own agenda and radically challenging the status quo. – Donald W. Braben

An old error is always more popular than a new truth. — German Proverb

I am Richard Feynman and I approve of this blog

When even the brightest mind in our world has been trained up from childhood in a superstition of any kind, it will never be possible for that mind, in its maturity, to examine sincerely, dispassionately, and conscientiously any evidence or any circumstance which shall seem to cast a doubt upon the validity of that superstition. I doubt if I could do it myself. – Mark Twain

It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his income depends on his not understanding it. – Upton Sinclair

A clash of doctrines is not a disaster, but an opportunity. - Alfred North Whitehead

Fraud and falsehood only dread examination. Truth invites it. – Samuel Johnson

Man’s mind cannot grasp the causes of events in their completeness, but the desire to find those causes is implanted in man’s soul. And without considering the multiplicity and complexity of the conditions any one of which taken separately may seem to be the cause, he snatches at the first approximation to a cause that seems to him intelligible and says: “This is the cause!” – Leo Tolstoy

The evolution of the world tends to show the absolute importance of the category of the individual apart from the crowd. - Soren Kierkegaard

Who does not know the truth is simply a fool, yet who knows the truth and calls it a lie is a criminal. – Bertold Brecht

How easily the learned give up the evidence of their senses to preserve the coherence of ideas in their imagination. – Adam Smith

Education consists mainly in what we have unlearned. – Mark Twain

The mind likes a strange idea as little as the body likes a strange protein and resists it with similar energy. If we watch ourselves honestly, we shall often find that we have begun to argue against a new idea even before it has been completely stated. – Arthur Koestler

Whenever the human race assembles to a number exceeding four, it cannot stand free speech. – Mark Twain

People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. - Adam Smith

There isn’t anything so grotesque or so incredible that the average human being can’t believe it. – Mark Twain

He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that. – John Stuart Mill

It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere. – Voltaire

People are generally better persuaded by the reasons which they have themselves discovered than by those which have come into the mind of others.- Blaise Pascal.

Illusion is the first of all pleasures. – Voltaire

The applause of a single human being is of great consequence. – Samuel Johnson

(Click for more Unusual Quotations on Science and Human Nature)

Important: This site is best viewed in LARGE FONT, and in Firefox for image title visibility (place cursor on pics to reveal comments) and layout display. Click the title of any post to get only that post and its Comments for printing. All posts guaranteed fact checked according to reference level cited, typically the original journal studies. Full guide to site purpose, layout and how to print posts out is in the lower blue section at the bottom of the home page.
---Admin AL/E/ILMK---

New Yorker slams “denialists”

Science-challenged Michael Specter takes on paradigm busters in AIDS, exposes them as ‘silly, dangerous, anti-Western nonconformists’

Evident hand holding by John Moore leads to inaccuracies, red meat for critics

John P. Moore, implacable foe of HIV∫AIDS reviewers A provoking email from Cornell researcher John P. Moore, well known for painting macaque pudenda with proposed HIV microbicides, was sent today (Sun Mar 4) to Harvey Bialy, Peter Duesberg and other HIV∫AIDS paradigm critics to alert them to the New Yorker article this week (Mar 15 issue) denouncing “The Denialists” and their “Dangerous attacks on the consensus about HIV and AIDS”.

The text of the email consisted of the following jibe:

I’m sure even a non-intellectual retiree” without a university affiliation can work out how this article came to be written….

Moore’s triumph is that Michael Specter, presumably with his and Anthony Fauci’s handholding, has managed to write his article, a quick six page summary of the situation, as a generally accurate highlighting of some of the salient facts but as usual with a subtle but effective built in bias, which presents the paradigm-busters in a poor light throughout, equating them in the mind of any skimming power reader with ignorant truck drivers dispensing home made berbal remedies, anti Western South African politicians who distrust Western medicine, and the unfortunate vitamin promoter Mathias Rath, whose enthusiasm for essential nutrients is trashed as unscientific (Rath allegedly having refused to speak to the author, presumably having read his other paradigm promoting AIDS pieces. Rath denies this, however, in a well expressed letter to New Yorker editor David Remnick.)

In other words, those who are trying to bring science and reality to bear are painted as antiscience, by invoking their less educated fellow travelers, while those who blindly support the paradigm are praised by implication as pro-Western science and enlightenment, though they are – like the writer, it appears – strangers to the massive literature of the field, and have never read the mainstream papers which defeat the assumptions that drive their emotions.

The prejudicial slant is of course seen at once in the headline and subhead, where the word “denialist” immediately triggers a strong association of HIV∫AIDS paradigm critics with the numbskulls invited by the president of Iran to his Holocaust conference in Teheran last year. The headline inside the magazine is “The Denialists” and the subhead, “The dangerous attacks on the consensus about HIV and AIDS”.

However, the advertising flap on the newstands is even more egregious. Loud and clear, it headlines “The AIDS Denialists” and subheads “Michael Specter on bad science that kills.” Precisely where this authoritative decree that the critics are purveyors of “bad science that kills” comes from is mysterious, since what little science Specter quotes is incorrect, and it is not clear that he has even heard of PubMed and how one can read the literature for oneself, even if one is a mere New Yorker writer.

No wonder John Moore is crowing – it must be a nice relief from the recent embarrassment of data showing that microbicides doubled the chances of HIV transmission. (But can this be correct, when Nancy Padian showed in the biggest study on transmission that between heterosexuals engaged in conventional sex HIV transmitted not at all? Perhaps John should call her for comfort).

There is little or no science in the piece, and what there is is too often misleading. Most egregious is the blatant parroting of the HIVNET line that nevirapine is the best thing in the world for Virus ridden pregnant women, one that has “saved hundreds thousands of infants’ lives”. It is as if Celia Farber’s article for Harpers last March was never written, or at least never read in the offices of the New Yorker.

Science ‘faction’ from a PubMed challenged scribe

Here are some of the key tidbits – factions, one might call them, a new literary device just invented for the purpose by HIV propagandists recruited in the media by John Moore and Anthony Fauci – designed to pass on the AIDS meme from the pen of Michael Specter to the prejudices of the reader without passing through the minds of either, let alone the minds of the apparently PubMed illiterate New Yorker fact checker, one Michael Peed, or editors.

What they all add up to is the theme, constantly pounded into the heads of readers, that any suggestion that the myriad inconsistencies with science and common sense exhibited by the HIV∫AIDS paradigm deserve penetrating review is not only dangerous to the public health but, well, just silly, to use a favorite Gallo word.

The problem, of course, is that it is Specter that is being silly–foolish to waste his talent and the advantage of his post at the New Yorker in the supine service of inferior sources merely because they occupy high perches in the mainstream system, water carrying for the conventional wisdom when he is in the best possible position to scrutinize it and discover why a scientist of the highest ability and credentials has found himself bound to deny its validity for twenty years at such great personal cost.

Indeed, his performance is a sad contrast with the efforts of Seymour Hersh, who with his piece on Bush’s plans for Iran last week provided a lesson for Specter in not taking government handouts as gospel, but doing a little investigative work to double check whether those in power are abusing their advantage.

Here is Specter’s best factional account of what is going on in the political science of AIDS:

(Keynote opener) Zeblon Gwala is a truckdriver who is instructed by his grandfather in a dream to dispense herbal remedies from a storefront in downtown Durban to hundreds of clients who would rather pay half their pay for his ubhejane (Zulu for black rhinoceros) than take antiretrovirals from the West, even though he has “no idea how it works”, but says “people who were on the edge of death go back to work.”

Silly fellow, silly people, typical paradigm challengers with faith in magical cure-alls.

Health minister Manto Tshabala-Msimang supports ubhejane, as does the mayor of Durban and a retired professor of sociology who says antiretrovirals are “so toxic that they can cause more harm than good” – even though (according to Specter) “ARVs have proved to be the only successful treatment for the mllions of people infected with HIV”.

Even the educated South African elite are silly.

President Thabo Mbeki embraced a “powerful industrial solvent” as a cure in 1997.

Mbeki is clearly silly.

Manto Tshabala-Msimang’s “antipathy towards pharmaceutical AIDS treatments has long been an international scandal” and she “astonished participants at an international AIDS conference in Toronto by presenting a government public-health display that focussed on beetroot, olive oil, garlic, lemons, and African potatoes. Antiretrovirals were included only after furious protest.”

‘Dr Beetroot’ also silly. Who would imagine that key nutrition is relevant to African AIDS in the slums and villages of Africa? First and foremost they need AZT and protease inhibitors.
“Denying the scientific consensus about what causes AIDS” is now seen in an Australian court, where the “denialist” Perth Group “insists that AIDS in gay men results from drug abuse and repeated exposure to semen. Last month, the President of Gambia, Yahya Jammeh, disclosed that he had found a secret remedy for AIDS and asthma, and announced that he would begin to cure AIDS on Thursdays and asthma on Saturdays.”

Silly Perth denialists, meet the President of Gambia, in a juxtaposition that tells the reader all s/he needs to know.

South Africa has “the world’s deadliest AIDS epidemic. Nearly a thousand people die of AIDS every day…(and) only about two hundred thousand receive the drugs”, but there are “hints the government might be open to a new approach”, but Mbeki, an economist who is one of Africa’s most respected leaders, has never disavowed the view that HIV medicines are Western inventions aimed at maiming Africans” and has “hinted at CIA involvement in propagating the belief that HIV causes AIDS.”

Oh silly, benighted, paranoid Mbeki, to imagine that Westerners may not have African interests at heart.

At the ubhejane clinic, “the baby’s mother died of AIDS shortly after giving birth. The father died of AIDS before she was born” and all the infant has left is her old grandmother, who tells Specter she “believes in President Mbeki” while the clinic’s ex-truck driver assures him “the people who want to take those ARVs can take them, but they don’t cure anything. The side effects are like poison, and people get sicker.”

Ignorant people, silly truck driver – but wait, has the truck driver been reading the Lancet issue last year that showed that half of US AIDS patients who died died of drug effects? Surely not.

The “eminent molecular biologist Peter Duesberg” discovered cancer causing genes in a retrovirus, won an international reputation and election to the National Academy, was mentioned as a possible recipient of the Nobel Prize, “without Duesberg’s research, there might have been no significant progress in treating AIDS”, he has been highly praised by Robert Gallo, and has argued in more than a dozen papers that HIV is a harmless passenger virus, which cannot cause illness only after many years — but he is no match for Michael Specter and his informants, for as Specter tells us flatly “with HIV, more than a decade can pass between te moment a person becomes infected and the time when he becomes visibly ill. Duesberg also has written that no virus can cause disease after the body starts to produce a neutralizing immune response.”

