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.

***************************************************

HONOR ROLL OF SCIENTIFIC TRUTHSEEKERS

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.

ACADEMICS, DOCTORS, AUTHORS, FILMMAKERS, REPORTERS AND COMMENTATORS WHO HAVE NOBLY AIDED REVIEW OF THE STATUS QUO

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---

Times lets Larry Summers off the hook

Front page story on Summers winning Obama slot quietly vindicates him

Women colleagues admire Summers, who never said women were inferior at math or science, just wondered what research would find

Let’s hope Times survives current crisis to continue as standard bearer of truth in PC battles, finally reversing its HIV/AIDS bias

lawrence-summers.jpgA front page Times story yesterday (Sun Dec 7 2008), A Harvard Lightning Rod Finds Path to Renewal was surprising in tone, since it was full of quiet assertions that the misunderstood Lawrence Summers was never guilty of underestimating women, just as we pointed out during the Harvard onslaught this distinguished economist suffered from the oversensitive and paranoid PC battalion in the faculty and elsewhere.

CAMBRIDGE — The president of Harvard University, Lawrence H. Summers, sparked an uproar at an academic conference Friday when he said that innate differences between men and women might be one reason fewer women succeed in science and math careers. Summers also questioned how much of a role discrimination plays in the dearth of female professors in science and engineering at elite universities.

Nancy Hopkins, a biologist at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, walked out on Summers’ talk, saying later that if she hadn’t left, ”I would’ve either blacked out or thrown up.” Five other participants reached by the Globe, including Denice D. Denton, chancellor designate of the University of California, Santa Cruz, also said they were deeply offended, while four other attendees said they were not.

Summers said he was only putting forward hypotheses based on the scholarly work assembled for the conference, not expressing his own judgments — in fact, he said, more research needs to be done on these issues. The organizer of the conference at the National Bureau of Economic Research said Summers was asked to be provocative, and that he was invited as a top economist, not as a Harvard official….

Summers spoke during a working lunch. He declined to provide a tape or transcript of his remarks, but the description he gave in an interview was generally in keeping with what 10 participants recalled. He said he was synthesizing the scholarship that the organizers had asked him to discuss, and that in his talk he repeated several times: ”I’m going to provoke you.”

He offered three possible explanations, in declining order of importance, for the small number of women in high-level positions in science and engineering. The first was the reluctance or inability of women who have children to work 80-hour weeks.

The second point was that fewer girls than boys have top scores on science and math tests in late high school years. ”I said no one really understands why this is, and it’s an area of ferment in social science,” Summers said in an interview Saturday. ”Research in behavioral genetics is showing that things people previously attributed to socialization weren’t” due to socialization after all.

This was the point that most angered some of the listeners, several of whom said Summers said that women do not have the same ”innate ability” or ”natural ability” as men in some fields.

Asked about this, Summers said, ”It’s possible I made some reference to innate differences. . . I did say that you have to be careful in attributing things to socialization. . . That’s what we would prefer to believe, but these are things that need to be studied.”

Summers said cutting-edge research has shown that genetics are more important than previously thought, compared with environment or upbringing. As an example, he mentioned autism, once believed to be a result of parenting but now widely seen to have a genetic basis.

In his talk, according to several participants, Summers also used as an example one of his daughters, who as a child was given two trucks in an effort at gender-neutral parenting. Yet she treated them almost like dolls, naming one of them ”daddy truck,” and one ”baby truck.” (Boston Globe, Jan 17, 2005)

So much for free speech and free enquiry, in an arena where as we pointed out in a previous post research has now shown that probably the only difference between the general intelligences of the two sexes is that there are more geniuses and fools among men than women, as might be expected.

However, whether little girls and boys behave differently with trucks is another question altogether. We recall one study years ago which found that among tots on a beach who sat in the sand, the boys would throw sand away from them, then move and throw sand away from another position, while girls tended to sit in just one place and gather sand towards them.

The excellent liveliness of Larry

Now Summers has made a full social comeback, the Times explains why in an even handed and complimentary piece which expands upon the immediate reason, which is that Larry Summers gives very, very good summaries of the current economic situation when these are needed by the new master of the political universe, Barack Obama:

Now, Mr. Summers will have a job as the top White House economic adviser to Barack Obama. American economic policy will be spearheaded in what many call the worst environment since the Great Depression in part by a man whose last full-time role ended in forced resignation.

The two men, who have forged their relationship in the tumult of the financial crisis, share a lot: Harvard, a love of debate and firm convictions, like agreement on the need to narrow the gap between America’s most fortunate and everyone else….

Starting last summer, as economics came to the forefront of the presidential campaign, Mr. Obama faced constant decisions on the subject. Mr. Summers’s allies in the campaign put Mr. Summers on the phone, giving him a key task: to synthesize the developments for Mr. Obama. Mr. Summers made himself into an essential guide, Obama aides say, and earned a place in the administration.

Of course, it would have been an even nicer tribute to Summers if it hadn’t been used as an opportunity by the photo editor to print once again the image of Summers lurking with shifty gaze behind Obama’s shoulder. 07summers-600.jpg(Click Charles Dharapak of AP’s image to enlarge) Presumably the photo editor was unable to read the article him/herself in time, and choose a more suitable portrait. Or perhaps he/she felt differently. Or maybe the intent of the whole piece was a little backhanded:

“Barack thinks with his mind open,” said Charles Ogletree, a law professor at Harvard. “Larry thinks with his mouth open.”

But most of the piece was positive:

From the moment he stepped down, Mr. Summers, advised by powerful supporters who said he had been unfairly maligned, worked hard at repairing his reputation. He defended his time at Harvard but admitted mistakes; wrote a column that repositioned him politically and predicted the coming trauma; helped build a research group that supplied Mr. Obama with economic ideas and aides; and strengthened ties to women who helped dispel the accusation — stemming from a 2005 talk in which Mr. Summers wondered out loud about a relative lack of women in top academic science and engineering posts — that he thought poorly of their scientific abilities. He helped practically anyone who asked for advice, like undergraduates, economists and candidates.

