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---

Politics briefly quash science in Washington furore

HIV fanatics panic at Duesberg and Farber awards, smash spotlight on HIV challengers

Duesberg testimony blocked, ceremony held in private, for fear of activist disruption

Whistleblower week leader Rev. Fauntroy of No FEAR supported Duesberg, but feared PR consequences

actupimage.jpgA storm of hostile protest from gay activists spoiled the Semmelweis Society International Clean Hands awards to Duesberg and Farber this week, in yet another resounding but temporary success on the part of paradigm defenders in blocking free speech on the topic of whether AIDS science makes scientific sense, or any sense at all.

Alerted by an item on the New York Post’s Page Six heralding the Semmelweis award to Celia Farber. gay activists wedded to their self-destructive certainty that Anthony Fauci of NIAID is leading them to a promised land of rescue from an HIV which he personally guarantees is lethal, went into high gear.

As well reported in the Housing Works piece out today (DENIED:AIDS denialists disinvited from Congressional hearing—but get indirect endorsement from Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee ), New York’s Treatment Action Group’s Richard Jefferys posted the news on an email list and a flurry of phone calls and visits resulted, which caught the besieged sponsors of the whistleblower awards off balance since they had not fully researched the extent to which Duesberg and Farber are subject to political counterattack, from Anthony Fauci of NIAID all the way down to gay HIV positive activist members of D.C. Fights Back (“HIV is a disease and with your help DCFB can beat it.”).

Alliance for Patient Safety president and Semmelweis board member Gil N. Mileikowsky, who recommended Duesberg and Farber for the Clean Hands honor, said the decision to yank Duesberg and Farber from the week’s events was 11th hour public-relations damage control that in no way reflects on the dubiousness of their whistleblower status. “Unfortunately some members of the Semmelweis Society were concerned [Duesberg’s] story would overshadow the story of other physicians [being honored] because the media would be writing about him and not the bills in Congress,” Mileikowsky said. “It’s like when Reverend Wright distracted from Obama’s campaign.”

Mileikowsky also said that Charles Phillips, one of the 19 Clean Hands awardees, was accompanied by a gay man and was worried he would be offended by the AIDS denialists’ claims. “Apparently many homosexuals don’t like Duesberg’s research,” Mileikowsky said. “This was interesting and new to me.”

As a result Duesberg and Farber did not attend the Tuesday award ceremony of the Semmelweis Society, nor did they give testimony as expected in the No FEAR Tribunals which occurred on Tuesday morning in Congress and Wednesday afternoon in the Senate. Rev. Fauntroy of the No FEAR Institute gave an impassioned speech in favor of Mbeki and Duesberg in the session held among the co-sponsors, but decided that the courageous duo were too radioactive on the national level to place too close to the other awardees, whose injustices were more limited in scope and hostile counterattack and attached to House bills he is trying to advance to protect whistleblowers.

Instead, the principled duo were given their awards in a closed ceremony held especially for them on Wednesday evening, from which gay activists were excluded with the sole exception of Michael Geiger, a staunch supporter of Duesberg from San Diego.

Thus was the dissemination of unconventional wisdom, and the enlightenment of the press and public curtailed, by Richard Jefferys (whose oddly misspelled name is presumably the one that should have been attached to the misleading notice on whose jeering claims we deconstructed in our previous post and comments) and the many gays who against all their own interests support the current highly questioned paradigm HIV=AIDS with a violent hostility toward any review, as if the fervency of their fond belief was going to save them from being mistreated with unusually poisonous medication whose effects include buffalo humps, many other obscenities, and eventually lethal damage to liver and kidneys.

aidsdrugshump.jpegWhy gay men, including even the very well informed Jefferys, should want to fight getting a second or even a third opinion in a diagnosis which guarantees sickness from medication alone and for the weaker ones eventual death from the prescribed ARVs is one of the mysteries of the psychology of health and illness, on which many future Ph.D. theses will be written.

Of course, the fact that Richard Jefferys’ New York organization Treatment Action Group is funded to a very generous level by drug companies would not have any influence on his long held position that all questioning undermining the current drug regimen should be banned before being heard, and this blog would never be party to any such suggestion.

We are not aware of the source of funding for D.C. Fights Back which is publicly posted as drawn only through PayPal but any such suggestion in regard to the motivations of their members would of course be entirely uncalled for also.

Activist alarm emphazises vulnerability

Meanwhile the activists’ irrational sabotage of the proceedings no doubt has them chuckling over their success. Not only did they prevent a very distinguished scientist and a very principled journalist from receiving the full public honor and attention they deserved, but they scotched the book signings which could have backed up the good impression which both would have made by speaking in person.

Both Duesberg and Farber are famous for changing minds when they appear before audiences otherwise misinformed by NIAID and activist propaganda, which is always conveyed so uncritically by the New York Times and other media and science reporters generally. The latest exception, of course, is Jeanne Lanzer and her excellent piece in Discovery this month, June 2008 (see post below), which will show any intelligent reader that Duesberg’s critique is unrefuted and its rebuttal is purely political.

Of course, any such reader will also know at once that the alarm and agitation of the activists, and their desire to censor criticism of HIV theory before it is voiced, reflect only political emotions and not any scientifically informed views, except perhaps the very real sense that it is very vulnerable to rejection if examined without bias.

Anyone who was certain that HIV is shown by science to cause AIDS would presumably have no incentive to take up arms against critics in science or out of it. The repression of questioning, led by Anthony Fauci and endorsed by every scientist, bureaucrat, official and expert profiting from the paradigm is a very bright neon sign indicating how unjustified, uncertain, unproven and unlikely the conventional belief is.

The problem is that the HIV=AIDS paradigm is inconsistent, contradictory and unrealistic in almost every respect, and rejected by the best scientist in the field, and if it was not automatically endorsed by every scientifically ignorant official, celebrity and activist it would be questioned by every layman let alone every scientist and replaced in short order by scientific sense and common sense.

noose.jpegYet this is the noose into which Jefferys, Lawson and all other gay paradigm fanatics want their fellow sufferers to rush and put their heads into, because Anthony Fauci tells them it is not a noose but a lifebelt, even while the most respected scientist in the field – which Duesberg was and is, before being smeared for contradicting Fauci – says it is a noose.

A PR success after all

That activists tried to run the most important whistleblowers in the country out of town during Whistleblower Week in Washington and largely succeeded might seem a blow to all dissenters in AIDS science in the short run, but in fact it calls attention to their censored existence and indicates a strong concern that they might prevail if listened to, which translates to the likelihood they are right and have something persuasive to say.

Thus if anything Richard Jefferys might well have achieved a pr success for the very people he opposes with such alarm.

As the first piece of evidence for this, we suggest reading the Housing Works article (DENIED:AIDS denialists disinvited from Congressional hearing—but get indirect endorsement from Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee ) carefully. It is a litany of the successes achieved by dissent in AIDS so far, including the fact that a survey has found 45% of gays do not believe that HIV causes AIDS.

rep-sheila-jackson-lee.jpgAnd as the headline remarks, Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX), chair of Whisteblowers Week, failed to distance herself from the award given to HIV/AIDS most principled and public spirited commentators.

The upshot seems to be that despite the best efforts of the spoilers, Washington Whistleblower Week did after all allow Duesberg and Farber to seed minds in Washington with knowledge that will flower some time after the forthcoming Presidential election.

Note: Michael Geiger’s account

The gay HIV critic and firebrand letter writer Michael Geiger of the HEAL board in San Diego was interviewed after the event by Zengers Magazine, and gave a very good account of what transpired.

81 Responses to “Politics briefly quash science in Washington furore”

  1. Manu Says:

    So, the “queer mob”, here referred to as “gay activists” came out in force to show what a bunch of fascists they really all are.

    What is a “gay activist”? If this howling mob of “Abigails” are “gay activists”, then what is John Lauritsen? What is Michael, Dan, Carter et all… Then what am I? We fight for truth and for life; we fight for freedom from the stigma and the targeting of the AIDS industry. We are ostracised from our so-called communities because we do so. We are also then subjected to having to share the same title as those who still try and sacrifice us all on the altar of that “Faustian” deal they have made with the powers that be, so they can get their political and economic gains.

    These are the “queers”, that is the word for them, a word they actually want, a word that marked a clear separation between people like me and people like them, That word implies “freak”, it is a word so charged with horror it is designed to kill you under its weight. Let them wear it, as they have earned it. Leave the word “gay” for us few here who do not share in this death cult. Leave the word activist for those who fight for life.

    Do not be afraid to call them what they are: fascist queers. They are no friend of mine, or anybody’s.

    Ironic this should happen on the same day a ban on same sex marriage is lifted. It is a stark reminder to all of what this is really all about. This is a terrible political “quid pro quo” and the HIV=AIDS lie is the very heart of that deal, through which the queers have benefited by selling out all their brothers and in exchange for the political support of the liberal political powers that be.

    If this bunch are “gay activists”, then so is Anita Bryant. She wanted us dead for Christ, this lot will have us all dead so they can get rich, politically powerful and get married. In view of this, Anita was not really all that bad after all. As a “homo” I consider this lot far far worse. We must not be afraid of them for the simple reason that their power hinges on a lie and hell do they know it.

  2. Truthseeker Says:

    Well, Manu, “queer AIDS fascists” may be accurate, but is it permissible under PC rules? Seems more accurate, certainly. Your theory that they know what they are doing, and consciously sell out their brothers and sisters for personal gain and power, is hard to believe, though. It is easier to believe that they are, at least consciously, taking what they are told by Fauci and the scientists for granted, and refusing to look into it, and like all who make up their minds before the evidence is in, protecting their advantageous belief by grabbing at every scrap and notion that supports it and turning a blind eye to all that contradicts it.

    But perhaps that is saying the same thing, in the end. The guilty culprit caught shoplifting will escape into a different story by necessity to defend himself, and babble some alternative scenario to explain his possession of contraband – oops, forgot to pay, didn’t realise it was in my bag, someone else put it in, I was going to pay etc. in this case, the penalties are too huge to allow anything else but some kind of rationale in the brains of those that perpetrate this level of irresponsibility for the welfare and fate of their brothers and sisters, unless they are totally sociopathic.