Silly, denying, high ranking Duesberg. Though it should be pointed out that Duesberg never expressed the latter thought. What he has written and said repeatedly is that a virus cannot cause illness after it has provoked an immune response which has reduced its presence to negligible or non-existent presence, as in AIDS.

At the AMFAR meeting in Washington in 1988, Anthony Fauci, the “federal governments leading AIDS expert, sat silently for hours…(but) finally erupted. “This is murder,” he said after listening to Duesberg speak. “It’s really just that simple.”

Sensible man, Fauci, cutting through the hot air of HIV denialism to the eternal verity that HIV was the cause of two quite different incipient pandemics, AIDS in the US and Europe and AIDS elsewhere. It’s the virus, stupid!

“The Internet has made it possible for every conspiracy theory to flourish. There are three basic versions of the HIV-denial credo.”

Silly, denialist conspiracy theorists, unable to agree even among themselves!

“The second argues that, even if the virus is harmful, the risks of antiretroviral drugs far outweigh the benefits: AIDS drugs are poisons, pushed by doctors corrupted by the pharmaceutical industry.”

Silly, naive mistrust of an entire profession.

“The “poison” argument has been proved untrue in hundreds of studies across the globe, among women, men, drug users, homosexuals, and infants.

Silly denialists of proven science, though we won’t mention last year’s New England Journal of Medicine and Lancet studies, and certainly not Celia Farber’s Harper expose of the shenanigans in NIAID and HIVNET. After all, poison has a certain beneficial effect on those invaded by parasites of all kinds.

“Most perniciously, there are those who argue that sub-Saharan Africa where “as many as twenty million have died–simply has no AIDS epidemic. Instead, they blame the absence of proper nutrition or clean water–factors that certainly exacerbate the effects of AIDS but do not cause it.”

Silly indeed, since obviously there is more to AIDS in Africa than that, though we won’t mention other diseases, or that malnutrition produces exactly the symptoms that most characterizes AIDS in Africa.

On the Internet where anyone can profess to be an expert, rumor sites can make all these theories seem plausible, particularly to a new generation that has not been educated properly about the risks of HIV. One site,, has more than a thousand Web pages attached to it”

Silly inexpert people, taken in by thousands of pages of mis-education. Let’s not mention New AIDS Review or You Bet Your Life, on which unmistakably well informed and intelligent corrspondents, including Duesberg and other first class experts in the field, have mercilessly trounced Anthony Fauci, Robert Gallo, John Moore and their claims, on which Michael Specter seems to be drawing without any discrimination whatsoever.

“Duesberg’s influence gained new momentum when Mbeki… discovered his work (in 1999) while rooting around onthe Internet… For Mbeki and many other South Africans whose world views were defined by their struggle with apartheid, it is understandably hard to see white white men in lab coats as people who want to help them.”

Absurd Mbeki, suspicious of Western attitudes towards the dark continent and ripe for conspiracy theorists on the Net. So much for truffle hunting in cyberspace, where in fact enlightenment for Michael Specter in the form of his much beloved mainstream science is only a click or two away at PubMed, which superresource languishes unexploited by this otherwise assiduously informed writer.

“Mbeki rare addresses scientific solutions to the AIDS epidemic” even though “in 2000 he appointed a Presidential advisory panel which included Duesberg and other denialists, to study the cause of AIDS”, (because) he was so brutally repudiated by world leaders and public-health professional that he essentially ceased talking about the issue. But,… Mbeki has since urged Africans to turn away from the medicine that most of the world has come to rely on.”

Silly Mbeki, quietly resisting a paradigm that penalizes public review at any indication of such “dangerous” tendencies.

Meanwhile Herbert Vilakazi, the academic who is “notorious
for his disdain for Western medicine” disagrees with “most researchers (who) would say that any potential medicine–herbal or chemical–nees to be subjected to the rigors of testing and analysis.” “I have personally seen hundreds of people who have taken ubhejane, and they get relief… The situation in America is one of intolerance. There are ARVs. Only one approach to treating this deadly illness is permitted”.

Nonsensical Mr Vilekazi needs to be taught the difference between the anecdotal experience of mere individuals and the reliable controlled studies from HIVNET, and to ignore any evidence that the results of those studies are interpreted to parallel the paradigm even if they appear to put a very large spanner into its central works.

Mathias Rath is reported to have evaded talking to Specter while at the same time posting lengthy letters to the editor of the New Yorker on his main Web site, and claiming that “a historic public debate between Dr Rath and The New Yorker has generated global interest”, and the government is criticized by a member of Medecins Sans Frontieres for doing nothing to stop him selling his multivitamin pills in the country’s poorest townships. “The whole thing was disgusting” she says, “and it cost lives.” She did what she could to “counteract the government’s false information” (Specter). “Rath has been criticized in public statemens by many organizations, including UNAIDS, the South African Medical Association, an the Southern African HIV Clinicians Society. In the United Stated the FDA has informed Rath that it considers advertisements on his Web site misleading.”

Ridiculous Mathias Rath, railing against the pharmaceutical drug cartel in expensive ads in the New York Times and elsewhere. Clearly he is an amateur and a menace, distributing vitamins to the poorly nourished, when he could be standing aside for the rush to deliver as many toxic ARVs to Africans as possible.“A study, called HIVNET, which found that just a few doses of Nevirapine, an antiretroviral given to the mother at the beginning of labor, and then to the infant within the first three days of life, dramatically reducing the risk of passing on the virus. The regimen is cheap and easy to use, and is now in place throughout the developing world. In just a few years, it has saved the lives of hundreds of thousands of infants.

Here we reach the point where the neglect of the investigative work of other journalists and commentators by Specter and his editors, let alone his inability or unwillingness to check PubMed for himself, apparently in favor of trusting the likes of John Moore, begins to be egregious and indeed dangerous. Have the New Yorker editors and fact checkers not read the piece in Harpers last March, where Celia Farber made it clear beyond reasonable doubt that nevirapine HIVNET research – the study is not called HIVNET, by the way, that is the research network for HIV drug efficacy trials, is there any fact checking going on here at all? – stinks, to put it mildly, and is no basis for prescribing a toxic drug to mothers or newborns. Don’t New Yorker editors read or credit Harpers?

Durban professor of epidemiology Abdool Karim, also at Columbia University in New York, tells Specter that the Durban Declaration produced in 2000 by “more than five thousand researchers who had gathered for the conference was “one of the saddest documents in modern scientific history”, as it stated “that the evidence that HIV causes AIDS is “clear-cut, exhaustive and unambiguous”, and meets “the highest standards of science””, yet Mbeki’s spokesman said that it would quickly find its way to “the dustbins of the office.”

Absurd Mbeki spokesman, trashing a document of faith expressed by so many scientists – even though they were apparently lacking hard evidence for their belief, otherwise why would they need to make a statement of faith? Do such points not occur to Specter at all when preparing this survey?

The deputy health minister Nozizwe Madlala-Routledge, who diametrically opposes the views of her boss Tshabala-Msimang on how to deal with the epidemic, pins a beaded AIDS ribbon on Specter’s lapel, calls him “our brother”, and tells him she will speak out regardless of a year long ban on her speaking on AIDS. This is not my truth. But it is the truth…we are a country in great pain and mourning. But I still believe the truth will win.”On this upbeat note, the article ends, with the flag for truth planted firmly in the pro-paradigm camp by Specter, who has not written one word in the entire piece implying that the many objections, scientific and otherwise, to this conventional wisdom deserve serious consideration any more, if they ever got it.

This is not to say that Specter is trying to put his finger on the weighing pad at checkout. Indeed, if the intelligent reader strips the piece of its Moore influenced angles, there is plenty of sense from those who disagree with the paradigm included in this piece. One even wonders where Specter stands in private on this issue. For in fact, on that basis, with the Moore-ish bias removed, it would be a very clear account of why there are two sides to this issue, and why the “denialist” should be attended to very carefully indeed by all those who determine policy and spending in this area, particular the very large funders like Gates, Clinton and Soros who have bankrolled the established new initiatives to combat African disease.

Indeed, while it is hard to believe that any casual reader will not be propagandized by this piece, as is usual in the mainstream media, it is possible to guess that the more hardbitten minds in law, insurance, and Wall Street and in other fields of science who typically have to put their money behind their minds will be informed and alerted to the scientific can of worms that is HIV∫AIDS in a way which may disappoint the celebrating John Moore, since they are well aware from their work how often working journalists even at the New Yorker, which gives them more time than most for getting things right, are misled in areas where they fail to adopt an investigative stance, which in this case involves failing to go to PubMed and checking out the scientific literature for themselves, which Specter evidently has failed to do, preferring to trust John Moore.

But all in all, given the way an otherwise deft piece of journalism is spoiled by prior mental framing, it really is about time that David Remnick, the editor of the New Yorker and a very fine writer and reporter in his own right, caught on to what is going on in HIV∫AIDS. But possibly the AIDS meme has taken up residence in his head, as it obviously has in Michael Specter’s, and stands ready to kill all intruding ideas that might threaten its welfare.

The New Yorker now stands as yet another journal whose high reputation will eventually be tarnished by the inevitable fall of the house of HIV∫AIDS, along with the New York Review of Books, who also entrusted its fair pages to a writer (Richard Horton, the editor of the Lancet) who was not quite up to penetrating the claims of Robert Gallo and Anthony Fauci.

Fauci must be quite thrilled at the publication of this piece. It once again establishes what Robert Gallo complained about in his testimony to the Adelaide court recently, that “no one reads the papers.”

For clearly no one at the New Yorker, despite the NIH providing easy access to more than 16 million papers on medical science from your nearest keyboard, is PubMed literate. Perhaps they should simply hire some first year student at Mt Sinai as a part time intern.

Short of that, Anthony Fauci, John Moore, and the rest of the media bullies who have preserved the HIV∫AIDS bubble from pricking by media outsiders for twenty two years, will probably succeed for another twenty.

Unless, that is, the wave of court cases around the world begins to unearth the extent of the missing science in HIV∫AIDS, and the vast paradigm’s grotesque inconsistency with itself and with the study data it has spawned.