This small effort to make amends for the petty extremism of others is worthy of the Times, even as it shows how careful its reporting has to be not to offend the Precious Contingent and stir up more trouble for Summers. For clearly the shamefully repressive affair still has repercussions, since one reason given for Summers’ appointment as the top economic adviser to Obama, head of the National Economic Council, rather than the Treasury Cabinet post he once filled that went to one of his mentorees, Timothy F. Geithner, is that no one wants to suffer the kind of hearings that the overzealous defenders of female impregnability on the status front might visit upon us.

Obama advisers name several reasons for the job assignments: Mr. Geithner is a fresh face. Mr. Summers’s job gives him a broader policy arena and a chance to do what he does best: debate ideas. He also avoids confirmation hearings, which could dredge up unpleasantness related to his Harvard tenure.

Summers’ sins don’t sound so bad to us, either; they seem to amount to nothing more than impatience with those too lazy or weakminded to think about a topic thoroughly enough to earn listening time:

“He’s going to have to ensure that he does not stifle debate or intimidate people,” said Roger Porter, a colleague at the Harvard Kennedy School and a former adviser to three presidents, who is otherwise confident about Mr. Summers’s performance.

Are there slower thinkers at Harvard?

Perhaps Larry’s mistake was to assume that Harvard doesn’t contain people who are so subjectively inclined that one should be kind to them to let them save face. This is probably an error, we suspect, judging from the fact that long ago we remember British graduate students laughing at the plodding mediocrity of a Harvard thesis on the shipbuilding industry. Not everyone in the nation’s highest academic tower had a wide perspective, it suggested.

Possibly Harvard has raised its standards in the last four decades as it became the hot ticket to financial success outside the academy. But there are at least two recent hints that it hasn’t, however. Harvard just lost a large chunk of its endowment in a housing and credit crisis that even Harpers magazine, hardly a redoubt for economic experts, foresaw, and that Marxist commentators like the inimitable Jack Barnes predicted and described accurately years ago.

felineaids.jpg Also, the School of Public Health is currently embarrassed by the efforts of Max Essex to propagandize on behalf of the failed HIV/AIDS paradigm with a “study” that “found” that 350,000 lives have been lost in South Africa through withholding dangerous and often lethal ARV drugs from people who certainly did better without them, at least according to peer reviewed medical literature by other, more trustworthy authors (Max Essex’s cat AIDS virus is a lesser known variation on the HIV theme).

A lively mind

Anyhow, getting back to Larry, he apparently doesn’t suffer fools gladly:

David Gergen, also a Harvard Kennedy School professor and White House veteran, asked: “Will it all be tea and cookies in there with Larry?” Of course not, but it shouldn’t be.”

But he has had excellent relations with many high powered women:

Mr. Summers counseled Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the highest-ranking woman in elected office in American history, who drew him into economic advisory meetings. From the end of his presidency, the many women among his friends fanned out to defend his name.

“Quite a number of us who are women and relished working with Larry” thought he had been given a “bum rap,” said Elena Kagan, whom Mr. Summers had appointed as law school dean.

Among other examples of how well Summers works with others, and how helpful he is:

Around the time Mr. Summers resigned, Mr. Rubin started a small research group called the Hamilton Project and housed at the Brookings Institution, to foster new economic policy ideas. Mr. Summers threw himself into it. Asked to review papers by outside authors, he would return them with extensive comments, said Jason Furman, the former project director and chief economic adviser in the Obama campaign. “He didn’t just want to sit on the board and speak at the event,” said Mr. Furman, who served in the Clinton administration when Mr. Summers was Treasury secretary.

For someone said to be poor at reading others, Mr. Summers has often displayed keen political instincts; after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, he had urged Harvard students to support the government and spoke out in support of its embattled R.O.T.C. chapter. Now, struck by the harsh consequences of globalization and income stagnation even among college graduates, Mr. Summers, known as a centrist as Treasury secretary, moved left, and in a very public forum.

freeland.jpgChrystia Freeland, a former student who had become editor at the Financial Times, asked him to write a monthly column that became such an attraction that the paper soon promoted it with his picture atop the front page. Mr. Summers offered prescriptions for the deepening economic trouble including huge fiscal stimulus and measures to prevent unnecessary foreclosures. A primary theme of his column was that too many people were falling behind, a point he cast in political as well as economic terms.

All in all, it seems that Larry’s only sin is to enjoy lively debate with a delight that speaks well for his love of new ideas, open mindedness and Obama-like ability to handle strength of mind in others, which in recent years has resulted in a productive shift in his own position from center to the left in his appreciation of how free trade is just as much in need of some steering and regulation as free competition in finance or production, in order judiciously to limit human exploitation without killing the golden goose of profit.

PC used to curb free debate in HIV non-science

watsonx.jpgThe Summers incident is not the only one which serves to show how powerful this kind of constraint on free speech and freely undertaken research can be (another was Jim Watson’s fiery expiration as the grand old comet of scientific outspokenness). As far as those interested in science politics are concerned, all this is also reminiscent of the vexed arena of HIV/AIDS, equally twisted by interests that use PC posturing to stifle debate or engender belief.

As Nietsche remarked,

“Every man has his price.” This is not true. But for every man there exists a bait which he cannot resist swallowing. To win over certain people to something, it is only necessary to give it a gloss of love of humanity, nobility, gentleness, self-sacrifice – and there is nothing you cannot get them to swallow. To their souls, these are the icing, the tidbit; other kinds of souls have others.

But PC politics in HIV/AIDS is mostly manipulated to protect the absurdly irrational paradigm fro review. The alarm that the narcissistic feminists among the Harvard faculty showed at the very notion that science should be allowed to evaluate what if any genetic bias away from math and science genius woman might contain is very similar in its style and repressive effect to the forceful hostility in HIV/AIDS toward any research initiative that might seek to evaluate the current 100% unlikely belief that HIV causes AIDS or any other symptoms.