    The ultimate indication may be simple enough, I suppose. If HIV positive do they take ARV’s themselves? On this blog in comments we seem to have caught one or two paradigm defenders saying they would hesitate, but most say they would, when asked the question in public. Larry Kramer showed he believes Fauci implicitly by swallowing these drugs as I recall.

    Does Jefferys take/would he take these ARVs? Does Alex Lawson? In my limited experience talking to scientifically uninformed HIV positive gays at NYC events they usually swallow this stuff as if it was manna from heaven, and swear it makes them feel great. But to my possibly imaginative senses they show symptoms of being germ ridden and sweaty, which matches the condition that journal articles suggest would result, that of harboring parasites which have taken hold in an environment where the immune system has been weakened (eg by drugs or poor nutritional habits) but is successfully supplemented by artificial means ie the ARV’s and AZT are now helping to demolish the parasites. So they then rejoice in the effect of the drugs in the short run, feeling much better than they did before they had these immune supplements. Later, one judges from the literature of the field, the weaker ones will decline and possibly even die from the longer term effects of the ARVs, which reliably demolish the liver and kidneys.

    Jefferys and others are well versed in the science of HIV/AIDS, so they must know that the literature has shown that these drugs are useless and dangerous. Unless they demonstrate publicly that they take them when positive, they cannot be taken as sincere in their support of the paradigm.

  3. Manu Says:

    Though apparently disagreeing with my view you end up proving my point. These people know and if they don’t, then they should. They don’t want to know, because it is convenient and beneficial for them politically and economically. I should know, I was part of that set-up: accept the diagnosis and the death sentence, take your pills get your benefits, party till you drop and just shut up. The moment you question that you are out. If this is not fascism then what is?

    The people who run this grotesque show are called “gay activists”, to conform to the PC “new speak” babble, which they need, lest we actually call them something that describes more accurately what they really are: fascists.

    Regard popping pills, well, what’s new there? Most queers I know pop anything and on a regular basis and ARV is, as you say for many. the pills they pop for the cause as opposed to the ones they pop for fun. It is the sacrifice ritual, nothing more.

    I realise the panic one must feel at having to oppose publicly this lot. I realise also that everyone is terrified of being called homophobic. I am not at all frightened of that, for in this scenario that accusation is fired at anyone who challenges these life-snuffing fascists.

    As a homo I accuse them of knowing exactly what they are doing and the reasons they are doing it are more than evident. I also realise that few are actually willing to really say it. I am one of them. I say it, and I will never stop saying it. The leaders of the “queer movement” as well as “queers” in general know exactly what they are doing.

    They need HIV & AIDS. Without it where would they all be?

  4. Truthseeker Says:

    Thank you for that, which pretty much nails it in the way I was trying to get this point expressed – realistically, in a way that proves the point by using the right words. You have put it very well. Many people say Oh they don’t really know what they are doing, they sincerely believe in this drivel, but these are grown men who have been through a life where they have to think twice about what they do and what other people think, day in and day out, for many years. It is impossible to believe that they are naive. The question then becomes, why do they sell out their friends and sacrifice themselves and the answer has to be some kind of psychological masochism generated by their personal and social situation, or self serving gain of some kind, power, authority, position, respect, belonging or financial or material benefit, which motivates despite the fact they are putting their heads in a noose because they can move into a mode of denial in solidarity with the rest of the group and its leaders, including Anthony Fauci and other authorities who sell them this snake oil.

    But to make that abstract analysis realistic and credible one needs someone like yourself familiar with the inside who can express it in accurate terms, which reflect real experience, and you have done it. Brilliantly. Your statement and Michael’s add up to the best account and explanation of this all too human pheneomenon that I have seen.

  5. Manu Says:

    We must never stop exposing them. We must not be afraid of them. Their strength only lies in one thing: our fear of them. We must not be afraid of them. They are queer and they are fascists. It is us lot who denounce them who are the gay activists, because we choose life. They choose death for themselves and all the rest of us.

    They know what they are doing. If I know, then so must they. The rest is only a matter of choice and convenience. Sounds too simplistic, maybe it is, again who said the truth always need be complex? In this case the complexity is not at the heart of the issue, it is surrounding it to hide the truth.

  6. laura Says:

    “AIDS activists” would be more accurate than “gay activists”, especially if one thinks of the term in the same way one speaks of “peace activists” or “civil rights activists” – after all, these people are *for* AIDS. Perhaps using the term “AIDS drug activists” would be a way of being more honest and separating them from the actual anti-AIDS and gay rights activists.

  7. Manu Says:

    Whatever they are, they are not gay activists and they do not represent me and the large numbers of gay people who reject their death cult. Gay activists are those who affirm themselves in life and not those who bully us all into accepting the death sentence. These people are not our representatives. They have no authority. I reject them and so do many others. In fact some of us feel that from now on only those of us who reject HIV & AIDS should be called gay activists and not those who promote death, viral mania, hate and fanaticism, those who use fascist tactics, such as blocking any form of freedom of speech, when it does not obey the AIDS religion.

    These are not gay activists. Those of us who speak out against them are.

  8. Truthseeker Says:

    Of course, I am forgetting the key follow up question, which is what breaks the trance? What brought you to your senses and can it be used to deprogram others?

  9. MartinDKessler Says:

    I believe Manu is like myself a human being who is an intelligent iconoclast. He is a thinking person who like myself is also gay. I believe also one has to be an independent sort – one who makes his (or her) own decisions. A long time ago, I was in the Boston public library reading old Christopher Street issues when I came accross an article about the statistics of AIDS epidemiology. I had taken an introductory statistics class years ago but probably profited more from it than others in the class because I had 2 years of calculus prior to taking it. When I saw that AIDS epidemiology is based on a flimsly correlation – that to me was a danger signal. One of the prime axioms of statistics is that correlation does not imply causation – you can correlate anything – that doesn’t mean anything unless an experiment with dependent and independent variables with a valid sample are implemented and tproper statistics are incorporated to interpret the data obtained. That hasn’t been done with AIDS then or ever. Well this article convinced me that there were some shenanigans going on. Then I read an interview with Peter Duesberg in of all places Spin Magazine.

    How do you deprogram the others? I guess they will all have to die unless they come to their senses first. John Lauritsen talks about this in his book “The AIDS Cult”.

  10. Manu Says:

    I found the information on the Internet and studied it, mostly the political angle, which I found to be more than enough to understand the fraud and even my part in it. The moment I understood I had no problem accepting, as it was plain that it was all a terrible political fraud.

    It all depends on what you believe to be the cause and what the effect of the AIDS nightmare. Is the belief in the HIV & AIDS lie a product of AIDS itself, or is AIDS a product of the need to believe in something in a bankrupt culture. AIDS is just a kind of substitute for God, in a way. It is the liberal version of that vengeful, castigating God they were all so sure they did not believe in. AIDS is a church HIV a God.

    I suppose you can’t deprogram, all you can do is dismantle the structure that maintains the belief. In the case of HIV & AIDS they are scientific and political. AIDS is the most catastrophic example of human failure. It exposes the corruption of the politics and science institution, it exposes the human need for lies, and it affirms mans stupidity and his intrinsic evil qualities above his good ones. In the case of AIDS man has been lead astray by his inability to be honest with himself, he was given a false God to worship and he embraced him and took the toxic communion.

    If you understand HIV as a substitute for God and the belief in HIV more akin to a church, then the only way to win is to prove that God does not exist and that all his priests are the spawn of the devil.

    Here, as I understand the situation, is where we fail. We only manage to do one of those two things. Winning requires both.
    That is my view.

  11. patrick moore Says:

    “It is the liberal version of that vengeful, castigating God they were all so sure they did not believe in. ”

    I understand what you are saying but did you really mean to use the term “liberal”? Can you be more specific? I feel liberal.

  12. Manu Says:

    Yes liberal.

  13. Manu Says:

    Politically speaking, of course. I feel liberal too, but feeling and belief are different. Feeling is volatile and belief is firm. AIDS is a product of that need to believe, the liberals of the western world are so ashamed and loathed to admit to. Their inability to recognise the need for belief gave us HIV & AIDS.

    The right have God.

    Yes, HIV & AIDS in its workings is a politically “Liberal” concoction. The right just throw stones and then look the other way.

    Still, I believe that eventually the right could be better pressured to expose this fraud.
    The left will never do it as it exposes them for what they really are and what they have done.

    AIDS is liberal, definitely.

  14. Truthseeker Says:

    The right have always been the ones to give a platform to Duesberg’s views, for what seem to be two reasons.

    In the first place they like to scotch the attempt of gays to palm off the responsibility for contracting AIDS through drugs to the public at large by claiming it is a virus which anyone could get through sex, and secondly, they like to tackle scientific questions in a factual manner by exploding the premises of liberals with counterfacts, possibly because liberals being generally more artistically inclined owing to their greater sensitivity and connection with other human beings and lesser interest in turning society into a pyramid of wealth and gain on which they can perch as high as possible (are you still with me here?), they (Republican conservatives) know they will catch the liberals empty handed, since liberals of the artistic kind generally have very little capacity to deal with science in a factual manner (probably lost you here, right?).

    AIDS is only liberal because it is nonsense and scientifically factual cash register types such as most Republican conservatives do not subscribe to fairy tales.

    Bear with me here, but I think this is more or less true. However, I doubt that many on the right are going to be pressured into helping explode HIV/AIDS, unless they have sons who have turned gay and taught them to be more openminded. They are quite happy to see gays immolate themselves. Perhaps this is because the ones who are gay so often like to attack gay values and liberties in public as a blind to their own state of mind, one of confused denial if they have not come out.

    Not being part of this segment of society I may not know whereof I speak, and expect to be corrected if this is wrong,

  15. Michael Says:

    I myself do understand the viewpoints, however, lets go yet further. This issue fairly well transcends both liberal and conservative views.