Which, come to think of it, a certain judge in Adelaide may publicly recognize any day now. Either that, or John Moore will be sending around another triumphantly rude email.

59 Responses to “New Yorker slams “denialists””

  1. Dan Says:

    I’ll have to read the whole article…but from all the quotes I’ve seen, I’m not impressed.

    I’m not normally a “glass half full” person, but I think this article will awaken some sleepy heads. As a “denialist”, I look forward to showing this article to some of my coworkers as validation that there really are people questioning AIDS! Thanks, John!

  2. Orwell's Ghost Says:

    The Wall Street Journal, Monday, March 5, 2007, refers to Specter’s article, as follows:

    Section: MARKETPLACE | Page: B6 |

    Informed Reader


    There have always been dissenters from the medical orthodoxy on AIDS, but the Internet and sympathetic politicians in Africa have given them remarkable influence over the past few years. As a result, in parts of Africa “medical authority is no longer revered, and pharmaceutical companies are increasingly portrayed as criminals,” writes Michael Specter. He outlines many overlapping versions of the flourishing “HIV-denial credo.”

    The first version denies that HIV causes AIDS. This has been most prominently advocated by University of California, Berkeley, professor Peter Duesberg. He has been shunned by the medical establishment for insisting since the 1980s that HIV has nothing to do with AIDS. Rather, he says HIV isn’t a killer virus and that AIDS is best avoided by eating properly and abstaining from drugs.

    In parts of Africa, Mr. Duesberg’s views have amplified politicians’ broader suspicions of the motives of Western drug companies. South African President Thabo Mbeki has moderated his support of Mr. Duesberg’s views but still rarely talks of AIDS as a medical problem that can be solved by drugs.

    As suspicion of Western drug companies grows, so does faith in Africa’s traditional remedies. Mr. Mbeki has created a commission on African traditional medicine, whose head, Herbert Vilakazi, routinely criticizes Western science for disdaining African cures. The government backs clinics that supply herbal remedies. Similarly, Gambian President Yahya Jammeh has concocted a herbal remedy he says cures AIDS.

  3. Michael Says:

    I recommend that all send their comments to the New Yorker, as I have already done.

    I find it more effective to be sure it is properly considered by the writer and editor, and is dutifully read by all possible readers there, when it is addressed to all of the various departments:

    The author’s personal email is

    General comments to:

    as well as:;;;;;

  4. Mark Biernbaum Says:

    Harper’s has taken a stand. Now the New Yorker. What will the Atlantic Monthly have to say?

  5. Truthseeker Says:

    “Harper’s has taken a stand. Now the New Yorker”.

    Interesting way of viewing it. But Specter’s is more like borrowed conviction, where the issue is more avoided than examined, and determined emotionally rather than with reason. Meanwhile the content has quite a lot on the “denialists”‘s side, especially the generous parade of Duesberg’s excellent credentials, including the odd line about how Duesberg enabled the solution to AIDS.

    The newstand cover flap is, however, misleadingly decisive: The AIDS Denialists: Michael Specter on bad science that kills. A small but powerful propaganda plus for Moore.

    The Atlantic way back ran an article or two by Katie Leishman which took Duesberg seriously, but after that they stopped, and were unresponsive to stacks of material provided in his favor.

  6. Dan Says:

    Meanwhile the content has quite a lot on the “denialists”‘s side

    I agree. After reading the whole article last night, expecting an end-to-end smear piece, I was surprised at how much “denialist” information there is. I would read a paragraph or two…waiting for the “slam-dunk”, but it didn’t really happen. So why is Moore so giddy about this piece, other than the title?

  7. Michael Says:

    My perception of the article by Michael Specter was that it was at best schizophrenic, but leaning toward the Orthodoxy. It almost seemed to me that Michael was hesitant and reluctant to personally declare the dissidents as wrong.

    As a matter of fact, he prominently displayed a lot of the dissident opinion and position, and he was not very meaningfully against any of it.

    I do think that he was pushed into doing this by his editor, who may have been the one that Moore was actually pushing to do such a piece.

    It really did not seem to me that Michael’s heart was into it, and it also seems to me that he was infected by the meme by someone elses prodding, not by desire.

    In the email that I had sent to him, I did mention that:

    “On one hand, you spoke honestly about much that the dissident rethinkers, as they prefer to be called, have presented, and on the other hand, you call them, label them, and box them, right from the starting title, with the easily to be considered hate and negativity provoking word, “denialists”. Is this not a bias from the word go?

    To me, it is, unfortunately, a bit like calling black people niggers, jewish people kikes, or gay people faggots. Or am I mistaken on this?

    I really cannot personally think of any other reason to use this term, as it is certainly inter related to terms such as “holocaust denier”, etc, other than to show obvious preconceived bias and/or to promote feelings of negativity or distrust or hatred toward those who hold AIDS dissident beliefs.

    It is alright, and I am sure this was not a conscious intention, and I forgive you, as I certainly understand how this word is unwittingly propagated, and easily absorbed into ones own verbage.

    However, I must affirm to you that I believe the use of this word, is most unhelpful to anyones understanding of the issues, and which at this point describes hundreds of thousands of people, if not millions of people around the world, including many fine doctors and scientists and government officials, and other human beings of very high repute”.

    As far as your reported story, you did have some quite obvious unchecked and unverified facts, at least according to the very government of South Africa, the same government that threw off the racist bonds of apartheid. There are many educated people in the government of SA. They are not simply a bunch of uneducated niggers and savages, as might be construed in a perhaps rascist overtone in your story. Michael, I truly hope you are not a rascist.

    One obvious fallacy is:

    In your piece, you stated: “Nearly a thousand people there die of AIDS every day…..”

    (by my calculations that would be more than 350,000 per year)

    But according to the South Africa Statistics site:

    In 2004, there were 46 million people living in South Africa, but only 13,590 died from “HIV-related disease, according to the South African’s own health system database:

    Michael, I am sure that there are more than 13 days in a year in Africa.

  8. Michael Says:

    Quite surprisingly, I was pleased to have just recieved an email response from my several emails to Michael Specter.

    He told me that he does not intend to respond to the letters that I and so many of my “colleagues in the denialist universe have written”.

    But he did want to affirm that no editor or AIDS researcher had suggested it, and he told me that he had been thinking about the issue ever since he encountered Peter Duesberg at an AMFAR Forum in Washington 20 years ago. He said that until recently, he felt it better to ignore rethinkers rather than give us publicity, but after Celia’s Harpers article, that he called “lengthy and irresponsible”, he felt compelled to take a stand. He also re-assured me that the story was solely his idea, and his reporting, and he is totally, and graciously, I might add, willing to let people think or say anything they want to about it.

    As I am sure we all have and will continue to do.

    I can’t help but wonder what poor Peter had said that threw the twenty something year old Michael Specter into such a tizzy.

    Knowing Peter, he probably said something like “HIV is not the cause of AIDS”.

    Those words alone can scare the pants right off of a reporter whom had previously reported the repeated chant that “HIV is the virus that causes AIDS.”

    Ah well, such is life when one is living with the likes of that sugar clouded girlfriend and faghag of all gay men for the last 25 years, Sweet little old Miss MEME!

    Noun 1. meme – a cultural unit (an idea or value or pattern of behavior) that is passed from one generation to another by nongenetic means (as by imitation); “memes are the cultrual counterpart of genes”

  9. Truthseeker Says:

    He also re-assured me that the story was solely his idea, and his reporting, and he is totally, and graciously, I might add, willing to let people think or say anything they want to about it.

    Is he totally and graciously willing to let people point out the factual errors to his editor? Perhaps he is free to let that responsibility lay on the shoulders of his researcher, Mr Peed.

  10. Michael Says:

    Perhaps this is the letter I should have sent:

    Dear Michael Specter,

    I now understand your point of view, coming from where you are at with the issue, what with what must have been your shock and apall at the Harper’s piece.

    The only thing I can tell you, Michael, is that now, after 25 years, after hundreds and thousands of people are dead from AZT side effects and hundreds of thousands more disfigured with lypodystrophy or dead from the side effects of the newer drugs, along with the multitude of problems from these drugs, the dissident side of this issue has been steadily growing by leaps and bounds. By the way, none of the death certificates attributes these deaths to the AIDS drugs. The certificates say “Complications of AIDS”. Keeps the pharmacompanies well protected, no?

    Not only that, but one helluva lot of people want to know how it is that 97% of the people stricken with either HIV or AIDS, just so happen to be either black or gay. How is it that the virus, and the tiniest of tiny viruses known as a retrovirus, can distinguish between gays and straights and blacks and whites. That miniscule little virus with no ability to think at all, certainly seems to be a genius at figuring out who is gay and who is black.

    What an evil genius is HIV, no? It knows who is black, white, gay, or drug abuser. And it endlessly mutates so the researchers can never catch up with it. It is a Pure and Evil Genius!

    Yeah, right, sure it is. Come on, Michael, open your eyes!

    HIV causes death from 29 common everyday diseases that HIV negative people die from every day, and just so happens to do it ONLY in areas where starvation, stress, drug abuse, antibiotics overuse, lifelong chemo treatments, as well as internalized shame, guilt, apathy, and self loathing that gays deal with, as well as where other well known causes and co-factors of illness abound?

    Whatever you say, Michael.

    Michael, Does STRESS depress an immune system?

    What do you think someone goes through that is given a death sentence diagnosis of HIV? Do you think the diagnosis alone does not knock a person off their feet?

    Think about it for a moment, buddy, it puts them right into an emotional place of pure hell and feeling like a leper who can never again love or have sex without killing someone.

    It often takes away their hope and will to live! Think about it. Is this healthy for ones immune system???

    Does Aquired Stress affect ones immune system. Of course it does.

    AIDS should be renamed ASS for Aquired Stress Syndrome!

    Harpers was simply quick to clue in on this. THEY asked Celia to do the piece, not the other way around. And they spent months fact checking. Did Peed do the same? Obviously not.

    Times change, Michael. So do beliefs. So do public opinions.

    You are more than welcome to look at all of this from a different perspective yourself, any time you like. Or not, whatever you wish.

    Although your declaration in the media of your beliefs is going to make it difficult if not nearly impossible for you to do that now. We all have egos Michael, and your ego has just pushed you into a box of your own, right beside the likes of John P Moore. Would you be able to ever break free of it? Perhaps if you really wanted to, but it would be even tougher for you to do at this point!