Normally people who express horror and alarm at the very idea that their fond beliefs should be double checked are taken to be signaling how uncertain they really are about whether their faith would stand up to investigation, much as unfaithful husbands express shock and horror that their wives should not take their word that they have been entirely faithful and are then reasonably judged guilty by their spouses.

In the case of HIV/AIDS however this Excessive Denial syndrome is taken at face value by everyone including the otherwise often alert Times editors, for some reason possibly to do with vested interests preventing the proper functioning of medical correspondent Larry Altman’s brain ever since he attended the CDC school in reporting on infectious diseases.

Let’s hope that this brief flourish of higher values by the Great Lady of Times Square is not her last huzzah, since the current newspaper implosion is so cataclysmic that observers see the only way out for the Times from its $400 million debt repayment problem in May this year which otherwise threatens to put it out of business has to be that Google be allowed to take it over, not unlikely in our opinion unless the now fallen fruit of the Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times, or Miami Herald tempt Google first.

Let the Times reign on – reformed in one aspect, please

Would that be a good thing? In one way it might be a blessing if it influences Times editors to understand that the Web now contains authoritative material which corrects conventional wisdom even in science, such as that found here at Science Guardian.

It might even remove the Times from its current myopic position as chief promoter of the most obviously incorrect paradigm in the history of medical science.

Meanwhile, Summers may be in for an even bigger job if he is all the Times says he is now:

As a participant in debates of the National Economic Council in the 1990s, “he was a great team player, he was loved and was very respectful of the back and forth,” said Gene Sperling, who led the council under Bill Clinton.

The term of Ben S. Bernanke, chairman of the Federal Reserve, expires in January 2010, and some members of the Obama team predict that if Mr. Summers performs well, the job could be his. It requires confirmation, but with every passing day, say friends, Cambridge recedes further into the distance.

Fox on guard at the henhouse?

Needless to say, some will carp that this is all yet another example of how Obama has misfired in appointing the very man most responsible for dismantling regulatory oversight of the banking sector’s derivatives which as a result built up to a massive pyramid of unfathomable and interlocking debt instruments of nearly $50 trillion, which is now toppling and threatening to bury us all in a credit strangled international economic collapse where no one is willing to lend anybody anything. But we understand that Larry has explained all that and how his moves to deregulate are not responsible, and though we have not read it, we are sure it will lay concern to rest.

After all, as we have already posted we have complete trust in Barack Obama as a semi-divine intervention who transcends the petty ideologies that bias ordinary mortals in their decisions by listening to all sides and making a pragmatic determination of the best path forward in the light of the ultimate goals of peace, prosperity and freedom from fear and prejudice that we all share.

Here’s the full text of the Times piece, A Harvard Lightning Rod Finds Path to Renewal:
December 7, 2008
A Harvard Lightning Rod Finds Path to Renewal

By JODI KANTOR and JAVIER C. HERNANDEZ
One quiet Friday in June 2006, Lawrence H. Summers ended his turbulent tenure as president of Harvard University. Few of the undergraduates for whom Mr. Summers, a former Treasury secretary, used to sign dollar bills were around. Most of his staff, including his driver, had been reassigned. Soon, even the burger with his name was off the menu at Mr. Bartley’s in Harvard Square.

Now, Mr. Summers will have a job as the top White House economic adviser to Barack Obama. American economic policy will be spearheaded in what many call the worst environment since the Great Depression in part by a man whose last full-time role ended in forced resignation.

The two men, who have forged their relationship in the tumult of the financial crisis, share a lot: Harvard, a love of debate and firm convictions, like agreement on the need to narrow the gap between America’s most fortunate and everyone else. But they are also an odd couple: the serene, slender politician who seems to win people over effortlessly and the impatient, acerbic bear of a man who seems to offend them just as easily.

“Barack thinks with his mind open,” said Charles Ogletree, a law professor at Harvard. “Larry thinks with his mouth open.”

Aides to President-elect Obama say a top administration role for Mr. Summers once would have seemed to be a remote possibility because of his controversial tenure at Harvard, during which he angered women and members of the faculty.

From the moment he stepped down, Mr. Summers, advised by powerful supporters who said he had been unfairly maligned, worked hard at repairing his reputation. He defended his time at Harvard but admitted mistakes; wrote a column that repositioned him politically and predicted the coming trauma; helped build a research group that supplied Mr. Obama with economic ideas and aides; and strengthened ties to women who helped dispel the accusation — stemming from a 2005 talk in which Mr. Summers wondered out loud about a relative lack of women in top academic science and engineering posts — that he thought poorly of their scientific abilities. He helped practically anyone who asked for advice, like undergraduates, economists and candidates.

But it was the financial crisis, or a series of phone calls about it, that almost instantly resuscitated Mr. Summers’s career.

Starting last summer, as economics came to the forefront of the presidential campaign, Mr. Obama faced constant decisions on the subject. Mr. Summers’s allies in the campaign put Mr. Summers on the phone, giving him a key task: to synthesize the developments for Mr. Obama. Mr. Summers made himself into an essential guide, Obama aides say, and earned a place in the administration.

As the head of the National Economic Council, he will play two roles: counseling the president and nurturing the proposals of others. Few doubt that Mr. Summers will excel in the first; Democrats and Republicans call him one of the top economic minds in the country, with a résumé that may make him overqualified for the job.

Even Mr. Summers’s allies, though, acknowledge worries about the second part of his role. Mr. Summers, in an interview, said a crucial part of the job was exposing the president “to all possible views, developed as strongly and rigorously as they can be.”

But at Harvard, numerous faculty members and administrators say, Mr. Summers’s downfall resulted chiefly from his tendency to impose rather than persuade, to appear to have little regard for the views of others.

“He’s going to have to ensure that he does not stifle debate or intimidate people,” said Roger Porter, a colleague at the Harvard Kennedy School and a former adviser to three presidents, who is otherwise confident about Mr. Summers’s performance.