    Lets get real here. Western society, like it or not, has been shaped and molded by its spiritual roots of judeo-christian beliefs. However, just as “science” and “scientists” have been UNABLE to differentiate truth from falsehood with hiv/aids and many other issues, the religious among us have also been unable to tell the difference between truth and falsehood in judeo-christian beliefs and teachings. For centuries, most of mankind and our Judeo-Christian influenced society has been highly corrupted and misled by those in positions of “religious” AND “scientific” authority.

    This happened and happens as a result of false interpretations of divinity, and of data. In those adhering to most judeo/christian followings, we find highly destructive false teachings being included in the basic diet of judeo christians. For instance, the “laws of Leviticus” hold no value for current societies. Nearly the ONLY law of the 200 plus laws of Leviticus that is currently upheld is the homophobically interpreted and inspired one that states something to the effect that a man who sleeps with another man is an abomination to God and should be stoned to death”.

    Most, BUT NOT ALL, of the old testament is highly flawed and corrupted, and lacking of veracity or integrity, or at best highly corrupted from the point that the original presentation was attempting to make. Probably 90 percent of the Old Testament should not even be kept in the same building, let alone kept on the same shelf, let alone in the same cover, as the very enlightened words of the man known as Jesus.

    HOWEVER, There is much corrupted in the New Testament as well, that need also be disposed of, such as the Book Of Revelations. Inclusion of Revelations brings the integrity of the New Testament down into the realm of pure nonsense. It was a complete failure of those who were in charge of the Council of Nicea in 436 AD or so, that they had voted to keep this “nonsense” of Revelations included with the words of an enlightened man. And there is yet more that must also be trimmed from the New Testament! As is taught in both old and new testaments, the wheat MUST be separated from the chaff! The truth must be divined from the falsehood! The book also teaches that God himself will do so in separating the truth from falsehood and the spiritually pure from the “evil”.

    So I daresay, that when a man has grown sufficiently in spirit to embrace his becoming the “Son Of God”, and therefore heir apparent to the all that is, it becomes the duty of every such man who knows that “God Is Within”, to separate these truths from falsehoods, and separate the “good” from the “evil”, and determine for his/her own self, exactly where ultimate highest truth lies.

    As you can see in this discourse, mankinds (our) ability to interpret the symbology and integrity of the “data” presented in both the old and new testament has been highly corrupted, and this corruption yet continues! Many have noticed this, but what have they done? Most simply threw the entire baby out with the bathwater! They quite erringly, and to their own detriment, threw away any and all connection to the experientially verifiable higher and highest spiritual truths regarding the “divine presence” of “The All That Is” that we term as “God” and “Spirit”, right into the trash! A greater mistake has never been made by those who seek highest truth!

    In so doing, an “empty space”, or vacuum or void, was created in the minds of those who have taken this route. However, nature, and the mind of man, abhors a vacuum, and the empty space must be unwittingly filled with “something” or “some other belief” to take the place of the former beliefs that have been discarded. Many who embrace science have simply replaced the former nonintegrous and false religious structures and beliefs with further falsehoods and nonintegrous views and beliefs regarding their own mistaken and corrupted perceptions of reality, and have erringly brought down the levels of scientific integrity to also being fat with nonsense in so doing.

    Only purest spirit can accurately divine this truth. Ego cannot. Such is, and always has been the great quandary for all of mankind. All this was plainly told in biblical, buddhistic, hindu, literature and elsewhere. Truth is where you find it!

    Hence, what I see, is that the path to the bridge that leads to the highest ground and greatest veracity is found neither among the liberals nor the conservatives, but in the middle ground right where buddha had left it when he informed us of such about 3000 years ago, and right where Jesus told us it forever lies and would be found, ie; within our own innermost selves, and less then a hairs breath away from foolish nonsense and the beliefs that lead us to our own self created and self manifesting destruction.

    Simply put! There IS that which enhances life, and there IS that which detracts from it. It is up to each of us to reach for that highest level of being wherein we may be fortunate enough to determine what is what.

    Truth ALWAYS enhances life. Lies, be they religious or scientific, as we all know, fully detract from it.


  16. Truthseeker Says:

    Michael, are you morphing from Abraham Lincoln to a 21st Century prophet?

  17. Manu Says:


    However, my point is this: do you see the HIV AIDS question as one with science at the heart of it or do you see it as one with religion at the heart? I think it is more to do with religion than science. Then it is political and then lastly it is scientific. My point was in relation to the question: how can people be deprogrammed? My answer was that as long as we fail to really pinpoint what lies behind peoples need to believe the HIV AIDS lie, and what holds them there in that belief, we cannot ever be really effective in tackling the problem and winning.

    Up to now science has been used to try to dismantle something that I feel is purely religious, or to do with morality; as would be the case with the political right, or the void left by the rejection of religion by the political left. Either way, science is not the key here.

    I also realise this is a science blog and that I must be coming across as some kind of religious zealot, when in fact I am an atheist. I am just convinced that HIV AIDS is basically a religious issue and not a scientific one.

    To really dismantle the belief system that holds this lie up first we must start to look at the possibility that here all science is most probably totally useless.

    The political angle regarding the left and the right is also clear to me. The right harbour no love for gays, everyone know that, however they do not make up the vast majority of people who hold this belief in such staunch esteem. They just seem to consent the deal, by just mainly looking the other way. The liberal left has made it their cause, they have been championing and supporting and holding the lie up. That is the difference here. Who stands to loose most if this lie falls? I think the answer to that is more than clear, unless I am missing something…

  18. Manu Says:

    For truthseeker re the liberals being more artistic.

    Again, the liberals claim to be more artistic, however, a brief analysis of what has occurred to all forms of art, when the aspiration towards the higher ground is removed or demolished, is well evident in all forms of artistic expression today, where again, the liberals have run riot, where the result is a colossal pile of mediocrity, vulgarity and bankruptcy, that has reduced all form of artistic expression to an empty shell. The commercialization and “popification” of everything has produced practically nothing of real artistic, long lasting and universal worth.

    Most if not nearly all forms of art today are nothing more than a commercial exercise in banality and superficiality. So my view is that they are not unable to understand the science because of their artistic bent, but because they have done to it the same they have done with art, they have adapted the rigors of science to them and their vision of life and the world according to them. It is probably you (according to them), who fails to understand.

    So, the science behind AIDS for them is something that has to fit within the structure of a post-modern production of a Greek tragedy in Beckett style gobbledygook, which they all love to hear. Your brand of science does not lend itself to that, so they have invented a new brand.

    The science in the AIDS drama is not science, it is theatrical language, of the mediocre kind, designed to appeal to the faithful.

    I follow you perfectly; I hope you follow me…

  19. Truthseeker Says:

    I also realise this is a science blog and that I must be coming across as some kind of religious zealot, when in fact I am an atheist. I am just convinced that HIV AIDS is basically a religious issue and not a scientific one.

    I follow you Manu and accept what you say and express rather well, except for feeling that we have to go further and divide the issue into two layers, the motives of leaders and the motives of followers.

    Insofar as people are leaders and promote a scientifically baseless theory which survives only by politics they must be motivated by gain of various personal and social kinds – avoiding trouble, funding and prizes, social power, collegiality, and so on – compounded by personal stupidity, laziness, under research, and a million other human frailties listed on our special page devoted to that, the Master List of Scientific Corruptions, listed at the bottom of the front page of this blog.

    The followers who are largely ignorant of the true science seem to follow all the behaviors of religion and the religious impulse, yes, compounded by even greater stupidity, lack of curiosity, etc. They seem incapable of treating the proposition objectively, and attack questioners as if they were defending a religion.

    Most people are unaware of the extent to which religious behavior is seen in science – Jonathan Miller refused to credit it when we told him of it, even though he is now an expert documentarian of the history of religion and the Inquisition. In fact, to a large extent science behaves as a religion, in that it has priests, Inquisition, etc etc.

    This is why we mention the religious impulse as something we are trying to defend science against, in our top logo.
    One of the great questions becomes, how does someone like yourself, who according to your own account were part of the congregation, perhaps even a vestryman, free themselves from this cult?

    From what you have explained, it seems that your innate curiosity, a key virtue of the scientific mind, could not be repressed, and took you to the politics and the Internet and you deprogrammed yourself. Is this right?

  20. Manu Says:

    I spent 17 years living under a diagnosis, seven of them taking toxic medication. I never ever questioned anything I was far too busy being gay in the London of the 80′ and 90’s. I found the information by accident and the shock was so colossal that it made my hair, literally fall out. It is just only starting to grow back now.

    I went into overdrive and started reading everything I could find. I must admit that even then I did not look for science, for the simple reason that I already could smell the shit way before i got to science. I say how doctors reacted to my questions. I saw how friends just looked at me with hate and told me I was mad. I saw my partner look disappointed at the idea that there was nothing wrong with me. I saw how my gay friends started calling me traitor, i saw how my ex-lovers hated the idea that I was not going to die. I saw how everyone around me started asking me about my health. I saw how everyone had a vested interest in some way in this. The most liberal friends were definitely the worse. They were absolutely categoric in their rejection of this information.

    I threw my pills down the toilet and never looked back. It has taken me nearly three years to recover and now I am great on all levels. The hardest was not so much the shock of finding out, but the reaction of everyone thereafter, who made it clear that they had an investment in me being sick and that they were all set for my funeral, and how dare i fuck up the occasion by living on.

    I saw what HIV & AIDS were. I packed my bag and left the gay ghetto and all these people behind. I walked away in disgust. I will never go back there, not even to visit. I now live on a small island in the Mediterranean, where there is no HIV or AIDS except among some junkies. There is no room here for it here, as the RC Church rules the roost with an iron fist, and even so I can tell you it is a lot easier to live with the Pope than it is to live with JP Moore, even as a gay man.

    I did not deprogram. I understood what an evil piece of work the whole thing is, and how everyone is involved in it in someway or another. I saw how people defend it to the point that they will have no problem sacrificing you, their lover, their friend, their neighbor, their family member just to keep the AIDS lie alive. They want it, they need it.