    I know that You already know that when you change the way you look at something, what you look at changes.

  11. Truthseeker Says:

    That Specter informs you that he was at the AMFAR meeting two decades ago and has not ever realized then or since that the paradigm is unsustainable is an admission of naivete so great that it would combine laziness, stupidity, blind trust and journalistic incompetence in science at such high levels that the angels tremble in the heavens and the earth is discouraged from revolving.

    Hard to believe… perhaps the private Michael Specter is a little more impressed by the paradigm critics than he lets on in public. A man who advances his career so well cannot be so simpleminded, surely.

  12. Dan Says:

    If I had to judge by the article alone, I would say Mr. Specter is not passionate about defending the paradigm against the criticisms of the “denialists”. Or maybe he had a bad day as a writer, because the piece just lays there.

    Does he have a conscience? Is he afraid to take a John Moore-like stand against the “denialists”? Has he seen the sort of company he would be keeping by taking a hard stance against “AIDS denialism” (John Moore, Jeanne Bergman, Mark Wainberg, and so on…), so only gave a half-hearted effort? Or maybe his rational mind is at work, telling him that there are too many problems with the paradigm to write a one-sided screed against the “denialists”. I agree with an earlier post of Michael’s in that the article looks schizophrenic. It doesn’t look like Mr. Specter is fully under the spell of the likes of Moore and company, if at all.

  13. mark Says:

    The post below, from’s blog Spoonful of Medicine, has an AIDS apologist lamenting that Specter’s article is “tepid.”

    March 07, 2007

    Denying AIDS

    (partial post)

    My New Yorker mag arrived Monday with an article about a topic that’s all too familiar to us, here at Nature Medicine…

    I’m happy the New Yorker gave this urgent and deeply troubling issue some much-needed attention, but I’m a bit disappointed with its tepid tone. If you get through the whole article —” and I suppose many of the magazine’s readers do —” you come away with the feeling that the denialists are certainly wrong. But the first few pages give so much space to Peter Duesberg, the most famous denialist, and to the potential benefits of South Africa’s traditional medicines that you might almost be tempted to think these people have a fair point…

    Posted by Apoorva Mandavilli at 05:26 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

  14. Dan Says:

    This is getting much more interesting.

    I think Dr. Bialy was right a while ago about Moore being the best thing to happen for AIDS rethinking. He’s done such a good job at poisoning (no pun intended) his side of the debate, turning it away from actual debate and simply into a war with the denialists (by his own admission). It’s not far-fetched at all that a writer like Mr. Specter would not want to be seen in the same light as Moore.

    Moore may have very well set such a tone for his side, that self-respecting journalists, scientists, researchers and doctors would not want to appear to be seen in his company, despite their belief in HIV/AIDS.

    I wonder what Mr. Specter’s next move is going to be? The post above from Mark from an “apologist” is in agreement with my “denialist” view that Mr. Specter’s article is quite tame in criticizing the “denialists” (if at all, really). I suspect there will be more defenders of the paradigm professing disappointment at Specter’s milquetoast article. Will Specter “rethink”? Or will he get on board the Moore boat?

  15. Truthseeker Says:

    Interesting points. However half hearted you may think the article is, that cover label – The AIDS Denialists – Michael Specter on bad science that kills – shows the editors take on it. Perhaps Specter has the Obama quality of knowing how to say things which keep everyone happy. But even if there is something to benefit “denialists” here in his giving them their due seems to me there are too many flat statements in the service of the paradigm to think he really intended to make “denialists” happy. Maybe just keep them off his back.

    As a propaganda piece, seems to me to be entirely on Moore’s side though he s no Moore.

  16. Dan Says:

    But even if there is something to benefit “denialists” here in his giving them their due…

    That’s the very thing that makes me question if Specter is in the Moore camp.

    Maybe he’s still pretty “green” at this. But as a seasoned “denialist” who has logged hundreds of hours “chatting” with defenders of the paradigm, I’ve found that they won’t give an inch, for fear a mile may be taken. Mr. Specter has readily given away quite a bit. Perhaps there’s a new strategy to this that we have yet to ascertain. I don’t think so.

    I agree that the title of the article is provocative, but it doesn’t deliver, not for myself, or the friends and acquaintances that have read it and expressed their views about it so far (none of them “denialists”, by the way).

  17. mark Says:

    A quick google search reveals Specter in the past writing a few articles on HIV/AIDS, though nothing groundbreaking. An interesting note: he was on The Colbert Report two nights ago. I thought he might talk about his latest AIDS “expose,” but instead he stood in as a straight man to Colbert’s punch lines about his article on Vladimir Putin’s role in the murders of journalists.

    My big question is did he contact any “denialists” for his article.

  18. Truthseeker Says:

    My big question is did he contact any “denialists” for his article

    Good question, seems he did not. Even the quote from Duesberg is credited to “an interviewer” implying it was not Specter himself, since he would then just quote him. Could be a researcher of course.

    The kindness Specter shows the denialists he otherwise seems to think he refutes with ex cathedra pronouncements of his scientific understanding, inaccurate in most cases, is possibly simply the New Yorker style of politesse, and/or setting them upright before throwing the coconuts. It has all the earmarks of the meme ridden Mugu serving his ideological masters albeit a little more genteel in style than Moore and lesser goons.

    This is shown by the fact he has no interest in responding to “you people” as he referred to paradigm critics in his email to Michael Geiger. He also shows no signs whatsoever of digging into the “denialist” literature, since his scientific statements are merely the general claims of the paradigm promoters without any qualification or sign that Specter knows they need qualification, and they have all been exploded into tiny shards by the critics years ago.

    We will put up a list of all the bad scientific claims he pronounces from on high and why they are long ago refuted, if we can stomach it. Have to credit Specter with a good job, artistically speaking, though. It is a well fashioned piece. Just a pity he doesn’t put his talent in the services of a responsible view.

  19. Dan Says:

    After reading the article, I was giving Mr. Specter the benefit of the doubt that maybe John Moore’s hand wasn’t as firmly up his behind as others seem to be assuming. Often times, writers unintentionally expose themselves through their writing. I was thinking that this may have happened with Mr. Specter. Am I wrong, TS? Is Mr. Specter the happy, unthinking puppet of Moore?

    It’s too bad he chose to write this piece, generally tepid (in my opinion), but with a provocative title and some of the usual HIV/AIDS propaganda-misinformation. At this late stage of the game, it’s bordering on career-suicide to align yourself with the likes of Moore and his band of warriors. Too bad.

  20. Truthseeker Says:

    Dan, I think his unconscious has saved him on this one, despite himslf.

  21. Maurice Says:

    What do you guys expect? Why do you keep believing that the media have a shred of integrity left? Okay, Harpers had one shred, but I’m sure they will fall into line in the future. History shows that when a media outlet shows some independence by publishing a story that is suppressed by everybody else, they are cracked down upon. It happened to The Nation years ago after they published an article about George Bush Sr.’s connections to the JFK assassination. They were then taken over by the covert Elite, with a Council on Foreign Relations member installed as publisher. Now they reliably attack any suggestion of conspiracy, about JFK or anything else that truly threatens the powerful.

    The Ecologist…same thing. They broke with the propaganda system by publishing Janine Roberts expose of Polio, showing that the disease and its vaccine were both frauds. And then they were silenced. After saying they would publish Roberts’s expose about Aids, they didn’t.

    These stories, the Aids and 9-11 frauds, JFK and a very few others, are simply verboten, you see. They are verboten because the truth might cause world revolution if it came out. So even the most leftist of press do their part to preserve the established order. Yes, they’ll attack Bush about this and that — things that won’t incite revolution — but they’ll fall into line on the stories that could.

    The entirety of the media are part of the grandest propaganda operation in world history. The New Yorker, which was formerly (maybe still is) a Newhouse publication (and don’t ask me to reference it but I’m sure I’ve seen information that Newhouse has CIA ties going way back), serves a useful function in society: it exists because the rich yuppies have to pretend that they got culture as well as money, so they need to “be seen” reading the New Yorker.

    Very few of them ever read anything but the cartoons, in reality. And furthermore, Seymour Hersh is nothing but a limited hangout specialist. While pretending to be an investigative journalist who exposes the deceits of power, he in reality assists power by keeping up the illusion that there are tough investigative journalists out there, working for the People. But check his writing and you’ll see that his presuppositions support Power — he accepts the official fairy tale that 18 Arabs with box cutters were behind 9-11, for one example.

    The New Yorker once was a fine magazine, back in the days when the world was more literate and less pretentious. Sadly those days are long gone. Now it’s, how many pixels can you cram together to give the most lifelike depiction of Britney Spears’s lips? As visual quality approaches perfection, you’ll notice that literary substance becomes nonexistent.

    I say, F___ the New Yorker and especially the Spectre hound. But please, stop thinking that the media are going to change and suddenly become honest. It’s not rational.

  22. Truthseeker Says:

    he accepts the official fairy tale that 18 Arabs with box cutters were behind 9-11, for one example.

    Welcome back Marcel but please, recognize our welcome mat (at the bottom of every page) has a verse written on it as follows:

    All relevant contributions are welcome here

    From any damned heretic who can think without Fear,

    Though conspiracy theory is not what we teach,

    And paranoids, please, use Hyde Park to preach,

    But we welcome all persons intent on defending

    Good science with a standard of truth that’s unbending,

    From the abuse of power and from politics external,

    Or from cosy, collegial, back scratching internal,

    Or from venality, and vanity, and PC censors,

    From the religious Impulse and premature consensus,

    By carefully reviewing conventional Belief,

    Without regard to who might come to grief,

    In the light of the best studies in medicine and science,

    The one measure on which we place our reliance.

    In other words, save the 9/11 if you would, since it is so prima facie wrong that it brings all here into disrepute, creating the impression that HIV∫AIDS paradigm critics are conspiracy theorists, which they are not, despite Specter’s effort to label them as such more than once in his New Yorker piece. They accuse the estabishment of self deceptive consensus, which flouts their own literature, not conspiracy, even though it might look like one at times, and is supported by a NIAID policy of media censorship.

  23. Mark Biernbaum Says:


    Celia’s Harper’s volume was the highest selling Harper’s ever. Money is a good motivator, and that article made money. I think there’s room for a little hope about the media if us “denialists” can make them some money.