David Gergen, also a Harvard Kennedy School professor and White House veteran, asked: “Will it all be tea and cookies in there with Larry?” Of course not, but it shouldn’t be.”

After his five-year Harvard presidency, Mr. Summers at first seemed to have trouble letting go, colleagues and staff members say. He was on sabbatical but still roamed campus, especially the residential houses and pizza parties of undergraduates, who adored him so much they gave him a standing ovation at the next year’s graduation. He tried to fashion himself into an authority on reform of higher education, starting a book and giving blistering talks that amounted to a defense of his leadership.

Mr. Summers had recently married Elisa New, an English professor, and he bought a 6,500-square foot house and took up golf. “I had been in positions for 15 years when I had a full schedule for every day and a briefing book,” he said, “and I wanted for some interval to have a flexible and freer life.”

Friends, including Mr. Gergen, who had deployed his crisis management skills to try to save Mr. Summers’s presidency, and Robert E. Rubin, Mr. Summers’s predecessor as Treasury secretary and a longtime champion, told him he still had a big contribution to make. Return to your first love, economics, some recalled saying. Forget education reform. And make sure people know you are no misogynist.

Mr. Summers counseled Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the highest-ranking woman in elected office in American history, who drew him into economic advisory meetings. From the end of his presidency, the many women among his friends fanned out to defend his name.

“Quite a number of us who are women and relished working with Larry” thought he had been given a “bum rap,” said Elena Kagan, whom Mr. Summers had appointed as law school dean.

As he took on projects, collaborators enjoyed the very qualities that had made the Harvard faculty seethe: for instance, his eagerness to delve into matters that seemed small for someone of his stature.

He became a co-editor of the Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, helping revive the once-vibrant journal. He took on a lucrative part-time role at D. E. Shaw & Company, a investment firm, spending a day or two a week in New York. He joined the board of Teach for America, which promotes equality in education. In interviews, people from all three organizations marveled at Mr. Summers’s capacity for involvement even in minor affairs.

“The small strategic decisions add up to the whole ballgame,” said Wendy Kopp, founder of Teach for America.

Around the time Mr. Summers resigned, Mr. Rubin started a small research group called the Hamilton Project and housed at the Brookings Institution, to foster new economic policy ideas. Mr. Summers threw himself into it. Asked to review papers by outside authors, he would return them with extensive comments, said Jason Furman, the former project director and chief economic adviser in the Obama campaign. “He didn’t just want to sit on the board and speak at the event,” said Mr. Furman, who served in the Clinton administration when Mr. Summers was Treasury secretary.

For someone said to be poor at reading others, Mr. Summers has often displayed keen political instincts; after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, he had urged Harvard students to support the government and spoke out in support of its embattled R.O.T.C. chapter. Now, struck by the harsh consequences of globalization and income stagnation even among college graduates, Mr. Summers, known as a centrist as Treasury secretary, moved left, and in a very public forum.

Chrystia Freeland, a former student who had become editor at the Financial Times, asked him to write a monthly column that became such an attraction that the paper soon promoted it with his picture atop the front page. Mr. Summers offered prescriptions for the deepening economic trouble including huge fiscal stimulus and measures to prevent unnecessary foreclosures. A primary theme of his column was that too many people were falling behind, a point he cast in political as well as economic terms.

“In order to keep public support for open markets, you had to do more for the disadvantaged and the losers in globalization,” as Stuart E. Eizenstat, Mr. Summers’s former deputy at the Treasury Department, put it.

Three years ago, Mr. Summers could hardly pronounce Barack Obama’s name.

Introducing Mr. Obama at a reunion for black alumni of Harvard Law School, Mr. Summers drew chuckles as he stumbled through several iterations, finally settling on “BARE-ack.” The two men, intrigued by each other, stole away to talk privately, Mr. Ogletree said.

In the presidential primaries, most Clinton veterans stuck with their home team candidate, but Mr. Summers stayed neutral. Later, as the Obama campaign swallowed people and ideas from the Hamilton Project, he became involved, too, impressing aides with his willingness to do anything they asked, whether editing policy proposal or making television appearances.

As the financial crisis bloomed, Mr. Furman gave Mr. Summers a crucial task: introducing Mr. Obama’s internal conference calls on the economy by quickly summarizing the developments. The results were masterpieces of synthesis and concision, several participants said.

“I could tell, just being on the call,” Mr. Rubin said, “Obama got used to Larry bringing it all together.”

Mr. Obama sometimes asked questions other advisers struggled to answer, but Mr. Summers always seemed to provide new detail or analysis, making gracious references to the points of others.

Asked before Election Day if Mr. Summers would consider an administration role, friends joked that he had already bought airline tickets for his job interview.

For the position of Treasury secretary, the transition team had two finalists: Mr. Summers and Timothy F. Geithner, who had worked under him at the Treasury Department. “Either way it would have made sense,” Mr. Rubin said.

Obama advisers name several reasons for the job assignments: Mr. Geithner is a fresh face. Mr. Summers’s job gives him a broader policy arena and a chance to do what he does best: debate ideas. He also avoids confirmation hearings, which could dredge up unpleasantness related to his Harvard tenure.

When the jobs were announced, economists speculated on what the relationship between Mr. Summers and Mr. Geithner would be, now that the latter has the more prestigious title.

But in recent transition meetings, as in the Clinton administration, the two have seemed to trust and enjoy wrangling with each other, one aide said. Mr. Rubin said of Mr. Summers that in general he was “very aware of the criticism and very focused on making sure it works.”

And some predict that Mr. Obama’s style could mellow that of Mr. Summers.

Laurence Tribe, a Harvard law professor, said Mr. Obama’s “affability and inclusiveness might help nurture those same qualities in Larry, even though those haven’t been among Larry’s notable strengths.”

He may be better matched with fellow economists than he was with Harvard’s faculty, say colleagues, and with an advisory role rather than an executive one. As a participant in debates of the National Economic Council in the 1990s, “he was a great team player, he was loved and was very respectful of the back and forth,” said Gene Sperling, who led the council under Bill Clinton.