    If this is not purely religious, than I don’t know what is. I saw how one religion can cancel out the others power just by taking a short flight. I just walked away from it because i saw how evil it all was. Human behavior at its most despicable and cruel, and of course everyone trying desperately to convince themselves that what they are doing is morally right.

    I just walked away from it and spat in everyones face before I left. Is that deprogramming? I don’t know.

  21. Truthseeker Says:

    Terrific stuff.

    You found the information by accident, where? What? A book? A magazine article?

    Small island sounds intriguing. Your laptop connects to a satellite?

  22. Manu Says:

    I found HIV Fact or Fraud on Google video, followed by The Other Side Of AIDS. I was watching looking for some rare German opera clips, got distracted and typed HIV instead. I still don’t know why.

    I don’t know what my laptop connects to. I have broadband.

  23. Truthseeker Says:

    So when was that? Impressive that Google video did it for you. Floreat the WWW.

    Intriguing because the Net is so liberating, in that way – an island and you have access to the libraries of the greatest urban centers, and can communicate as well as if you were in the Rockefeller Center.

  24. Manu Says:

    That was nearly three years ago now. I have never again been to see a doctor nor have I taken a single pill since. I had been living in the great urban centres all my life. I had collected a fair library through my travels and I have it all with me here on the rock.

  25. Truthseeker Says:

    It is a boost to hear that the film and other material had a good influence at least on one life, and judging from it, maybe thousands more.

    Library as in books, or books, videos, and music? Merely asking because this option has always seemed a bright one, except for the fact that most people with inquiring and creative minds still live in the largest cities, presumably. Perhaps they are spreading out now they can stay connected. There must be trade offs, but three pluses for island living surely must be fresh air, views and good fish.

    The bottom line though is whether you can find any other thinking people when such types seem to be rare even in the urban centers, though I would say NYC is characteristically full of them, for many reasons (huge non native population, huge amount of talk, combative personality types, etc). However, in this kind of issue they nevertheless remain subjugated by the wolves and the sheep combined.

    Goats one might call us. Spend entirely too much time butting walls.

  26. Manu Says:

    I have a huge music library spanning all kinds of music, but my main interest is jazz and classical. I have a good library of books too , mainly drama, theory, texts and related material, music and also philosophy and politics. I have a big hefty collection of what i call universal classics which I always go back to and read repeatedly, much like I always go back to listen to those music recordings which I deem perfect or timeless or unequaled. I own only six books on AIDS: The AIDS Cult, The AIDS Wars, the two novels by Steven Davis, plus Celia’s and Christine’s books. I also have all the articles one can find on the internet.

    I know NYC well and have always enjoyed my stays there, and i have traveled to most major cities in the States as well. I also know London, Madrid and Barcelona well as I lived in all those cities. Truth is I miss none of it. I am delighted to be here living the quiet life. I come from a noisy Mediterranean family that seems lifted straight out of a Fellini film and that proves to be sufficiently combative, exciting and highly entertaining.

    The views are divine, the fish is good and cheap and the air humid but still relatively cool. I am delighted to be living here above all because there is no AIDS and AIDS BS. All we have here is the Virgin Mary appearing from time to time, and she has not as yet called for anyone to be tested or given toxic drugs, so all in all I have no problem with her or all those who believe that they see her.

    It is thanks to all the material on the internet that many of us have found out the truth. Some of us have decided to accept it and change our lives.

  27. Cathyvm Says:

    Thank you Manu for your story. Your courage and integrity shine through the morass of base disinformation and propaganda.
    I envy you your island – I want to retire to Crete or Cyprus if any parts are left unmolested by tourists.

  28. Manu Says:

    Thank you. Go for it, you can always find spots like that if you look. Tourism in the med is seasonal, so you only really have tourists in the summer, winters are always idyllic. Crete is probably quieter than Cyprus.

  29. Cathyvm Says:

    A few years ago I took my kids to Haraki on Rhodes. It was small and quiet, the only tourists were Greek, half the locals didn’t speak English and it was HEAVENLY.

  30. Truthseeker Says:

    Crete like so much of the Mediterranean has that lovely lazy insect buzzing quiet in the afternoon when it is bathed in the special illumination that seems to say “three thousand years of history and counting”. Exotic and familiar at the same time. Once visited Edward de Bono there in his villa. Firecrackers going off all the time in the countryside. Happy to hear it’s still off the beaten path of tourism. But the magic of the Mediterranean still resists tourists I hope. Boatloads swarmed up and down the harbor paths of Capri when I was there a few years ago yet couldn’t break its imperial Roman spell. Even Santorini now with an airstrip is immune, I like to think. Happy harbor fish eating and retsina wherever you are Manu, assume you don’t mean the Rock when you say “rock”.

    Heavenly indeed. How grubby all the ratholes of Washington must seem from that far away.

  31. Manu Says:

    I am literally on a rock. I am on the island of Malta, which on the map is that tiny dot smack in the middle of the med. If you like history then this place is loaded with it. From here all big places seem grubby, this place is like being on another planet, the rhythm of life is literally so relaxed I don’t even to wear a wrist watch anymore. I live in the fortifications of Kottonera in the south, so here the tourists come and see us by sea mostly on harbour cruises. They come and they go and they never touch land.

    You can see some shots of where I live here:

  32. Truthseeker Says:

    Correction: I was referring to Malta and not Crete! – beg pardon. Yes, Malta is very impressive. Apparently they were not bombed enough by the Nazis and Mussolini trying to dislodge the British, so they love setting off fireworks at every opportunity.

    Indeed a refuge from all that doesn’t really matter in life, but where the eternal verities rule….wine, bread, olives, pool, sun….

    Now there is the Net, anyone can stay plugged in as well. Genius!

  33. Manu Says:

    We have the net, fireworks, fiestas, sun, sea, the food, Lucio Dalla summer Concerts, winter Opera at the Manoel and NO AIDS, What else can one desire?

  34. Cathyvm Says:

    Manu I’m horribly jealous. I had a holiday in Malta 20+ years ago near Sliema. The Blue Lagoon on Comino was possibly one of the most beautiful things I have ever seen. The only place I didn’t like was Bugibba – too much like Blackpool for me.

  35. Truthseeker Says:

    Umm..err…lively minds…beautiful people…urban energy…a million complex personal stories…challenging politics…scope for alleviating poverty and suffering…talking with friends at local cafes without everyone knowing who you are…the Times thudding on your doorstep to read with the possibility of sharing in many of the stories it runs…shops with the latest gadgets, cameras etc for low prices…the great museums and art galleries and department stores and libraries…the life of the mind and its resources.

    But maybe it is all like the Times – which is so hard to throw out here but never seems to matter at all when you are in Europe.

  36. Cathyvm Says:

    Truthseeker I loved living in London until I had kids (I had been a bit of a party animal) – then it was suddenly a very unfriendly and inhospitable place. Ever tried getting a bus with a baby, pushchair and shopping while being heavily pregnant again while ignorant sods just look on with impatience? I guess it is always going to be contextual. I also spent nearly 5 years in Merseyside (Liverpool and the Wirral) – I can understand completely why JayPee has such sociopathic tendencies. An old flame from Paris I connected with when I was living there at the time said “Sacrebleu (okay I made that bit up), aren’t all people from Liverpool either rock stars, footballers or thieves?” He had just seen a Frech doco on Liverpool. Where does that leave a macaque sex offender?
    Imagine the conversation over the fish and chips in Bootle (yes I know he’s not from there but it’s for dramatic effect – it’s a rather depressed area of Scouseland).
    Mummy JP: Eeeeh, our Johnny, ‘ow are you doin’ with yer high-falootin’ AIDS research?
    JayPee: Eeeeh, mam, are you callin’ me? I’ll give yer a bleedin Liverpool kiss if yer start on me! Is me mascara smudged Loooouuuiiise?” (possibly only understood by anyone who has lived in Liverpool)

  37. Manu Says:

    LOL I lived in London for about 20 years so I am familiar with “scouser” jargon, I got that.

    I agree i don’t like Bugibba either, I never go up north, as I said I live in the Kottonera, those three old fortified cities in the south, which together with the capital la Valletta form the grand harbour.

    I left London for the Spanish cities of Madrid and Barcelona, but still a city is a city and even though i donlt have children I still got to the point where I felt that what I wanted to come and spend time here.

    As you say I have everything I need here, it’s not like I am cut off. I am connected to all those things i want to be connected to without having to put up with all the rest of the stuff the city forces on you. I love it here.

  38. Truthseeker Says:

    Nice cheerful stuff, a pleasant change from the underground pipes and tunnels of the HIV fanatics and their world.

  39. Baby Pong Says:

    Truthseeker wrote:
    “Umm..err…lively minds…beautiful people…urban energy…a million complex personal stories…challenging politics…scope for alleviating poverty and suffering…talking with friends at local cafes without everyone knowing who you are…the Times thudding on your doorstep to read with the possibility of sharing in many of the stories it runs…”

    Truthseeker talks the talk but doesn’t walk the walk. He decries the NYT’s propaganda about Aids, but continues to support them with his hard-earned dollars, subscribing to the most evil newspaper in the world, indeed the most evil institution of any kind because it leads the way for all other media outlets in creating the public perceptions and manufactured consent that allow all the other evil institutions to thrive. Routinely censors information that threatens the power elite, on hundreds of important issues, not just Aids. And acts as “culture cop” even in their arts coverage, to ensure that even people’s artistic sensibilities are carefully controlled so as to pose no threat to Power. (acting in harmony with the CIA in this endeavor, who provided massive covert support to the Abstract Expressionism movement because it acted as a counterweight to Socialist Realism and took the social consciousness out of Art…CIA acting in concert with the Rockefellers in this, as well as the NYT)

    The most basic thing an activist (or a crusading journalist) can do is boycott, and TS won’t do it. Even though one can get all the propaganda one needs from sources like Google News, the BBC website, even the NYT’s own website, without paying them anything. And one can get REAL news from sources like, so much of it that, like me, you’ll be so swamped with interesting and suppressed news and viewpoints that you won’t have time to go out and buy fresh shredded coconut before the market closes. And won’t have time to get to this forum more often than once a month or so.