  24. pat Says:

    I for one agree with Maurice in general that the media serves those who control it and that it will always be so. To remedy that is a simple matter of “taking over” without making it a revolution from the bottom up but rather from the top down.

    I also agree with TS that mixing 911 and HIV∫AIDS is not helpful but for different reasons. “Conspiracy theory” is a psychological mind-f..k of a term for most people. To hypothesise a conspiracy draws immediate guffaws but no one realizes that 18 camel herders who blow up the WTC is in itself a “conspiracy theory”. To believe 911 was an inside job requires the same stretch of the imagination as believing that the most powerfully defended airspace of the worlds largest militarized empire the world has ever seen was defeated by 18 Arabs with box cutters.

    talking about 911 here brings disrepute not because “it is so prima facie wrong” but because people aren’t ready for it.

    TS, how do you manage what appears to me to be a double standard? You fight tooth and nail against HIV∫ADS armed to the teeth with what I think is fair evidence yet dismiss 911 as “so prima facie wrong” in spite of it? I am asking because I believe it may uncover some psychological mechanism by which the HIV/AIDS meme manages to float in the heads of the majority inspite of all the holes it has below the water line.

    PS: to the readership of NAR: I am not trying to discuss the details of 911 but the psychology behind why it is we choose to collectively believe in what.

    wow, I just felt obliged to post a disclaimer in order to avoid being called a wingnut. Mark, you’re a behavioral psychologist, help us out.

  25. pat Says:

    my name doesn’t appear in full. can’t figure out why.

    Patrick Moore it should read

  26. Mark Biernbaum Says:

    Dear adorable wingnut,

    First, I’m not a behavioral psychologist, I’m a developmental psychologist — there’s a pretty big difference, but it would be boring and irrelevant to discuss it here.

    I think what you’re getting at is a complex thing, psychologically, having to do with how much doubt and uncertainty one is willing to entertain. Every person has a different limit for how much uncertainty they can live with, and still function. Some people can’t tolerate much of any uncertainty at all. They like things, and see things, as predictable, regular, and regulated. They like their beliefs dicated to them, and once they adopt them, they don’t like them challenged. These people adore absolutes.

    On the far other end are people who can’t ever seem to be certain of anything — they can tolerate a great deal of uncertainty and remain comfortable. They look at each situation as unique, and therefore ignore contexts and previous situations which should inform their thinking. They are open to all comers, in terms of ideas, and they don’t like being told what to believe, but they often can’t coherently explain what it is they believe. They often default to total relativisim. They abhor the absolute.

    Obviously, I’m suggesting that a position somewhere in between the two extremes makes for the best thinking. We do need to tolerate a certain amount of uncertainty in order to be creative in the way we respond to new challenges. We also need to attend to what it is we know from past experience. We can’t be too rule-bound, because we’ll clamp down on possibilities that way, but we can’t live without rules either, because then our thinking becomes sloppy, as it has no parameters to live within.

    Hope that helps a bit. If not, feel free to ignore.

  27. Michael Says:


    I am glad to see, in your upper most picture of The New Yorker on the shelf, that your local news stand workers had the utmost integrity and inborn good sense, as they had properly placed the issue in front of the M&M’s with Nuts instead of M&M Plain candies.

    Obviously, their own inner instinct was such that they could tell by just reading the headline “Bad Science that kills” exactly where the magazine’s placement should be.

  28. Truthseeker Says:

    Michael, are you suggesting that the headline “Bad science that kills” is inaccurate? How odd, we thought you were gung ho for the radical revisionists? 🙂

    We have no patience with the 9/11 nonsense because it does not accord with the facts as we know them in the consistent picture assembled by the media, the media that paranoid professional iconoclasts decry as totally unreliable. They are largely not.

    And that is the point. What’s your standard of measurement? In our case, it is the scientific literature, flawed as is all human endeavor, but the best we have. The Duesberg critique is WITHIN good science and the maintaining of the paradigm against it artificially with censorship and proaganda by the likes of Fauci and Moore and Gallo is a rare EXCEPTION to the rule, and we are not part of a grand debunking of all mainstream knowledge as suspect.

    Any such implication is to the discredit of Duesberg et al and should be stopped for that reason, especially since it is based on such fatheaded thinking, ie on imagination insufficiently checked against reality and for consistency, which is what mainstream reporters are trained to do, at least.

    Marcel thinks otherwise and is trying to post but he is not banned so we don’t know what to suggest. Maybe try to sign in again, Marcel? We will post for you if we really have to but hate to associate our unsullied name with such thinking, sorry to say it.

    We admit the point he wants to make – that 80% of the American population think 9/11 is a secret conspiracy of the US government or somesuch (IF TRUE which we doubt) may make them receptive to our site – is interesting. But the truth is this site is not directed to mass idiots, but only to idiots of influence and power.

  29. Steve Keppel-Jones Says:


    I think the mysteriously silent Marcel and I would both disagree with you that critiques of the official paradigm of 9/11 are outside the bounds of good science, while critiques of the official HIV=AIDS paradigm are within them. Both official paradigms have a lot of holes in them, and they are both the subject of a lot of official and media coverup. (Nor are these the only two official paradigms in that boat – there are quite a few others.) So I don’t see any good reason to attempt to distance yourself from 9/11 rethinkers while allying yourself with HIV rethinkers purely on principle. Granted this is an HIV blog and not a 9/11 blog, so there should not really be any 9/11 discussion here at all, but all the same, claiming that all 9/11 dissidents are airheads is not going to garner you much respect from some of the people I think you are trying to get respect from here.

    Remember that the administration that told you that the WTC was taken down by a bunch of Arabs (who later turned out not to be involved at all) is the same one that had to lie and cheat to get into office in the first place, and is lying to you about HIV as well. Why would you think that they have any motivation to tell the truth about an event which is so obviously beneficial to their long-term plans, not to mention short-term economic interests?

  30. An Academic Youth Says:


    I was very intrigued to read your mention of the impact of stress upon the immune system. This is a much overlooked area of research, especially within the framework of the HIV/AIDS hypothesis. This is one of my own favorite research topics. Over the next year I hope to contribute a couple papers of my own to this literature. But for now, I want to post here some references for people who are not overly familiar with this area of research.

    With regards to the impact of stress on AIDS disease progression: Click this

    Click this

    and this

    And, with regards to the ability of organisms (i.e., both rodents and humans) to obtain classically conditioned immunosuppression:



    An Academic Youth

  31. Truthseeker Says:

    Odd blanks in the above post where urls should be, presumably. The engineering staff has been ordered to try and correct it, as well as solving Marcel’s mysterious problem (he is not on the banned list as ever having been banned, a list of mostly hundreds of bots that has been copied from the site and forwarded to him. We do not believe in banning anyone here who does not attack NAR or knowingly peddle false information).

    Here is Marcel’s latest communication today:

    I’m still getting the message “We apologize, but your IP

    address has been banned from commenting on this blog.”

    Now please post this for me. You’ve already got me way out of order in the discussion by not posting it already. Please post it now. Thanks.


    Pat, lots of truthseekers have realized that the Official Story” of 9-11 is, itself, a conspiracy theory. That point has been made many times.

    I understand TS’s desire to not associate Hiv-Aids with 9-11

    conspiracies, but feel that he is wrong. As I’ve pointed out to him, a majority of the world’s public now disbelieves the

    official government story. It’s something like over 80% in the US, according to polls. Hundreds of times more people think 9-11 was an inside job, than even are AWARE that there is an Aids dissident point of view.

    This is a huge pool of people who have been baptised into skepticism by “the events of 9-11.” We could tap into that skepticism and educate them that, hey, government deceit is a lot bigger than just “9-11.” These are people who actually might listen to us with an open mind! And they are legion.

    Also, I feel it is a poor strategy to deal with government fraud and corruption in isolated instances. Govt fraud and corruption are everywhere, and the realization of that is very important if one is to enlighten the masses.

    So I say, “Associate!” “Compare!” “See the similarities!” This is the only hope for the world in the coming age of TOTAL COMPLETE UTTER CORRUPTION, brought to you by those same swell folks who brought you Hiv-Aids, 9-11, and all the rest: the Globalist Elite.

    But, as I told TS, I don’t bring up 9-11 unless he does

    first. So if he wants me to shut up about it, he should stop making snide comments about the 9-11 truthseekers..

  32. mark Says:

    The two best known questioners of the current AIDS paradigm are undoubtedly Peter Duesberg and The Perth Group. Although differing in their hypothesis, they share a unique trait that is both brilliant and uncompromising. On the topic of the “scourge,”they do not engage in discussions or respond to arguments that are not in the scientific realm of HIV/AIDS, nor personal attacks.

    Their calm, reasoned approach drives more than a few (Gallo, Moore, et al) to frustration. As Eleni said to a baiting prosecutor, “…that is where the science takes me.”

    I think that Truthseeker is not attempting to curry respect from 9/11 dissidents, as Steve posts, but rather seeking to shine a light on AIDS truth. Respect will manifest or not from the readers.

    That is where the science takes me…

    As a note to those who do not already know, the New AIDS Review has been linked to and cited as one of the most influential “denialist” sites in webdom by Moore’s in the last few days.

  33. Truthseeker Says:

    Again, the 9.11 conspiracy theories contradict myriad eye witness counts and other records, including videotapes, exactly as Holocaust denialists contradict eye witness accounts and other records.

    This is a site that judge the claims of the HIV∫AIDS paradigm according to the scientific record ie the literature produced by the mainstream itself, as well as by its critics in peer reviewed publications.

    We do not wish to associate ourselves with the 9.11 conspiracy theorists for that reason. That is the same reason as John Moore wishes to label this site as one for “conspiracy theorists””, which it plainly is not, as he should know.

    This is not a site for conspiracy theorists or denialists of any kind, meaning those that deny the record. If you wish to use the record to rewrite your theory of how 9.11 was planned and who by, feel free, but as far as we know it is ten times more speculative in relation to the record than the standard account.

    When you have an alternative account which is at least as solid as the standard account, judged by the record, then we will listen. Meanwhile we will go back to quoting the literature in the face of the false claims of the paradigm, which is how the scientifically minded do it.

  34. Truthseeker Says:

    As a note to those who do not already know, the New AIDS Review has been linked to and cited as one of the most influential “denialist” sites in webdom by Moore’s in the last few days.