The term of Ben S. Bernanke, chairman of the Federal Reserve, expires in January 2010, and some members of the Obama team predict that if Mr. Summers performs well, the job could be his. It requires confirmation, but with every passing day, say friends, Cambridge recedes further into the distance.

“Now, who talks about Harvard?” Mr. Eizenstat, the former deputy Treasury secretary, said. “It’s a thing of the past, a little blip on the radar screen.”

Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company
Privacy Policy Search Corrections RSS First Look Help Contact Us Work for Us Site Map

53 Responses to “Times lets Larry Summers off the hook”

  1. Truthseeker Says:

    Here’s an early piece in Slate arguing that Summers should not be let off the hook: Don’t Let Larry Summers Off the Hook Yet – Why the Harvard president’s tactless social science was a bad idea.- By Meghan O’Rourke – Posted Friday, Jan. 28, 2005,.

    In the weeks since debate erupted over Harvard President Lawrence Summers’ suggestion that “innate differences” between men and women help explain the lack of top-level female professionals in science and engineering, a remarkably consistent narrative has emerged in the mainstream media: Summers is a martyr to political correctness. He’s the inquisitive freethinker asking the hard questions that need to be asked, while his small-minded critics are thwarting serious debate. These women, a Washington Post columnist argued, epitomize the “unwillingness of the modern academy to tolerate … freewheeling inquiry.”

    But this is a facile narrative. You need not be animated by 1990s-style political correctness, or guilty of suppressing academic freedom, to suggest that both the manner and the substance of Summers’ comments at the conference convened by the National Bureau for Economic Research were counterproductive rather than usefully controversial. While Summers’ trademark bluntness is sometimes useful in prodding an institution entrenched in complacency to change its ways, in this case he was singularly ill-positioned to play galvanizing provocateur.

    The issue on the table at the National Bureau for Economic Research conference was the underrepresentation of women at the upper levels of some of the physical sciences and in engineering. No one is talking about achieving 50-50 representation; women constitute approximately 20 percent of science and engineering departments nationwide and hold few senior positions. The possible explanations are either sociocultural or genetic, or both. Summers allegedly offered these three reasons as explanation: 1) Women want to have children, and as a result they don’t put in the 80-hour work week that would make them competitive with their male peers; 2) the innate differences between men and women lead men to outperform women at the top end; 3) discrimination discourages women from pursuing science and engineering past their undergraduate education. (According to Nancy Hopkins of MIT, who walked out of his presentation, he ranked these reasons in order of descending importance. Summers was traveling and couldn’t be reached for comment.)….

    This matters because, whatever the influence of genetics may turn out to be, there is no doubt that the enduring social consensus that women are on average worse than men in math and science plays a major role in shaping women’s careers and their career choices. It does so in two ways: through discrimination and through socialization. Contrary to the pie-in-the-sky assumptions of many of Summers’ media defenders, studies show that discrimination against women in the academy is alarmingly widespread, if often unconscious. M.A. Paludi and W.D. Bauer conducted a study in which 180 men and 180 women were asked to grade a paper on a five-point scale. When the author was “John T. McKay” rather than “Joan T. McKay,” the men on average graded the paper a point higher—and the women scoring the test weren’t much more egalitarian. And studies have shown that men writing mathematics papers are less likely to cite women than women are (1.2 percent of the time, compared to 4.8 percent)*. Scientists and engineers may say they aren’t biased. But consider the case of classical musicians: Until blind auditions were held for national orchestras, women were radically underrepresented in field of classical music. Many argued that women had less wind power and were biologically incapable of performance at highest levels on many instruments. Since blind auditions have been held, though, the participation of women has risen precipitously—evidence that it was almost entirely discrimination that was keeping women out.

    Perhaps even more important than discrimination are the socialization biases—the impact of our collective belief that men are better than women at science and math. Whatever may or may not be the case about genetic differences, there’s clearly something going on that keeps even the larger percentage of women who now major in math/science from continuing on in those fields—something that a university, eager for a bigger pool of Ph.Ds from which to pick to augment its female faculty, should care about a lot. Claude Steele’s work on gender differences in learning gives solid—rather than impressionistic—grounding to the concern that comments like Summers’ are exactly what work against the continuing advancement of women.

    Steele studies the way stereotypes affect people’s performance. And he has found that when women are told that a test is going to measure cognitive differences between genders they tend to do much worse than men. But when they’re told a test is gender-blind, they tend to perform as well. The pressure of the “stereotype threat,” as Steel terms it, actually leads women to do worse, in other words. The amazing thing is, as Steele convincingly argues, stereotype threat most affects those at the high end of the spectrum in math and science, because they’re the ones who are the most identified with the field and have the most to lose as they move upward and are increasingly identified as, say, a “female engineer.” This doesn’t mean that men aren’t outperforming women at the very high end of the bell curve, as my colleague Will Saletan points out; but it makes it look as though socialization is a weighty factor in gender disparities at top levels.

    This is why discussion of genetic superiority of men in math and science needs to be especially rigorous—which is not to say Summers’ critics think it oughtn’t be discussed. But talking about genetics, in the age of genome-mapping, makes it very hard to take other factors seriously; people hear “genetics” and then draw broad, ill-considered conclusions—even educated columnists like Robert Samuelson, who concluded earlier this week that “many women probably reject science and engineering for another reason: They simply don’t find the work appealing, just as they generally don’t like football.” (In fact, 43 percent of the NFL fan base is women—nevermind, though; surely scientists are about to find the male football gene.) Summers has to be aware of this problem. He also ought to know that as real as genetic differences may be, the percentage of engineering majors has risen six times since 1971, to 18 percent in 2004—which, unless you think the human genome has changed since 1971, shows that factors other than genetics play a major role in women’s career choices.