    When will TS mend his counterproductive ways?

  40. Baby Pong Says:

    It is fantastic that Peter and Celia got these awards. But did TS’s beloved NY Times report it?

  41. Truthseeker Says:

    Everything you say is true Baby Pong but Alas! our goal is to convert, not alienate, so that we may give our sermon in the same Church, and not have the heavy wooden doors closed against us.

    It is the same difficulty we encounter with religious believers and other irrational folk. You have to worry about their feelings, since feelings rule their minds, not reason.

  42. Baby Pong Says:

    I have news for you and everyone else. If the New York Times doesn’t report something, and the rest of the media follow suit, then for all practical purposes, the event didn’t happen.

    There aren’t literally thousands of doctors, scientists and academics who doubt the Hiv theory. Because the New York Times didn’t report that. And Peter and Celia didn’t receive those awards, for the same reason.

    This is their power, this is their kingdom, and this is their peerless evil, which you will NEVER be able to convert to honesty.

  43. Nick Naylor Says:

    Let me second Baby Pong’s recommendation of

    Especially important is their excellent coverage of the global economy-in-crisis including technical considerations mostly ignored by the “paper of record”.

    Don’t leave home without it.

  44. Nick Naylor Says:

    And BTW thanks to Michael G and Manu for turning this thread from a disaster report to something really positive and constructive.

    And yes, even Richard Jefferys may someday see the light.

  45. Baby Pong Says:

    Glad to hear you are a fellow global research person, Nick. But your link doesn’t work, because you need to remove the period at the end.

  46. stevekj Says:

    Baby Pong, your link doesn’t work either – you left the comma in!

  47. Truthseeker Says:

    A general physics blog that may be of interest: Physics arxiv.

    They are reducing the Rubik’s Cube maximum move requirement:

    Here is the March post on that

  48. Michael Says:

    Well, ain’t it SWEEEEEETTTT!

    80 12th STREET, SUITE #307
    “Supporting Fair and Proper Due Process in Medical Peer Review without Compromising
    Medical Ethics or Patient Care”


    In 1847, Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis pioneered the prevention of transmission of disease by washing hands (Prophylaxis), reducing the mortality rate due to Puerperal Fever from 12% to almost ZERO by enforcing the washing of hands with chlorinated lime.

    At the time, Dr. Semmelweis’ hypothesis was considered extreme and was widely rejected and ridiculed. When he refused to compromise his beliefs, the hospital that employed him was pressured into terminating his clinical privileges. Semmelweis’ sole “crime” was that he proposed a contrarian idea to current thinking, which directly challenged the (incorrect) current medical theories of his time.

    Despite the continued ridicule, hostility, and unemployment, Dr. Semmelweis tirelessly promoted his theory, sometimes denouncing physicians who refused to wash their hands as irresponsible murderers. His contemporaries eventually concluded that he was crazy and, in 1865, committed him to a mental institution where he was beaten to death by guards.

    Dr. Semmelweis’s theory was considered irrelevant, until Louis Pasteur connected germs to disease, and Prophylaxis is now considered standard practice around the world. The 1800s medical community’s refusal to consider his theories earlier clearly resulted in the continued unnecessary spread of disease and death throughout the world.

    Backward and reactionary thinking did not die with Dr. Semmelweis in 1865. Highly qualified and competent physicians, scientists, healthcare personnel, and government employees continue to suffer similar retaliation throughout the United States, which is why organizations like Semmelweis Society International and the Alliance for Patient Safety participated in the recent Whistleblower Week in Washington.

    The Semmelweis Society International annually recognizes individual Healthcare Providers, Researchers, and associated personnel, who have regularly challenged the status quo, who have reported issues, often controversial issues, regarding patient health and safety. Semmelweis Awardees have often had to endure the tyranny of threats and retaliation, and actual financial ruination, in some cases. Without these courageous individuals, progress and innovation in medicine, public service, and industry is inhibited, or negated.

    One Semmelweis Laureate is Peter Duesberg, PhD. (, Professor of Molecular Biology at the University of California, Berkeley. Dr Duesberg has asked legitimate but “outside the box” questions about the connection of HIV to AIDS, and even further questions regarding the documented toxicity of AIDS drugs. Drugs that are commonly used to fight the very immune deficiencies that these medications are known to affect adversely, or even to cause.

    Dr. Duesberg does *not* advocate the reduction of clinical services or aid to Asia or Africa. Dr Duesberg simply questions the administration of drugs that are known to compromise human immune systems to patients whose immune systems are already compromised by poverty, malnutrition, unsanitary conditions, dirty water, drug use, or dangerous sexual practices. If Duesberg’s contrarian concerns are true, the AIDS drugs themselves may be the proximate cause of some or all of the death statistics that pharmaceutical companies currently rely upon to promote the sale of their drugs.

    Because the anti-AIDS Pharma Industry has already generated more than $200 billion in Pharma income from US government/US taxpayer funding, it is understandable why that same Pharma industry might attack individuals who propose alternative ideas and treatments that could save the lives of millions of AIDS sufferers around the world, but without their products (and at the loss of their profits).

    A simple double blind parallel treatment study, with flawless monitoring in the gathering of clear and specific data, would allow evidence based approach to this question, and would be a standard for the industry as opposed to the present dogmatic approach.

    In an era of evidence based medicine based on real reproducible results, how does one explain why organizations that are ostensibly pursuing the cure for AIDS would deliberately attack rational alternative solutions?

    Members of Semmelweis Society International represent thousands of years of medical expertise and practice. They understand the power of competing ideas and the importance of open and rigorous debate. In the case of HIV/AIDS, the debate has been inexplicably muted by individuals and agencies that have handsomely profited by the hysteria related to HIV/AIDS. History reminds us that solid ideas are easily defended, while lesser theories can only be defended with fear, intimidation, and ridicule. If anything, these anti innovation strategies should sound the alarm for the medical community that treats AIDS patients.

    The overt Hysteria deployed against those who are simply proposing the clinical and fully scientific review of new ideas should alarm public servants and elected officials who are responsible for supporting the First Amendment right for rational discourse.

    American taxpayers have not been told the whole truth about the still-unidentified HIV virus, and its arguable relationship to the disease of AIDS, while ignoring the known toxicity of the drugs currently used to fight AIDS.

    The taxpayers deserve a better break and a much clearer knowledge of how (and why and by whom) their tax dollars are being spent.

    If Professor Duesberg and others are wrong, nothing is lost. But if Dr. Duesberg is correct, thousands, if not millions of people around the world may have died due to the toxic properties of AIDS drugs and the misdiagnosis/mistreatment of a still poorly understood disease.

    Semmelweis Society International does not present the Clean Hands Award lightly. In Dr. Duesberg case, it is hard to imagine anyone more deserving than Professor Peter Duesberg and investigative reporter Celia Farber. These two have withstood a vicious and ongoing multiyear multicontinent personal onslaught against their livelihoods, their character, and their families that is unparalleled since the Spanish Inquisition.

    Their sole “crime” is to ask if there has not been a colossal error in our thinking to date.

    The simple facts are that nobody has ever been cured of AIDS. No Vaccine has ever been developed. Something is wrong here.

    Dr. Duesberg has an idea, a contrarian idea; to be sure, it is an idea, nothing more, but nothing less.

    Celia Farber’s “crime” is to have reported this contrarian idea, into a First Amendment Free Speech Protected Society, or so we all thought.

    We pray that our elected officials will not succumb to the hostility and pressures that the AIDS/Pharma industry will use to discredit and further silence this most vital debate.

    We at Semmelweis are proud of our decision to present Dr. Peter Duesberg and Celia Farber with our highest honor and wish them both all the best as they continue to find concrete answers to this elusive and misunderstood disease.


    Roland F. Chalifoux Jr., DO
    President, Semmelweis Society International

    June 1, 2008

  49. Baby Pong Says:

    Yikes, you’re right, Steve. These links are not working because commas and periods placed after the link are being made part of the link. Since I did not try to format the link in HTML, but just typed my post, probably as did Nick, and the forum software created the link, it seems the problem is the forum software which is incorporating periods and commas at the end of URLs into the link itself, when it should be smart enough not to do that.

  50. Truthseeker Says:

    Well, ain’t it SWEEEEEETTTT!

    Not that sweeeet, surely. The Semmelweis society leaders finally got back their nerve and on June 1 (why that post date?) wrote this press release which Rethinking AIDS posts on its site at long last? Guess that reflects the fact that the members who originally misled them into caving in and insulting Duesberg by moving him out of the spotlight to another day and a non public ceremony were finally ejected or resigned from the Society?

    Perhaps if you would finally forward the relevant emails you promised to the editorial staff at SG/NAR here we could make a better assessment, but at the moment this looks like another example of the disordered shambles that the critics of HIV/AIDS make of any proper response to the political counter attacks of the Waffen-SS defenders of the paradigm.

    Peter Duesberg has made a high level scientific peer reviewed unrefuted challenge to the essentially scientifically absurd reigning belief in HIV/AIDS and Celia Farber has recorded the politics of those who evade its decisive arguments and mislead the public on its merits.

    The political counter attacks they have suffered and the concomitant financial penalties are indeed exactly what the Semmelweis society exists to counter, and it should have made Duesberg and Farber the centerpiece of their ceremonies and discussion and presentation to the press in Washington.

    Instead they let their own members scare them into sweeping the greatest scandal in science today under the carpet, primarily because they hadn’t researched Duesberg properly and realized the huge interests at stake and the hot potato nature of his issue.

    Luckily nothing can change the fact of the award and now their confirmation of their approval of Duesberg. But the disarray of Duesberg’s supporters is a sad characteristic of the situation, and it should be pointed out that it is primarily a reflection of the great imbalance between those who protect a successful paradigm and those who try to overturn it as error.

    Those who defend it are usually well paid in one way or another for doing so, and it is usually their main work. Those who try to correct it are not paid for it (even the Semmelweis award has no money attached, as far as we know) and it is not their main activity in life, usually for that reason.