    Actually, Mark, the only influential AIDS denialist site in the kingdom of science. We were going to post on this amusing story, but unfortunately the need to deflate the hot air balloon floated in the New Yorker by the inimitable Michael Specter takes priority.

    Of course, this action by John Moore is merely designed to annoy Harvey Bialy, who is the editor since late last year of the new Barnesworld/Barnesville metamorphosis, You Bet Your Life, which is the really dangerous AIDS critic site, far outweighing this rather harmless and obscure blog, which apparently Moore views as sufficiently defanged by politesse to be quotable on his AIDS truthiness site.

    His treatment on You Bet Your Life by Bialy and earlier by the original writer of the blog, Hank Barnes, was so hilarious at his expense that presumably Moore feels it unnecessary, indeed possibly harmful, to his cause of converting the world to the religion he so zealously defends to quote its location.

    Apprised of this recognition we yesterday entered into correspondence with John “Macaque” Moore in a polite fashion – for we automatically respect his professionalism as a scientist, even as we doubt his ability to penetrate to the truth about his conventional beliefs on the paradigm level – and suggested that he have lunch with us for the record, so he could tell us in his own words the source of his professed inviolable faith in a paradigm which seems to be crumbling by the minute at the hands of its own supporters.

    Alas he replied with his usual adamant refusal to risk exposing his reasoning to the light of day and possible criticism by entering into a dialogue, let alone a meeting.

    To this we replied with surprise at his lack of understanding of the American way of amiably maintaining dialogue with opponents as a means of advancing knowledge, particularly in science, where this is the sine qua non of progress.

    We also brought it to his attention that this is not a conspiracy theorists site and he should adjust the wrong description he has labelled us with on his site.

    As yet we have not received any reply. We hope to receive one when he gets to his email tonight, which he apparently deals with at 11.30 pm at night, being a busy man during the day. If we don’t receive a reply, we shall have to make a more public objection to this calumny.

    Meanwhile we recommend today’s post at You Bet Your Life, “Confessions of a Subversive Grad. Student: Subversive Is No Longer So Secret”, for a good rundown on why this behavior brings Moore into disrepute among his colleagues.

    Don’t neglect the supremely hilarious exchange between Bialy and Moore which the editor has appended, in which Moore is reduced to exaggerating comments sent him from NAR in email last night in a desperate attempt to evade the impact of what has to be Bialy’s most brilliant vindication of his tendency towards impolitesse on the Web.

    In that respect we withdraw all previous reservations on that front with the sole exception of any such fireworks directed toward our own Brit-twit posture.

  35. Michael Says:

    Academic Youth,

    You said:

    This (stress) is a much overlooked area of research, especially within the framework of the HIV/AIDS hypothesis.

    I will grant you that, and I would suppose one reason, although few would admit it, is that there is not much funding to be had or pharma money to be made by recommending patients calm down and get their heads on straight.

    Another reason, is that I think that few of researchers are able to correctly empathize with others without having also experientially experienced the same degree of stress or terror. Therefore they really are not capable of true understanding or knowledge on the subject.

    Thank you for your posts on already established studies and verifications of the effectors of stress on HIV positives and their immune system health.

    Considering all, they do look to have been well done. It is a tough field to verifiably study, as there is no way that I know of to measure intensities and frequencies of human stress or to differentiate what feelings or beliefs or imaginings lie behind the stress.

    Just for grins and giggles, you may also want to investigate what Tony Fauci himself had to say on this very subject of stress and the immune system. Back in about 1974 or so, he himself had written on stress and and its depressive effect on the immune system. I think, if I am not mistaken, his own masters thesis was on this subject!

    Somehow, he forgot all about his original interest in stress, and by 1987 he had decided that AZT was the appropriate treatment for extreme stress disorders, at least for all gay men.

  36. Glider Says:


    I’ve been trying to reach you privately. Have you received my emails?


    ((Apologies, Glider, did not see it. May we beg that all posters and others trying to email us please insert a title into the email, preferably “NAR EMAIL IMPORTANT”, so that it can be noticed in the Niagara of spam, which othrwise will hide it in the daily flood. – Ed.))

  37. Maurice Says:

    I agree with Truthseeker that the media are not totally unreliable. Indeed, they can always be reliably counted on to provide a highly filtered version of events that poses no threat to Power. As I’ve pointed out before, the only unbiased information in the media is the weather report and the stock market quotations.

    Practically everything else is the purest propaganda, squeezed from the finest Vermont maple trees into buckets and then dumped onto our little pea brains until they are soaked like pancake theories and ready to be savored by Uncle Ben and Aunt Jemima after a morning of torrid sex.

    TS: “Again, the 9.11 conspiracy theories contradict myriad eye witness counts and other records, including videotapes”

    TS, wasn’t it you who said that eyewitness testimony is among the most unreliable testimony there is, just a few weeks ago, when I pointed out to you that dozens of eyewitnesses–the most reliable people imaginable, firefighters, policemen, paramedics–contradicted the official story? Their testimony in the 9-11 Oral Histories of NY City makes it clear that they heard and saw explosives and explosive flashes circling the buildings. TS wouldn’t know this, because he refuses to read the dissident info.

    And as for videotapes, please take a look at the videotape of the fall of Building 7, and tell me that isn’t a controlled demolition. (By the way, folks, did you know that the BBC World News announced the collapse of Building 7 about 25 minutes before it happened? This recent smoking-gun discovery–indicating that the media were being fed a script by the 9-11 Controllers– has been totally censored by TS’s “reliable” media, again proving that they are utterly reliable propagandists and gatekeepers.) And the videotapes also prove that the buildings fell at freefall speed, which is utterly impossible unless they were demolished by explosives.

    It’s possible that the difficulty I’ve had posting is because the CIA has hacked into NAR, or is monitoring my internet use, in order to prevent me from posting, because they realize that I am right, and that my suggestions will make us a more effective dissident movement, so they want my perceptions eliminated. They want only the misguided and deluded to post, not geniuses such as moi.

  38. Truthseeker Says:

    Indeed, they can always be reliably counted on to provide a highly filtered version of events that poses no threat to Power

    Watergate? Iraq torture? A hundred other exposes?

    TS, wasn’t it you who said that eyewitness testimony is among the most unreliable testimony there is, just a few weeks ago,

    Yes. But if tens of thousands watch, and video from six different vantage points, and a dozen competing TV stations and news services from all over the world, one of the most attended to news events in history, perhaps eye witnesses can be believed, especially the ones who died.

    …makes it clear that they heard and saw explosives and explosive flashes circling the buildings.

    Typical bad witness testimony, that kind of thing, You forget the video documentation, too.

    did you know that the BBC World News announced the collapse of Building 7 about 25 minutes before it happened?

    Only the most credulous would believe this claim, that’s for sure. Oops, sorry, present company excepted.

    And the videotapes also prove that the buildings fell at freefall speed, which is utterly impossible unless they were demolished by explosives.

    Oh sure. A perception utterly overlooked by the hordes of engineers that investigated the mechanism of the collapse.

    the CIA has hacked into NAR, or is monitoring my internet use, in order to prevent me from posting, because they realize that I am right, and that my suggestions will make us a more effective dissident movement, so they want my perceptions eliminated

    Are you kidding? The CIA intervened and made sure the technical glitch was solved so that you could post!:-)

    Why do you think John “Macaque” Moore calls this site a “conspiracy theorist” site?

    Why do you think I am telling him to can it if he has any regard for truth at all?

  39. david burd Says:

    It’s seems way off the subject to get embroiled in the WTC collapses, but let me enter a few thoughts, hopefully to nudge the steering wheel back to NAR’s platform. From the Pentagon scene across the Potomac from DC, where I am located, I have put in serious investigation (per internet sources mainly) on this subject, but I also spend many hours viewing and contemplating the aftermath of the Pentagon.

    What is clearly unknown by those suspecting the WTC came down by pre-set explosive charges (after the airliners really did hit the buildings – is there really any argument on this?), there is one very pertinent fact about the steel framing of the WTC.

    It is this: Strutural steel for buildings (and most all other steel also) loses 60-70% of its shear and yield strenghts when soaked at 1000 degrees farenheit, that surely was reached by the fuel/etc. fueled fires in the WTCs. To make it completely apparent to those who just enjoy a log fire in the home fireplace, temperatures of over 1,500 farenheit are typical.

    Thus, the vital steel structures of the WTCs became useless after the 30-60 minutes of intense fires. With regard pancaking downward almost as fast as gravity, this is also clear from simple calculation. As far as “explosive” puffs or charges emanating from building layes falling downward as a ghastly billion pound fatal freight train; this is exactly what would take place from compressed air shooting outward from fractured windows, etc., caused by the increasingly high weight of debris compressing the floors being pancaked. Gravity is clearly a downward vector – and about the only topic we may all completely agree upon!

    best regards from a former rocket scientist, Dave

  40. Truthseeker Says:

    It’s seems way off the subject to get embroiled in the WTC collapses, but let me enter a few thoughts

    Thanks David, good points, restoring a needed balance.

    However, have to say that a discussion of conspiracy theories of any kind is relevant here to make sure that people know the difference between a conspiracy theory (World Trade Center etc) and a professional scientific review of the literature said to justify a paradigm, which in this case exposes the paradigm as utterly wrong, a complete misinterpretation of the literature it has generated.

    The review has been carried in the highest scientific journals and intensely peer reviewed to ensure its accuracy in data and interpretation. We at this blog are merely going over this material to show it to the public, from which it has been withheld through the explicit censorship of Dr Anthony Fauci at NIAID (he long ago put reporters on notice in print that if they raise the topic and wish to cover it with the cooperation of scientists at NIAID, they will be frozen out forever) and through the inexplicit but equally strong influence of HIV∫AIDS community politics, where noone involved ever dares to raise the topic in meetings or in public, unless to condemn the “denialists” in fiercely prejudicial terms, as John Moore, Mark Wainberg, Jeanne Bergman and other members of the HI∫AIDS paradigm protection goon squad like to do, since they evidently lack good rejoinders to the accusations of their bad science that kills.