    Yet Summers used poorly digested social science to propose the innate superiority of one gender—”I hope to be proven wrong,” he allegedly said—while invoking the protection of the role of the “provocative” intellectual. (There is a tape of the event, but its release has not been authorized by Summers—a fact that has not been made much of by the reporters who have named him a defendant of free inquiry.) For this he has been praised for his scientific curiosity, while those who criticize him are indicted as obstructionists. It’s a curiously unscientific conclusion.

    Against that is another early Slate piece cheering Summers on: Don’t Worry Your Pretty Little Head: The pseudo-feminist show trial of Larry Summers.- By William Saletan – Posted Friday, Jan. 21, 2005, at 6:46 PM ET:

    Larry Summers, the president of Harvard, suggested the other day that innate differences between the sexes might help explain why relatively few women become professional scientists or engineers. For this, he has been denounced—metaphorically, of course—as a Neanderthal. Alumni are withholding donations. Professors are demanding apologies. Some want him fired.

    Everyone agrees Summers’ remarks were impolitic. But were they wrong? Is it wrong to suggest that biological differences might cause more men than women to reach the academic elite in math and science?

    To begin with, let’s clarify what Summers said. He spoke after the morning session of a conference called “Diversifying the Science and Engineering Workforce: Women, Underrepresented Minorities, and their S. & E. Careers.” He offered three possible reasons for this gender gap. The biggest, he suggested, was that fewer mothers than fathers are willing to spend 80 hours a week away from their kids. The next reason was that more boys than girls tend to score very high or very low on high-school math tests, producing a similar average but a higher proportion of scores in the top percentiles, which lead to high-powered academic careers in science and engineering. The third factor was discrimination by universities. Summers said repeatedly that Harvard and other schools should work to eliminate discrimination. But he theorized that it was less a decisive factor than the others, since women were already underrepresented by the time they got to the pool of candidates eligible for top science jobs.

    By some accounts, Summers referred to “innate ability” or “natural ability” as a possible explanation for the sex difference in high-school test scores. This is what set off the furor. One professor walked out in disgust. Others expressed their outrage to the media. ”Here was this economist lecturing pompously [to] this room full of the country’s most accomplished scholars on women’s issues in science and engineering, and he kept saying things we had refuted in the first half of the day,” a fellow speaker told the Boston Globe.

    Refuted? Really?

    The conference agenda for that morning, available online, includes two slide presentations and nine recommended readings. The first presentation concludes that “most of the gains” in female representation in science and engineering careers “can be explained by increases in Bachelors’ [degrees]—potentially normal supply response.” That’s exactly what Summers argued. The second presentation indicates that degrees earned by women have increased more rapidly at the masters’ level than at the bachelors’ level, calling into question the breadth of discrimination at that stage.

    One recommended reading, a 2004 Government Accountability Office* report on “Women’s Participation in the Sciences,” concludes, “A variety of studies indicate that experience, work patterns, and education levels can largely explain [gender] differences in salaries and rank.” Another reading, based on a national study, adds, “There is general agreement that few women typically apply for academic positions in science and engineering departments at research universities.”

    Only one reading comes anywhere near challenging Summers’ hypothesis. Claude Steele, a Stanford psychologist, writes that in his 1997 study, female students in a math test “performed equal to men when the test was represented as insensitive to gender differences.” It’s a fascinating study, probably just the sort of thing Summers had in mind when he called for further research into genetic and non-genetic factors in test performance. But the study compared average scores, not the distribution of high and low scores, which was Summers’ point. Moreover, it was a test of college students, not high-school students, and the participants “were selected for being very good at math.” In other words, it took place after the genetic bias hypothesized by Summers would have skewed the pool.

    What’s the evidence on Summers’ side? Start with the symptom: the gender gap in test scores. Next, consider biology. Sex is easily the biggest physical difference within a species. Men and women, unlike blacks and whites, have different organs and body designs. The inferable difference in genomes between two people of visibly different races is one-hundredth of 1 percent. The gap between the sexes vastly exceeds that. A year and a half ago, after completing a study of the Y chromosome, MIT biologist David Page calculated that male and female human genomes differed by 1 percent to 2 percent—”the same as the difference between a man and a male chimpanzee or between a woman and a female chimpanzee,” according to a paraphrase in the New York Times. “We all recite the mantra that we are 99 percent identical and take political comfort in it,” Page said. “But the reality is that the genetic difference between males and females absolutely dwarfs all other differences in the human genome.” Another geneticist pointed out that in some species 15 percent of genes were more active in one sex than in the other.

    You’d expect some of these differences to show up in the brain, and they do. A study of mice published a year ago in Molecular Brain Research found that just 10 days after conception, at least 50 genes were more active in the developing brain of one sex than in the other. Comparing the findings to research on humans, the Los Angeles Times observed that “the corpus callosum, which carries communications between the two brain hemispheres, is generally larger in women’s brains [than in men’s]. Female brains also tend to be more symmetrical. … Men and women, on average, also possess documented differences in certain thinking tasks and in behaviors such as aggression.”

    Let’s be clear about what this isn’t. It isn’t a claim about overall intelligence. Nor is it a justification for tolerating discrimination between two people of equal ability or accomplishment. Nor is it a concession that genetic handicaps can’t be overcome. Nor is it a statement that girls are inferior at math and science: It doesn’t dictate the limits of any individual, and it doesn’t entail that men are on average better than women at math or science. It’s a claim that the distribution of male scores is more spread out than the distribution of female scores—a greater percentage at both the bottom and the top. Nobody bats an eye at the overrepresentation of men in prison. But suggest that the excess might go both ways, and you’re a pig.

    The only implication I’d draw immediately is that it may prove easier to equalize gender representation in math and science in high school than in college, and easier to equalize it among students than among professors. Equal representation should be a goal that prods us toward equal opportunity, but the two mustn’t be confused. Last year Harvard offered only four of 32 tenured positions in the arts and sciences to women. A genetic difference between the sexes doesn’t mean four was anywhere near the right number. It just means the number doesn’t have to be exactly 16.