    In other words, the revolutionaries have to fight with one hand tied behind their back. The defenders as in this case have all the modern weapons available to members of modern systems.

  51. Michael Says:

    Actually, the reasons it had not been posted sooner, are simple.

    Every one of the people involved with Team Rethinker and Team Dissident, including yourself, are very busy people, and they are NOT the type to sit around and quack about their awards or honors, or rest on their laurels. They are busy doing what they do, not sitting around waiting for KUDOS and backslaps. Both Farber and Dr. Duesberg had to nearly be pried into getting the scans made, so they could be gotten up on the site, and fortunately, as soon as they were received, the RA crack computer genius, Frank, put them up immediately onto the RA site.

    For nearly this same reason, as I too, have been exceedingly busy, I have not sent you some emails regarding infighting of a couple of now former Semmelweis individuals.

  52. MacDonald Says:

    Yes, but dear TS, all that taken into consideration, ain’t it SWEEEEET!!?

    There was a time when it would he been the leaders of Semmelweiss who would have had to resign and not the dissenting judges. It is all part of the Revolution baby.

    It is especially a victory for Celia, who has been the target of one of the usual hate-campaigns.

  53. Truthseeker Says:

    Let’s not have drivel in Comments, folks. Frank Lusardi is no computer genius, as far as we are concerned, since the defects of this site he abandoned precipitously and without explanation a year or two ago (except for mumbling something about undefined “abuse”) are still with us, impenetrable to anyone else since no one can decipher what he did to the original. Offering to help us, converting this blog with useful additions when it was unplugged forcibly by some miscreant from another server and then abandoning us without reason or explanation so the remaining flaws will be with us always, or until our upcoming expansion, is no sign of genius in the ethical sphere, that’s for sure. Sadly this prima donnish kind of combative nerdism is not unknown in other individuals in the disorderly volunteer movement to correct the HIV/AIDS paradigm, which in our reporting experience features several tiny egos more inclined to combat than to sacrifice of self to the cause of truth, in which Duesberg and Farber set such a good example.

    The fact remains that these distinguished players were not treated well in Washington and deserve a handsome apology, and you can make up your own mind whether this statement, written by others, serves as that or not. Perhaps it does. Certainly the rout of the members of Semmelweis Society who were responsible for the damage is a victory of sorts. But until Duesberg gets the Nobel he has long deserved and Celia Farber the Pulitzer one has to empathize with their apparently sensible attitude that prizes themselves don’t prove much, it is proper recognition and respect in terms of being listened to which they need and deserve, and that as we understand it (in our state of partial enlightenment on the subject, since a certain busy party did not forward the email he promised) is exactly what they did not receive at the time. Now however they will receive it it seems from the organizers of the Society and hopefully the damage will be repaired and eventually a positive and continuing gain result, since the award can be quoted whenever their names are mentioned.

  54. MacDonald Says:

    Amen! And ain’t that sweeet!! oh partially enlightened egoless genius of the ethical sphere?

  55. Truthseeker Says:

    Not as sweeet as the new Firefox 3 browser, MacDonald. Upgrade now in anticipation of the vast expansion of this site looming over NIAID like a tsunami from Krakatoa.

    You are familiar with the motto of this site, are you, MacD? “To be good is noble, but to show others how to be good is nobler and no trouble” – Mark Twain.

    Whenever we contemplate the difficulties of the tiny ragtag band of truthseekers in this politico-economic not very scientific sphere in overcoming the forces of the Inca-like Fauci sitting atop his pyramid of gold and emeralds and the backs of his thousands of faithful paradigm worshippers we think of the success of Francisco Pizarro, who after many vicissitudes and two failed expeditions made a decisive march with only 160 men and captured Atahualpa in the bosom of his 80,000 man army.

    Pizarro was of course a criminal of the first order and hardly a man of his word, and the Incan civilization he took over was sadly debased by the introduction of Spanish and Christianity, but here we are thinking merely of the imbalance of power and men, and how a handful of insanely brave fighters can rout a truly massive enemy force if they make the right moves at the very top.

  56. MacDonald Says:

    I am always amazed at these comparisons to European invaders.

    It is Fauci who is Pizarro, stupid! And there is no top to make the right moves at.

  57. MacDonald Says:

    Fauci is Pizarro, stupid!

  58. Carter Says:

    I think it’s appropriate at this juncture to share this with you folks:

    This is a report and podcast of Celia Farber’s interview about receiving the Semmelweis Clean Hands Award and further talks about what happened at Harpers.

  59. Douglas Says:

    Great job, Celia and excellent comments, Michael. This is a must hear Ipod. I posted it on my forum for easy access.

    (Click on my name and go to “News”)

  60. MacDonald Says:

    Mr. TS,

    Your slimy friend John Stossel says on the Factor that Futures speculators don’t drive oil prices up but down; that these people who manipulate the market artificially (don’t really buy and sell money-over-counter in exchange for goods and don’t consume what they don’t really buy) are unconditionally good for the economy, liquidity-wise etc.

    I think the oil cos, the foreign policy makers and the speculators (ovelapping categories) are taking advantage of each other – actually I’ll go ahead and say conspiring – to 1. drive prices up for profit 2. force the Govt. to give them the coveted ANWR and off-shore drilling rigts, and that it’s amazing the Dems don’t use this argument.

    What say the Oxford Economist host?

  61. Truthseeker Says:

    Now, now MacD, he is no slimy fellow but a sensitive and curious explorer of the other side of the coin, someone you should appreciate, not insult. Do you always impute bad character to those you differ with? That is not in the great democratic tradition for which America proudly stands. But then you are not an American, like many of us Brits here eg Christopher Hitchens.

    So John Stossel is correcting your hoi polloi/mass media opinion that speculators drive up prices? Perhaps you have overlooked the fact that for every buyer there is a seller, and vice versa, so even those who buy predicting (not forcing, unless they have some kind of corner on the market) the price will rise are bet against by the seller, who will win if the price goes down, and lose if the price goes up, at least compared to what he might have made if he had hung on.

    If sellers hang on as the price rises, they are looking for a price rise too, wouldn’t you agree, that is the reason they don’t sell. So are you going to blame those who hang on for pushing the price up, too? The only people who push the price of anything up are the buyers, and they are making a bet, not a forcing bid. If there are enough of them, then the price will rise.

    But in the end, the price reflects supply and demand. If your idiot buyers of SUVs are forced to pay for for oil they cant refuse, since they need it to get anywhere at all in most places outside New York City which has a wonderful public transport systems and is making more room for bikes so that fewer of us get run over and killed, then that’s the bet they made, and the wake up call has arrived.

    In the future however are the fabulous $110,000 Tesla for which 1000 are now on order and other hot electric cars which go 100 + miles to the gallon, and the head of Ford is planning huge expansion into electric – many millions of vehicles are on the cards. Just plug them in when you get home, they have lithium ion batteries, stacked. The Tesla is faster than a Ferrari and can beat any race car on laps quite easily. So it looks as if demand for gasoline will ease from predicted levels, which may even catch the buyers you blame so much with their pants down.

    But it will have nothing to do with them Those who blame market speculators for pushing oil prices up are exhibiting crowd ignorance of the worst kind, ie that practiced by the media, which you are surely familiar with in other contexts eg HIV/AIDS.

    Unless of course they affect supply and demand with their actions, which they do as a market, so there is no blame there, or with monopoly power of some kind, cornering the market in trading instruments or in the supply of the product eg oil.

    Do you know any market speculators who have control over the supply of oil? Maybe you mean the oil companies or the Saudis?

    Certainly the Saudis are a bunch of thieves, not least stealing from their own people who share so little of the oil money that streams into the pockets of the royal family that their non royal per capita income which was $28,000 per annum three decades ago is now less than $10,000.

    The Saudi royal family are the biggest thieves in the world, and culturally nauseating in their use of the clerics to keep their people down, bereft of decent well funded education and jobs and liable if they are unfortunate Pakistani temporary workers to have their heads cut off if they complain. No wonder even graduates think of suicide piloting as a mission of escape from uselessness and repression.

    And guess who is the Saudis biggest pal? Why none other than George Bush, whose first act after 9/11 was to give the bin Ladens in the US a free pass and planes out of the country. Without Saudi money young George wouldn’t even have had a money losing business.

    Anyhow, if you can find monopoly power feel free to blame whomever you think is wielding it. But not the powerless speculator who risks his ass betting on the future of the oil supply.

  62. MacDonald Says:

    I suspect the speculators are made scapegoats for the effects of the energy and foreign policies, as well as being an example of the prevalent tendency to attack the symptoms rather than the root causes.

    Nevertheless, they can drive the prices up if they all rush to buy, and since this is futures they’re not constrained by any momentary shortage, imagined or real. The fact that some will lose in the end (not the large speculators who will know exactly when to get out, and not most of the big consumers they sell off to, since they can often make the ordinary customer/taxpayer foot the bill in the end) is of no consequence as long as the black gold fever rages on the market. Furthermore if the producers, the cos and the foreign policy makers all play on fears of terrorists and dependence on our enemies etc. they can keep the prices inflated far above what supply and demand actually dictate for a very long time.

    I don’t need to find a monopoly for this, since these people are all members of the same childishly named student fraternities. And Preznitz Bush, as you quite rightly remark, has always been loyal first and foremost to his oil buddies, whether Arabs or Bible Belters. His most consistent domestic policy concern has been the ANWR panacea, which he yet again makes a mighty push for before he is replaced in the White House by someone who might turn out to be marginally less Big Oil friendly

  63. MacDonald Says:

    Oh and Stossel DID come off as slimy on the Factor – and that was compared to O’Reilly himself, who usually makes most people look good

  64. Truthseeker Says:

    Is there an url for this entertaining meeting between Stossel and O’Reilly?

    We seem to agree on the markets factors involved. One would add that monopoly of information must play a large role in lining the pockets of the brave men and women who bet on rising prices, but let’s recall also that whenever the ceiling is reached there is no more profit in anything but successful short selling, a tricky business in a century where expansion of supply doesn’t look very possible in the long run. Hard to blame anything but supply and demand in the end for high prices which are now predicted by some to hit $200 or $300, so it will be interesting to see if Obama has the sense to expand public transport like crazy in the US.