    John Moore has been asked by NAR to remove the label “conspiracy theorist” site from the mention of New AIDS Review on his AIDSTruth site, as well as the prejudicial and inappropriate label “denialist”, and we wait to see if he will respond before we contemplate further action to correct this libel, which will probably include making up a very large file on his notorious behind-the-scenes activities promoting his own truly “denialist” (of reason and evidence) and anti-science politics.

    This may result in a major post and other publication on the details of this offensive and unscientific activity, even though we recognize that he genuinely believes (consciously, at least) that the HIV∫AIDS paradigm is writ in biblical stone, and that all who reexamine the literature and debunk it are heretics to the one true religion, and lives will be lost if they are followed.

    Having examined the issue from outside with no axe to grind, we see him as the obtuse handmaiden of error rolling along in a bandwagon he joined very early in his career which is now slowly changing to a tumbril carting him to his career doom and approaching a guillotine which will fall on his neck whenever the falling dominoes of the paradigm defense league reach Cornell.

    This we predict will probably happen after the court cases questioning HIV∫AIDS lore reach a critical mass, beginning we predict, perhaps optimistically, with the imminent decision of Judge Sullan in Adelaide to let Parenzee’s appeal go forward, on the grounds that the qustions raised against the paradigm in the case have produced a reasonable doubt that cannot be dismissed by a judge who lacks the scientific expertise to arbitrate the matter.

    For an unproven paradigm presumably cannot be used as grounds for a criminal conviction if the legislation on which the conviction is based was prepared on the understanding that the science was undisputed, and then the science is on appeal revealed to be a matter of serious dispute, which it is if three members of the US National Academy dispute it.

    That would seem to us to be the logic of the grounds for appeal in this case, and in other cases bound to come in the US as well as in Canada. Given his unconvincing performance in Adelaide we doubt that Gallo will be any more successful as a witness for the paradigm in the US.

    In the courts, the bluster and bullying methods adopted by Gallo and Moore in trying to repress review of their stock in trade do not wash, and a Congressional hearing seems on the cards as the next step at some point during the unfolding of Australian, Canadian and US court hearings.

  41. Mark Biernbaum Says:

    Does anyone know where to find the “biological” companion piece that Schmidt discusses in the Group Fantasy piece?

  42. MacDonald Says:

    John Moore has been asked by NAR to remove the label “conspiracy theorist” site from the mention of New AIDS Review on his AIDSTruth site, as well as the prejudicial and inappropriate label “denialist”, and we wait to see if he will respond before we contemplate further action to correct this libel, which will probably include making up a very large file on his notorious behind-the-scenes activities promoting his own truly “denialist” (of reason and evidence) and anti-science politics.

    We think the forward-seeing blo’ host would do well in commencing the task of collecting a Moore phile at once, rather than trying to impress that staunch one man bulwark around the sexual theory of AIDS with unengaged and unscientific dimisssals of the 9/11 speculations very thinly disguised as a commonsensical Alice in Wonderland view of the independence of the media, which only succeeds in cluttering the pages of NAR with references to conspiracy theories.

    In other words, we hope the blo’ host’s in every way superior pen will soon be felt to challenge Moore’s pristine popo with ink toxic enough to induce risk of HIV infection comparable to that achieved with Moore’s favourite vaginal terminators.

  43. Maurice Says:

    I respect TS’s desire not to get into off-topic discussions like 9-11. I only say to him again, stop using your editorials to mock the 9-11 researchers, and I will stop posting on the subject.

    TS: “did you know that the BBC World News announced the collapse of Building 7 about 25 minutes before it happened?

    Only the most credulous would believe this claim, that’s for sure. Oops, sorry, present company excepted.”

    Really TS, why don’t you do your homework? BBC has ADMITTED that they reported the fall of WTC7 25 or so minutes before it happened. Of course, they offer a lame excuse to explain it, that holds about as much water as a Harry Belafonte bucket.

    “Oh sure. A perception utterly overlooked by the hordes of engineers that investigated the mechanism of the collapse.”

    Yes, hordes of engineers, virtually ALL of whom have government contracts that would be lost if they told the truth, as you can read here.

    David Burd: “Thus, the vital steel structures of the WTCs became useless after the 30-60 minutes of intense fires.”

    Oh REALLY, David? Then why had no other steel framed skyscraper ever collapsed from fires that were far hotter and of far longer duration, ever in history until three of them collapsed on 9-11?

    Firefighters who made it up to the burning floors did not have any problems from the supposedly intense heat.

    Furthermore, any heating of the steel frame would have been very limited due to the fact that steel is an excellent conductor, and any excess heating in one part would be quickly dissipated throughout the building.

    Now I agree this is off-topic, so enough already!

  44. Michael Says:


    I am not sure that Schmidt ever published the 2nd piece. It would be great if someone could turn it up somewhere.

  45. Mark Biernbaum Says:

    Thanks, Michael. Any idea what became of him?

    For anyone who hasn’t seen it — John Moore, Jeanne Bergmann and good old Dr. Mark Wainberg have published the be-all/end-all piece-de-resistance for anti-“denialists” in the latest IAS newsletter. In the final paragraph of this disgusting piece, they call for “restrictions” on the First Ammendment so that Mark Wainberg can achieve his lifelong dream, and have all of us thrown promptly into jail. It’s rather chilling. You ought to post on it, TS. It would make for much more relevant reading that all this back and forth about 9-11.

  46. Truthseeker Says:

    Yes, thanks, MB and MacD, will do, though at the moment there is no text copy to make posting easier, and the problems of Specter, Mr Macaque and Gallo have all accumulated to be dealt with, since sad to tell our new friend John has not yet responded cooperatively and adjusted his mention of NAR to ensure that the public know it is NOT a haven for conspiracy theory or denialism, but a site devoted to truth and accuracy as evidenced by the literature, which his site appears, unfortunately, not to be.

    This is a sad state of affairs for the institution that employs him, Cornell, which otherwise is rather reputable. What can be his motive, in displaying this disregard for “AIDSTruth” he has claimed to represent? Could it be that he has no regard for the truth at all? This is surely not true of a Cambridge graduate.

    We shall have to post an analysis of this conundrum to see if we can uncover a possible explanation. Perhaps John’s obsession with painting the pudendae of macaques to prove that microbicides double HIV transmission has somehow left him without the English dictionary on which he usually relies rather heavily.

  47. Mark Biernbaum Says:

    The newsletter is posted on AIDStruth, and besides that, I sent you text copy. Dave has it. If you still need it email me and I will forward. You really must deal with this article.

  48. Mark Biernbaum Says:

    And it’s Claus, not MacDonald. Aren’t we over that yet?

  49. Mark Biernbaum Says:

    Everyone should read the IAS diatribe.

    It is time to be real men and use real names. We don’t have the time or the luxury to play pretend any longer.

    At the very least, real first names, like Dan and Michael. But better yet, full names, like Biernbaum and Moore.

    Read the article. It is time to stop playing games.

  50. david burd Says:

    The latest IAS March Newsletter being lamented here actually provides a rich array of their named villains (or good guys in our NAR eyes) as cited by Moore et al. Their dense two pages about AIDS ‘denialism’ for anybody curious inadvertently gives many names/topics to google, and thus see the other side (our side here at NAR).

    Names such as Duesberg, Maggiore, Rasnick, etc., and consequently their publishings can easily be looked up by the those (till now) ignorant about the validity of what has been going on since Gallo’s show biz con job in April ’84.

    Of course the question remains: Who other than those already familiar, and in lock-step, with IAS (International AIDS Society) actually reads the IAS Newsletter? I would guess virtually nobody, so personally I am copying and sending it to friends/colleagues until now unaware of the HIV fraud.

    At any rate, to me it seems a gigantic plus for anybody and everybody to actually read the Moore et al. piece, and let curiosity further do its job.

  51. Truthseeker Says:

    The newsletter is posted on AIDStruth, and besides that, I sent you text copy. Dave has it. If you still need it email me and I will forward. You really must deal with this article.

    In pdf.

    At any rate, to me it seems a gigantic plus for anybody and everybody to actually read the Moore et al. piece, and let curiosity further do its job

    Exactly. The dumb troops may just find it confirming, but the intelligent will follow up the leads.

    The distinction between alert and asleep, leaders and followers, is very important in this issue. The leaders know what they do, whether they admit it or not. They compartmentalise, knowingly, at the cost of blocking off information, knowingly, at the cost of other people health and lives, knowingly. Unlike the troops, they are not self deluded.

    What is ironic is that those who most fiercely try to kill off dissent with violent frontal attack, backstabbing, and so on, do the most to attract attention to the existence and critique of the denialists.

    Oops, should be writing this in a post, of course.

  52. Celia Farber Says:

    I did look at the article Mark Biernbaum urges us to deal with. I feel simply that it validates my theory that the extremists in the AIDS establishment are in the grip of something truly agonizing for them, which we cannot help them with. Their reaction to AIDS “denialists” is best characterized not as hostile but as phobic.

    They abhor the idea of any contact, exchange, penetration. IE–a phobia.

    I no more than looked at the article…and there it was, this phobia so clearly expressed in the blue, murky image of budding virus particles, accompanying an article about human beings, ie “The AIDS Denialists.”

    That is to say, we are the new infection, to be eradicated at any cost. I am not going to make any attempt whatsoever to “deal” with that. I am a writer, a journalist– not an infection.

    And who are “we?” There is no skin color or race or ideology that could have lent coherence to the instinct to question surrounding reality, so the stigma had to be engineered and they found it in the spittle word “denialist.”

    In Life Unworthy of Life: Racial Phobia and Mass Murder in Hitler’s Germany, by Daniel M. Glass, the scholar and historian presents voluminous evidence that the Jews in Germany during the rise of the Reich were not the objects of hatred so much as phobia. The Jew was the infection to the bloodstream of Germany.

    Glass writes: “Phobias represent the failure of the self to contain and regulate its overwhelming fear. The group saves itself and its own equilibrium by turning that failure into a qualified success: forcing the other to serve as object of the Kultur’s violent phobic reactions. Death lurked in the Jewish skin, in its potential to carry infection. The Jew-as-death was psychically enforced by convincing the Volk that to touch Jewish flesh, even to have friendly contact with it, was to risk self-destruction because of its power to infect the individual and thus the entire cultural group.”

    “Civilization did not have the moral strength to protect individuals from the technology it created and the power of that technology to turn life into death. But how could it? Political interest lay not in protecting a morality of empathy, care, and restraint, but in facilitating the free flow of violence generated by the cooperation of science, technology, the professions, political action, and fantasies driving the practices of death.”