    Already Summers is being forced to apologize, in the style of a Communist show trial, for sending “an unintended signal of discouragement to talented girls and women.” But the best signal to send to talented girls and boys is that science isn’t about respecting sensitivities. It’s about respecting facts. The only people who don’t belong in science, male or female, are those who would rather close their eyes—and yours—than see what’s there.

    The boldface is ours, since if true it is an important exculpatory point for Summers, which since has proved out in research as our earlier post on Sexist math paradigm falls
    indicated.

    An interesting entry at the Situationist (an interesting site, “The Situationist is a forum for scholars, students, lawyers, policymakers, and interested citizens to examine, discuss, and debate the effect of situational forces – that is, non-salient factors around and within us – on law, policy, politics, policy theory, and our social, political, and economic institutions. The Situationist is associated with The Project on Law and Mind Sciences at Harvard Law School”) deals with what has been said since 2005 at Sex Differences in Math & Science – Posted by The Situationist Staff on September 7, 2007:

    The resultant uproar, of course, had adverse consequences for Summers’s already precarious presidency. But the remarks may have, consistent with Summers’ justification for making them in the first place, provoked some valuable and illuminating responses. In the wake of his comments, several groups of prominent scholars have collaborated in interdisciplinary efforts to try to sort out the extent to which, if at all, sex differences can account for the disproportionality of men to women within certain math and science fields.

    For example, in 2006, the Committee on Maximizing the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering of the National Academy of Science (NAS) compiled an interesting, if not fully convincing, report that reached the following conclusion: ‘‘It is not lack of talent, but unintentional biases and outmoded institutional structures that are hindering the access and advancement of women.” In other words, it is not disposition, but situation that is hindering the access and advancement of women.

    In August (2007), Psychological Science in the Public Interest devoted an issue (titled, “The Science of Sex Differences in Science and Mathematics”) to this question. We have excerpted portions of Susan Barnett’s introduction to that issue below. As things stand today, Barnett’s summary suggests, the issue remains roughly as Elizabeth Cady Stanton described it – we have yet to have a fair trial.

    Regarding Larry Summer’s supposed responsibility for the current economic shambles, Harvard’s Niall Ferguson, author of the new “The Ascent of Money:A Financial History of the World”, was sure in talking to Tavis Smiley tonight that in historical perspective Summers’ efforts at loosening regulation in the Clinton era were not excessive and actually contributed to the expansion of economic growth and income from the seventies to the turn of the century, and his management of the financial crisis of 97/98 was admirable.

    He called Summers “one of the most powerful minds in economics today” and his commentaries in the FT “second to none” and said he was an urgent replacement for Paulson who is out of his depth and improvising badly. In the 1970s banks were under burdensome state control and capital controls prevented money being taken out of many countries, and the double digit inflation of the seventies showed that these rules needed loosening and the deregulation that ran from the late 70s to the late 90s benefited households around the world with extraordinarily rapid global growth, and financial liberalization was part of that story.

    What went wrong was that the regulations left in place weren’t applied hard enough eg those of the Basle accords that would have curbed banks from leveraging their balance sheets to ridiculous heights – “crazily irresponsible” levels – and the SEC bears some of the responsibility, as does the Fed for it’s tolerance of asset bubbles in the Greenspan years.

    Most of the problems blew up well after Clinton and Summers left office, with 2004 the date when the bank rules were relaxed on bank leveraging by the SEC, and the excesses of Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac from 2000-2001 were sanctioned by Congress and Bush during the Bush administration. :Laying the blame on Larry Summers for the current collapse is a misguided notion which overlooks all this as well as among other things his excellent record in managing the crisis of 1997-8.

  2. Truthseeker Says:

    Apologies for the interruption, caused by Bill Gates, Steve Jobs and an unknown error introduced into the blog by a gremlin in the otherwise exemplary server at BlueHost, where the rates are minimal, the space allocated vast, and the help line manned by balanced and mature people who know their stuff and are reliably helpful.

  3. Robert Houston Says:

    The front page whitewash of economist Larry Summers in the NY Times on which this post is based was a human interest piece about his social comeback, which ignored his record as an economist. That record was arguably one of the most disastrous in history. The Times editorial department was not so naive; in regard to Summers and his protege Tim Geithner, their Nov. 25, 2008 editorial charged:

    Both men…have played central roles in policies that helped provoke today’s financial crisis… As treasury secretary in 2000, Mr. Summers championed the law that deregulated derivatives, the financial instruments – aka toxic assets – that have spread the financial losses from reckless lending around the globe. He refused to heed the critics who warned of dangers to come… Mr. Summers now will advise a president who has promised to impose rational and essential regulations on chaotic financial markets. What has he learned?”

    Apparently the Times could not find any statements by Summers to indicate a signficant change of views or recognition of past mistakes, such as former Fed chairman Alan Greenspan confessed to Congress. Far from being a “pragmatist”, Summers is a staunch ideologue of free market, trickle down, laissez-faire economics, i.e., Reaganomics, and in fact was on Pres. Reagan’s economic Council. As chief economist of the International Monetary Fund, he supervised the destruction of the economies of several nations. At the U.S. Treasury in the 1990’s he spearheaded the abolition of the New Deal regulations (the Glass-Steagall Act) that had been set up in the 1930s to prevent a market crash and Depression. The result of his mischief is the present world financial crisis.

    Whether his ally at Harvard, historian Prof. Niall Ferguson, recognizes Summer’s guilt in the current financial woes, the NY Times editorialists and many financial experts certainly do. Economist Dean Baker compares the appointment to picking Osama bin Laden to head the War on Terror.

    For Obama to choose this villain as his chief economic advisor shows that Obama has been taken in by the right-of center Washington establishment as well as such kingpins of the banking industry as Citigroup’s Robert Reuben, whose son headed the economic transition team which picked the father’s chief proteges, Summers and Geithner, for the top posts.