    Nothing will ever beat the comfort of a compartment with close shaven furry tough velvet seats and solid latches and doors which we enjoyed in Britain in the days of yore, before electric engines and long multi seat carriages. Privacy maniacs used to smile and leer at the provincial platform boarding new passengers and crook their fingers at them to come hither ie to make them choose some other compartment.

  65. MacDonald Says:

    Enjoy! Of course Stossel has the upper hand through most of it, but I think he is overdoing the let the free market be free thing. The slimey knows very well it ain’t that simple

  66. Truthseeker Says:

    MacD, could we plead with you not to lower the tone of this unique blog (unique for the high intelligence of contributors such as your distinguished self, and others on this page,) by using epithets which betray the fact that you are not aware of the vast audience watching you (as revealed by our stats)?

    Would John Stossel use the word about you in public? I sincerely doubt it. What you call a certain word is in fact his great soft sensitivity, which you would know if you met him. John Stossel would not hurt a fly that landed on his make up powdered nose. For such a man to voice tough ideas indicates a degree of courage that we would all do well to emulate.

  67. Cathyvm Says:

    Thanks for the link MacD, I had heard of/seen O’Reilly in action before – most notable being the “SHUT UP” sequences, and my impression is that he is the antithesis of what constitutes a “gentleman” but I had never heard of Stossel before.
    I cannot pretend to understand the forces at work here; I’ve never owned a stock or share in my life. To my financially uneducated mind it seems like a game of Monopoly in which the rules went missing. When the NZ$ goes down, gas gets more expensive. When the NZ$ goes up, gas gets more expensive – on planet Cathy this makes no sense at all.
    I suspect the same is true in the USA right now that the “mom and pop” investors seem to be the ones losing their nest-eggs hand over fist and are really hurting. I do not gloat – people plan for their old age the best way they can. Finance companies here in particular seem to be falling like proverbial dominoes. All I can say is that it very much seems that the “little people” are getting burnt while the “big boys” remain largely unaffected.

  68. MacDonald Says:


    In deference to the vast audience seeking (my) wisdom here, as well as your personal knowledge of Mr. Stossel, I will immediately stop using the S word. However, I cannnot help but think that the attractively tanned Mr. Stossel would simply return the favour by curling his sensitive lips under the always newly trimmed moustache and snarl the D word about me, should anybody ask his opinion.

    That’s usually the case with pop-mythbusters:

    Perhaps Cathy’s local currency does not have much direct influence on the price of oil and gas
    one way or the other, but she brings up another point which you have left out for some reason: the impact of the falling dollar on oil prices. It does seem to be more of a problem to the Americans than to the Europeans at the moment, but is that dollar-related or over-consumption-related one wonders?

  69. Douglas Says:

    I can’t say that I understand the economics of this all, but it looks to me that these speculators are buying on margins and many have no hard investments or fixed assets in the oil industry. Every time, the government loosens or abolishes the regulatory agencies and regulations, the consumers get screwed.

    Look at the debacle of home loans. In the end, everyone looses.

    I think we should know, at least, who these speculators are and have a clear idea what they are up to. They should be restricted, taxed or fined.

    Any decent President would have nationalized the oil industry by now or reined in the speculators.

    I heard somewhere that as late as 2005, (the last census) the US was totally self sufficient in oil. The problem is that we export a good deal of it and therefore are victims of the oil companies greed, here and abroad.

  70. Truthseeker Says:

    One absurd idea after another. But I am distracted by the spelling of the word “lose” as “loose”. Quite honestly I thought this little backwater of enlightened erudition (SG/NAR) was immune to this appalling inroad into language still unknown to the dictionary I hope, even if it is all over the Net, but it seems not. One shudders to think what is next. Maybe text messaging shorthand will take over too.

    The falling dollar is merely the result of the net imbalance of the trade and capital accounts over time if my recollection of sophomore economics is correct, ie after years where the image of the US as the world’s best investment allowed money to pour into this highly entrepreneurial economy and its government and private instruments ie bonds and shares, and pay for the rather inflated value of the dollar which brought us all our cheap Asian electronic products etc, suddenly the chickens finally came home to roost and all the free money sloshing around the international capital markets found equally promising places to go eg China, so end of subsidy end of story and end of artificially high dollar. US exports are now making rapid strides as a result, which must be helping the economy keep going a little. Naturally oil prices in terms of dollars tend to be higher if the dollar sinks, and if the sheiks sold more of the stuff it would send the price down again in the end.

    But what that has to do with unleashing speculators who buy too much oil on margin I can’t think. If someone thinks the price of oil is going to go up he/she might buy oil derivatives and ride up but he/she is buying from people who think he/she is wrong otherwise they wouldn’t sell. And what has that got to do with home loans, where too much credit was extended to people who hadn’t a chance of paying the rates that they would be liable for after the initial sucker rate gave way to higher ones, unless housing prices continued to inflate? People were just buying into a bubble created by irresponsible lenders who handed off the final ownership to some pension fund manager in Scotland who half the time didn’t know what he/she was really buying into after all the trading handoffs got so long a chain that no one could track them.

    That was just the extension of credit to people who couldn’t pay, and the investments were the modern equivalent of tulip bulbs, except that someone got to live in the houses actually built. Lots of people with insufficient income have gone bust and lost their homes, and so have some renters in houses owned on such a basis. But it was all an artificial growth on top of the normally fluctuating supply and demand market in housing, housing hopes and housing dreams, which is not a single solid product with known supply parameters and predictable and hard to replace uses such as oil. Reining in the speculators is hardly feasible in practical terms and has no theoretical justification whatsoever, since they don’t have any power over supply or demand. It is the President of the United States and his buddies among the Saudis and the oil business who should be reined in, though exactly how we do that when the voters of this fair country give him the highest office in the land I am not sure. Maybe Obama can be educated in economics in a hurry but this now seems doubtful given what increasingly looks like a lack of imagination to match his rhetoric. Maybe it is a pity that Nader never has a chance. He sounds strangely enlightened compared to everybody else now including Obama.

    See Nader tweaks Obama

    Ralph Nader released the following statement in response to Senator Obama:

    Senator Obama said earlier today that I haven’t been paying attention to his campaign.

    Actually, I have.

    And it’s clear from Senator Obama’s campaign that he is not willing to tackle the white power structure–whether in the form of the corporate power structure or many of the super-rich–who are taking advantage of 100 million low income Americans who are suffering in poverty or near poverty.

    Senator Obama is opposed to single-payer national health insurance.


    Because he favors the health insurance giants over the millions of Americans in poverty or near poverty who are uninsured or under-insured. Eighteen thousand Americans die every year because they cannot afford health insurance, according to the Institute of Medicine.

    Senator Obama wants to expand the military budget which is loaded with waste, fraud and abuse–instead of cutting it and investing the long-ignored peace dividend in the inner cities with good jobs and public works–including schools, clinics, and libraries.


    Because he fears and favors those thousands of lobbyists in charge of enlarging the military industrial complex that President Eisenhower warned us against.

    Senator Obama says he favors a living wage. But he doesn’t say he would immediately increase the minimum wage to $10 an hour, which is the equivalent of the 1968 minimum wage adjusted for inflation, because by doing so he would offend the big corporations who exploit labor in places like Wal-Mart and fast food chains. (The minimum wage needs to be increased immediately, not phased in over a number of years, as Senator Obama would have it.)…. etc.

    How do you like that point about the minimum wage? Would Duane Reade and Starbucks survive? More to the point, will Obama win or will McCain get in as people tire of Obama and Clinton and their horrid exposure of how much they are prepared to change to win? 25% of Clinton voters are planning to vote for McCain or not at all, according to a poll on ABC -if they do Obama is sunk.

    While he was sweeping all before him with his rhetoric for change he seemed unbeatable, but Hillary has beaten him down and now all we have is a tired man without the magic he once had. So what once seemed inconceivable, the hard headed prediction that McCain would win out, now becomes the growing possibility. Surely not….

    A man who insists of playing Signed Sealed Delivered I’m Yours as a campaign song (mighty good one at that, of course) when he is preaching change, I dont know, does that really work? The song implies submission to the dictates of the dominant sex (female). Is submission the right note for the knight of change to sound? When is the last time Obama said something exciting?

  71. MacDonald Says:

    Mr. TS.

    I think you derive most of the absurdity from conflating two different messages from two different people, perhaps even the different messages within the respective messages.

    Lose/loose could be an oversight from someone who is not yet aware that you value spelling/typing above all else. I myself have committed that faux pas on occasion – in fact, once I wrote to a prominent forum (almost as prominent as this one) and spelled faux pas “fault” pas. Another stubborn one for me is “seize” and “cease”. I have on more than one occasion ceased the day quite early on the morn (yes, ‘on the morn’).

    There were those, including a certain Mexican Geppetto and his gaily dancing and singing Pinocchio, who warned you against being overly impressed with Obama a long while ago. Now that warning has finally found a home to roost in your distinguished chimney-pipe it seems. Obama has also, let’s not forget, all but offered Bush and the telecoms eavesdropping amnesty. But he is still preferable to McCain who found the habeas corpus-rights Supreme Court decision the worst in memory – and in his case we know he is talking long-term memory.

    It will still be easier to hold Obama responsible for commitments to certain principles, rather than McCain, who is openly against those commitments, on principle, and therefore would appear but straight-talking and consistent as he invades and tortures and creates his hundred-year-Reich in the Middle-East.

  72. Truthseeker Says:

    Those who make fun of the plodding and earnest host with sufficiently dashing wit are automatically forgiven, even if their points are wrong, incomprehensible or both. In this case however the barking dog running excited circles around the ponderous water buffalo is under a misapprehension. The former Obama, the original who tilted with pointed lance at the vast gas balloon of current Washington power club-media rhetoric which so blatantly camouflages inaction on many important fronts such as rescuing the poor and middle class from the depredations of the rich, clever and confidence abusing elite still has our hearty approval. But where is he?