    “The real enemy, however, lies in the disowned part of ourselves emotionally composed in large measure of hate and fear….Projection…disguises the real cause of our hate and fear, the foreigner that lives within us. If we could acknowledge this presence in ourselves and face it directly, we might be spared the phenomenon of dumping unwanted or despised self-objects into an other invested with properties of abjection. But of course we do not. We refuse to own the paranoia and demystify its power. We isolate the foreigner as other. We transform this presence into an alien double of ourselves. Herein lies the root of prejudice, discrimination, racial violence, and murder.”

    “Through its hallucinatory power, abjection breaks limits, erodes boundaries, and forges violent and destructive definitions of reality….It turns all social judgement, rules, and moralities aside….Abjection mobilizes killing in the service of an ideal.”

    The Jew as death.

    Sound familiar?

    These people who are running the AIDS industry are abjecting “us” (we who have nothing in common) into a collective mark of death. Look at the New Yorker headlines, cited here. No, Mark, I will NOT “deal” with that. My ancestors did.

    I am Jewish, on my father’s side, and so have spent some time thinking about the Holocaust and what the hell went on. My father has taught me a lot about WW2, and particularly about the often obscured stories of those who resisted the madness. They were hated and spat upon, in their day. The Wallenberg family, as is well known, was least proud of Raoul, and Sweden only managed to name a street after him some time in the 1980s.

    For anybody who still thinks this is not a profound psychosis we are in I suggest an immediate reading of Glass’ book as well as the ur-source itself, Canetti’s Crowds and Power.

    I won’t be addressing anything further. The New Yorker article by Michael Specter has nothing to do with me or my work. Or as the Who song has it: ‘I don’t need to be forgiven.’

    Harper’s knows this and understnds it. The only engagement with these people is bound for irrationality and a refusal to absorb information. They are not seeking any kind of exchange, they are seeking to pulverise that which they hold in abjection.

    Don’t participate. I certainly won’t.

    I don’t care what they write, draw, threaten, take away, stink up.

    I don’t work for them. I don’t work for anybody. I just sketch what I see and hear. Then I move on.

    I have required a bigger and bigger canvas each year, to draw this thing. Now I don’t want to look at it anymore, because I finally understand what it is and what it is is pure fear, pure hate.

    That’s what AIDS is.

    Now, either be part of it, or oppose it, with its counterpart.

    Be calm. Be gentle. Look around. Glean. It is not our job to solve anything, and certainly not our job to dissuade others of seeing things their way, and logging that vision in the eternal record where all of our thoughts, deeds, actions, words, and feelings are ultimately recorded. Everybody gets to design exactly what they want to be, so there is nothing to worry about.

    (Except our own conduct.)

  53. david burd Says:

    Oops too for me; the years fly by — Gallo’s con job not being April, ’94, but ’84, and showing an example of how very long HIV fictions have been layered into people’s minds by the daily news and why it is even harder, compared to those not so immersed in iconic newspapers (as the NY Times), to jackhammer out the rock-hard deposits. Our highly educated colleagues ever believing their guardian press cannot grasp now it has turned into a lapdog for the NIH-pharma-biotech Mega-industry.

    U.S. Federal spending alone (with much of it spent on propaganda for the public) is documented by The Kaiser Foundation with its annual pie-chart showing federal budget appropriations for HIV/Aids, with $22.8 Billion for 2007, and about to be $25 Billion for 2008. It now totals to $200 Billion since 1984 — all for paving the HIV asphalt highway. To put this into perspective, for the last 5 years, spending for HIV/Aids has been exactly 8/10th of one percent of the entire federal budget. Add tens of billions of dollars for pharma advertising on top of this for guardrails. As David Rasnick said many years ago, advertising works. No doubt John Moore gets very well paid for his job at Cornell promoting HIV fear, probably with some trickling down of Federal monies.

  54. Mark Biernbaum Says:

    Y’all could have learned a thing or two from all the wretched ACT-UP meetings I went to. We learned about organizing, the power of a uniform message, and how to grab media attention and keep it. And it worked, as you all know.

    How wonderful it would be if the “dissidents” could do the same. Dissent really does work better when you work with one another. Single dissenting voices sing a lonely song.

    These are things that John Moore and his friends know very well. We should take a lesson.

  55. Celia Farber Says:


    You don’t mean that do you? “It worked?”

    What ACT UP did?

    It did not work. It worked only to perpetuate something nobody wound up happy with. It was shot through with fear and intimidation and that only produces compliance, because people become scared and cowed.

    So the media became scared and cowed and reproduced ACT UP’s proclamations.

    And we lost a generation. And 20 years.

    Not to say I don’t know what you mean, because I do. I am only saying what you already know, namely that what ACT UP did did not work.

    People like you speaking out, continuing to I mean, that will work. Enough false authorities, invented powers, oracular medicine–enough.

    Now it’s the weavers of truth who each tell what they know. The truth resides in people who test positive and or whose loved ones have tested positive. Every single story is part of the truth. This will take time.

  56. mark Says:

    There is an interesting article on that gives Larry Kramer’s self-congratulatory speech on ACT-UP’s twenty-something year anniversary. He takes personal credit for all he perceived ACT UP as doing and derides everyone else as not doing anything.

    ACT UP did work to force the FDA to fast-track AZT and ddI. But it failed in that both drugs’ long term effects caused death. The fast track legacy continues with the Vioxx deaths.

    ACT UP did work to force more government funding for HIV research. But it failed in that twenty years later that research has yielded nothing but toxic drugs.

    ACT UP did falsely empower gay men in the 80s. But it failed in that twenty years later gays are called openly “faggot” (at least Reagan only said it behind closed doors), and called immoral. Even Larry would admit that.

    ACT UP is almost as dead as the 1/2 million gone from AIDS in the US. The construct of AIDS has largely gone to Africa.

  57. Maurice Says:

    I tried to post this yesterday but got a new error message which I don’t recall…something about “parameters” I think


    TS, I would think that any publicity that John Peemore gives to your site can only help! I mean, you know the old saying, the only bad publicity is no publicity. He may stupidly be sending a lot more people to your site.

    I must confess to slapping my hand against my forehead from time to time when I read your musings about “why would he do this?…a reputable institution like Cornell…” etc.

    I will make it easy for you. AIDS religionists do it because they are CORRUPT! Cornell does it because Cornell is CORRUPT! The New Yorker does it because the New Yorker is CORRUPT, as is every other media establishment in our state-corporate controlled media.

    CORRUPTION is what is behind all the bullshit we are having to endure in this ridiculous epoch of world history.

    And you’re not going to end it by reasoning with them. No matter how many wonderful editorials you write, no matter how much the facts are on your side, it doesn’t matter. The facts are not relevant. What is relevant is raw power. They have the power, they have the corruption, and they will kill billions before they would even consider coming clean.

    The truth would destroy them. It would destroy Peemore, it would destroy Cornell, it would destroy the NYT and CNN and BBC and the US government and the pharmaceutical, science research and Doctor Industries. It would end US “science leadership” in the world and destabilize the world population, possibly making the masses really angry, enough to mass in the streets and try to take the world back from the corrupt Lords of the earth.

    “They” won’t let that happen.

    And my prediction is, that judge will not send the appeal onward, because he is going to be tampered with by the unseen hand.

    Just as I strongly suspect Manto was made sick in a covert operation in order to destroy her credibility. Even if she doesn’t die, she no longer has any credibility. Nobody will take health advice from a woman perceived as unable to even keep herself healthy.

    Not that the situation is hopeless, but I feel that the only effective route is to communicate with the people on a grassroots basis, one to one, and on the internet. It is largely a waste of time to think that you’re going to persuade the corrupt ones who have the power, to see the light. Corruption blinds one totally.

    They will never admit being wrong. As I predicted in this article, perhaps the only way out for Aids Inc. is to assert something like “the virus is mutating into a harmless form.”

    That prediction was validated a year or so ago, when we saw new headlines, “AIDS virus is weakening,” which were obviously floated as a trial balloon. But apparently Aids Inc. were still having so much fun living the high life that they refused to pursue this avenue out, and the trial balloon popped.

    Since Aids is a political, not a scientific disease, reasoning with them won’t work. These people are not interested in truth, only power. They will not accept responsibility or punishment for their actions. So we must force them to revive “the virus is mutating into a harmless form” as the way out.

    All that we can do is pressure them, continue to turn the screws on them, by making as many people as possible aware of the murderous falsity of “Aids Science.” The easiest way to do this is to introduce the subject to other people who are receptive to dissident thought…i.e., dissidents in other fields, who know all too well how difficult it is to be a dissident, and have their own experience of going up against the corruption of those in power, particularly the mass media.

    9-11 skeptics, for one example. That is a very big movement, much bigger than ours. These are people who have broken free of the thought police who patrol the gates of both “liberal” and “conservative” dogma. We should work on educating the alternative health and natural living people who are fighting against Codex. Ex-hippies. Other marginalized groups.

    Then they will start telling others, and awareness can snowball, to the point that the establishment feel threatened enough to reluctantly terminate this party (and what a swell party it was!) that they’ve had at the expense of the taxpayers and millions of ruined lives.

    So, John Peemore, if you’re reading this, I propose that you and your colleagues latch onto “the virus is mutating into a harmless form” in order to save your collective asses. You won’t go to jail and won’t be sued. You won’t swing like Saddam did, though you are far more deserving of it than he was. You will keep your mansions and Mercedeses.

    Of course after you implement this solution, I will brag to everybody on the net that it was my idea. But it won’t matter. The Big Media will never report what I say.

    So do it, fella! You’ll feel better about yourself and be able to sleep at night.

  58. Dan Says:

    TS, I would think that any publicity that John Peemore gives to your site can only help! I mean, you know the old saying, the only bad publicity is no publicity. He may stupidly be sending a lot more people to your site.

    Between Moore and Specter these past couple weeks, the so-called “denialists” are getting quite a bit of free publicity. Makes me wonder if there’s some self-sabotage going on with the orthodoxy at the moment.

  59. Mark Biernbaum Says:

    Maurice is right. They have the power. We have some smart folks, and a homophobe or two. And the facts, but as Maurice indicates, and I agree, those are irrelevant.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Bad Behavior has blocked 1445 access attempts in the last 7 days.