    In the aftermath of the mildly sickening liars’ bonding fete of Barrack and Hillary at Unity I imagine that consciously or not many people in the US who have the same shallow and feeling based political views that your inattentive host tends to form will have been seriously put off Obama by his willingness to parade his status as a liar in front of the world so blatantly, sharing with Hillary a ridiculously plain, spotlit and center stage exhibition of how political interest lay behind and now lies behind his former attacks and current embrace of the lovely if equally compromised actor on this stage, Hillary, she now of the somewhat forced if now longer slightly over the top smile.

    The whole point is that we all loved Obama #1 but Obama #2 has emerged as your clever friend may have cynically foreseen as a sellout before he has even been elected, and the point is made in public with widespread headline coverage and many TV stations playing over the earlier nasty attacks they made on each other as if the networks were competing with YouTube.

    Of course we all knew perfectly well this would happen and why and pragmatically support it if we are Democrats but the disgust underneath is there and may be great especially for independents or undecideds. It really underlines in the most vivid way how inclined to compromise Obama is, and perhaps that is not all bad if he is merely following in the footsteps of Clinton (if you count his record a great success, although some would say that he was not personally responsible for getting rid of the deficit).

    But it leaves one with a sense of revulsion if one is a truthseeker and was happy to see Obama when he appeared to be one too, and if principle is really important to the voter he will take a second and third look at McCain or at least his running mate, given that that heroic Bush imitator is liable to keel over at any minute judging from his halting speech.

    Come Nader all is forgiven.

    Anyhow I am fully with Gail Collins who wrote yesterday a little Times Op Ed column saying all this rather quietly (see Unity Is Crowded:

    Sometimes it’s trying to figure out how to get through a killer presidential campaign without losing every single quality that made people want to vote for you in the first place.

  73. MacDonald Says:

    Who knows where your former fellow truthseeker has vanished to – or should I say been vanished to? Perhaps he is at this moment languishing ‘neath an iron mask in a dark dungeon due to the scheme conceived by some cunning Aramis.

    Based both on premonition and current observation, it does seem McCain is using up the precious few marbles he has left faster than an SUV can pick your pocket at the pump. He is therefore a mighty symbol of the Empire wouldn’t you say? Aren’t they both really? plodding senility on one hand and the mirage of youth already emitting the odour of rot on the other.

  74. MacDonald Says:

    Who knows where your former fellow truthseeker has vanished to – or should I say been vanished to? Perhaps he is at this moment languishing ‘neath an iron mask in a dark dungeon due to the scheme conceived by some cunning Aramis.

    Based on both feeling and current observation, it does seem McCain is using up the precious few marbles he has left faster than an SUV can pick your pocket at the pump. He is therefore a mighty symbol of the Empire wouldn’t you say? Aren’t they both really? plodding senility on one hand and the mirage of youth already emitting the odour of rot on the other.

  75. MacDonald Says:


    Don’t swallow those inane talking points about Clinton and Obama being hypocrites for making up. There’s nothing unseemly or extraordinary in that. Their positions are so close anyway. Nobody gave McCain a hard tiime for immediately enlisting his worst Republican opponents and starting pandering to the neocons who had been taking him apart on talk-radio.

    That’s the least of it all.

  76. Truthseeker Says:

    That’s the least of it all.

    The inattentive MacD has emerged, Alas! I blame myself for not writing it out in an interesting and intelligible way.

    My point, labored though it was, was that on the emotional level of feelings based on 1% information half of it false which I share with the masses when it comes to the basis on which I vote, Obama #1 got my vote and Obama #2 is a bum, even thought I understand the tritely obvious rationale for his desperate need to arm himself against a senile Bush#3 (which is arguable, by the way).

    So this is no inane talking point this is the underlying driving force of the new phase of the election until Obama #2 recaptures the heroic mode.

    It is always important to perceive the subterranean level of emotions and feelings since these often drive decisions against reason, which most of the masses seem to view as some kind of threat to their happiness.

    As Plato remarked this is merely a philosophical choice. Would you rather be Socrates unhappy or a pig happy?

  77. MacDonald Says:

    I have absolutely paid attention and understood that you admit to being uninformed. Nevertheless, what’s the point, emotional or otherwise, in having Obama shun Clinton and half the Democratic voters? She is defeated. Now what would you have the noble, heroic victor do? Spit on her and hers from on high, or try to unite the party he represents, as promised? Alas, I think your ideal is an Independent, a lone wolf like Nader or Ron Paul, or Malcolm X perhaps, in which case there never was an Obama #1 outside your own distinguished chimney-pipe. Obama was always a man of the Party in the levelling sense of the word; neither has he pretended otherwise. He has been less than honest and straight-talking about some things, but never the one you choose to hold forth as the symbol of his Fall.

  78. Truthseeker Says:

    My point O chimney pipe cleaner is not that Obama shouldn’t compromise ior play electoral or Presidential politics, only that leadership qualities including principled politics are the sine qua non for the kind of voters he attracted originally who are fed up with compromise with voter and lobbyist, and Obama shouldn’t be exhibiting that kind of behavior on center stage, especially when he is abandoning many of his earlier positions now and taking on rightist advisers eg economists from the Chicago school, adding up to enough platform change to disenchant the lefties and Arianna Huffington, author of the new book Right is Wrong, who lambasted him on ABC Sunday morning.

    Yes it would be a fine thing if Nader had a decent chance. But yes Obama #1 was never that independent, if you wish to say so. I am not sure it was clear at the time where his limits were, but there was something about his style which implied a new level of inner direction matching his fine words. That link should not have been broken.

    PS eg Obama Voters Protest His Switch on Telecom Immunity.

    July 2, 2008
    Obama Voters Protest His Switch on Telecom Immunity

    WASHINGTON — Senator Barack Obama’s decision to support legislation granting legal immunity to telecommunications companies that cooperated with the Bush administration’s program of wiretapping without warrants has led to an intense backlash among some of his most ardent supporters.

    Thousands of them are now using the same grass-roots organizing tools previously mastered by the Obama campaign to organize a protest against his decision.

    In recent days, more than 7,000 Obama supporters have organized on a social networking site on Mr. Obama’s own campaign Web site. They are calling on Mr. Obama to reverse his decision to endorse legislation supported by President Bush to expand the government’s domestic spying powers while also providing legal protection to the telecommunication companies that worked with the National Security Agency’s domestic wiretapping program after the Sept. 11 attacks.

  79. Baby Pong Says:

    I believe it was the poster called “Marcel” who first pointed out on this blog, many months ago, that Obama was a phony and that if he were genuine, the media would not be promoting him, they would be suppressing him like they did a genuine reformer, Ron Paul.

    Not that Marcel is omniscient or anything. He also predicted that Hillary would beat Obama (which could still happen if Hillary’s wet dream comes true and Obama gets assassinated or something). Marcel’s prediction was well-founded, but, as he also pointed out, the super-elite Bilderberg/CFR/Trilateral kingmakers love both of them, so it was clear that it didn’t matter which of them they finally selected, the end result would be the same. “Oh, what a wonderful milestone for black people!” “Oh, what a wonderful milestone for women’s rights!” Whichever spin they chose, it would serve to distract from the reality that both candidates are fully dedicated to a New World Order that hates both blacks and women. (more on this below in this sadly disorganized post)

    In any event, for anyone who wants to throw a monkey-wrench into the elitist’s New World Order plans for a world dictatorship with everyone (except the elitists themselves of course) being monitored 24/7 by RFID chips, it seems to me that you should hope that McCain wins.

    This is because the policies of both McCain and Obama, to move the US toward a North American Union modeled after the EU, a precursor to eventual World Government (which means world dictatorship), to continue and repeat the many frauds like Hiv/Aids, 9/11, bird flu, HPV, vaccination (undoubtedly soon to become mandatory), to continue and expand the various wars, etc., will be very similar except in the smallest details.

    But Obama would be much worse because his blackness and phony liberal persona will serve as a feint that will persuade left-leaning people to support these policies, the same policies that they would oppose if they were promoted by McCain or Bush. As historians have noted, Nixon could only go to China because of his right wing credentials. A “liberal” would have been called a communist for going to China. So the charismatic “leftist” Obama will find it easier to institute fascist New World Order policies than will the “rightist” McCain. He will be supported and called visionary and compassionate for instituting the same policies that would get McCain opposed and denounced as a tyrant.

    That’s why they installed the “liberal” Tony Blair and the “liberal” Bill Clinton into office, where they both proceeded to institute fascist NWO policies.

    Left/Right is all a big game, and the intellectuals of this blog ought to be able to see through it.

    McCain for president!

    (Like your vote matters, they also have those Diebold voting machines now, and can program whichever outcome best meets their needs)

  80. Truthseeker Says:

    Hmmm Diebold machines..very relevant just now in NYC, see latest post. Thanks for the inspiration. However, we trust that you have revised your opinion of Obama’s qualifications in the wake of his triumphant tour of points East across the sea, when European leaders went gaga over the prospect of dealing with a clearminded, tall, well educated man of the 21st C world.

    The only people who will lose Obama his crown are the illiterates who can’t bring themselves to view him as their leader because he is too overqualified to relate to and trust – one of them darn prodigies you can’t imagine having a beer with. But you really think Ron Paul’s honesty and sanity are big enough to overcome his limitations of skill and stature?

  81. Cathyvm Says:

    I don’t normally comment on US politics; we don’t get much coverage here. As a hetero female I can say Obama is rather scrummy-looking, and he seems to be “smarter than the average bear”, but would it make me want to vote for him? Doubtful. As Baby Pong pointed out they all seem to be puppets like Tony Labiar [not sic]. Basically it’s choose pro-corporate or pro-corporate – an increasingly common phenomenon in most developed countries. Next year may be the first time in my (adult) life that I don’t bother to vote. The Diebold machine issue makes me laugh (in despair). Didn’t Bush justify invasion of EYE-raq as taking democracy to the country? Democracy my increasingly sagging bottom!

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Bad Behavior has blocked 1204 access attempts in the last 7 days.