    For the main appointments, most of Obama’s choices have been diappointing and even frightening, classic cases of picking the foxes to guard the henhouse and completely contrary to the promises of his campaign. As Ralph Nader observed, “Obama is the biggest con artist of his generation.” Since personnel indicate and determine policy, he’s well on course to being the 2nd worst president in American history.

    Worship at your own risk, O ye faithful.

  4. MacDonald Says:

    Speaking of worship, Obama has now chosen the gentle, well-fed, warmongering religious bigot to symbolize America’s new “spiritual unity” at his inauguration.

    This man, who claims the Bible says it is the God’s purpose with governments to have them assasinate foreign leaders, who says that defending the institution of marriage against gays is a human rights issue, who says that pro-lifers who vote for a pro-choice president are comparable KZ prisoners voting for holocaust deniers, is the latest token of Preznit-Elect Obama’s legendary “inclusiveness” – a concept now synonymous with cozying up to the far Right fringe at every single opportunity.

    This part of the con job is simple; Obama is painted as the most liberal Liberal in the history of liberalism. All “inclusiveness” must consist in sharp turns to the right of his own position, since per definition there is nothing to the left of Obama.

    In reality, Obama’s position is centre at best, as measured against the real opinions of the US population, so this little game has effectively marginalized as vengeful fanatics and uncompromising ideologues everybody to the left of centre in the Democratic party, which is supposed to articulate liberal concerns.

    Obama’s function is to render unthinkable from within all so-called liberal positions.
    He is for obvious reasons the perfect choice of weapon for exclusion from mainstream discourse, even within supposedly leftist circles, truly liberal or libertarian thought.

    Yes indeed, worship at your own peril O ye faithful, the stench of sulphur is growing stronger.

  5. Truthseeker Says:

    Dear me, what naivete is revealed by our erstwhile sophisticated commentators on the political and economic scene that forms the backdrop to all the frauds now being exposed like rocks when the tide runs out.

    Of course the Great One, Our New Savior and Lord Obama is centrist – sorry you hadn’t noticed before. His whole moral and political purpose is to bring communities together in shared purpose, shared analysis and shared action, in a reclamation of the central ideal of democracy which has been forgotten in the noisy confusion of petty ideologues and one sided lowbrow ideologies they espouse and peddle so strenuously, often enough as rationale for their exploitive misdeeds.

    Apparently our esteemed commentators are unable to enter the 21 st Century through the open door which Obama unlocked with his breakthrough, non-red, non-blue, color blind view of America and its fundamental promise of prosperity and equality for all, through which Obama now will lead us.

    Apparently our renowned posters are still operating in the lower reaches of political debate on the Web where petty ideologues such as Rush Limbaugh operate, although those of his ilk applaud Obama for his inclusion of Larry and other righties while liberal handwringers deplore his choices for the very same reason.

    None of this makes one darn bit of difference to the immovably placed flag of peace and prosperity which the big O has planted in the heavens high above such mundane posturings. Ideologies of this small kind are merely differences over how these ultimate goals are to be achieved, and as Aristotle long ago pointed out, the Golden Mean is undoubtedly the best path forward amid such distracting debates.

    Obama’s candidacy stood for exactly this approach, rising above the noisy confusion of party politics to bring the country together to move forward to solve our problems hand in hand with all sides making a contribution, like blind men groping all sides of an elephant coming to an agreement at last which end is the ass and which the head, and leading the animal forward.

    Abandon petty ideology, friends! Get with the program! Like Lincoln, Obama has fearlessly included birds of a different feather in his little cage and will teach them to sing the same song together in a happy chorus under his parental supervision, the very same supervision which he will visit on Wall Street and all other arenas where the children have hitherto been misbehaving so freely under the absentee stewardship of George W. Bush and his hands off policies.

    All this carping about Larry Summers’ support for lasser faire policies in previous eras is anachronistic and small minded liberal claptrap, quite beside the point. Like Alan Greenspan, Summers surely knows that a little more regulation of greed and venality is going to be in order in a chastened world where information overload led to information overlooked, and shameful secrets were hidden from view in the complexity until they were exposed by economic downturn, like naked swimmers left standing in the sand when the tide goes out.

    But on the other hand balance has already been more than restored by the almost bottomless chasm of distrust that has now opened up in the market for credit of any kind. Yes, we may need a little more regulation once order and some confidence is restored, which according to the stock market is any day now once we are past the auto industry precipice, but let’s remember that markets are self regulating here, in the sense that once a bubble bursts and nakedness is exposed, the Madoffs of this world and their bank and investment house counterparts are not going to be flourishing anew in a post trust bust world, where the due diligence of investors and their advisers is going to be geometrically multiplied. There will self regulation up the kazoo.

    What Summers as an experienced economist probably appreciates and why he is misunderstood by those anxious to prove he is a Satan selling out the poor and the weak to the corporate Madoffs of Wall Street is that the engine of American economic dynamism is risk taking entrepreneurship, and the perennial conundrum is how to harness this golden goose without killing it.

    All that has happened in the past decade is that information and goods flow became so swift and abundant and global that the focus became exclusively short term in valuing assets and even in governing production, and the whole world turned into one giant Ponzi scheme primarily run by the US.

    The relationship between money measures and real income and production became out of kilter not because regulation was weak so much as no one has really worked out how to regulate what really matters, which is trust. Regulating to curb cheating is only part of it. Currently the level of trust has become so low that the central banks are flooding the system to not much avail, even with rates reaching to zero. Businessmen need to believe they can make money out of borrowing and at the moment there is so much downsizing that no one is sure of when recovery might come.

    We have suddenly plunged from a world where there seemed to be plenty of productivity and profit and riches from which to siphon the public spending that liberals demand to restore justice in society and maintain the infrastructure to a world where deficits are necessary just to maintain the private sector from imploding.

    So whether Summers was a man who helped let the capitalist economy too much off the leash in its past period where growth rates were admirable even if excesses led to fraud and gross imbalance between the rich and the rest is a bit irrelevant right now. The problem is the other side of the coin. How do we steer the machine back on the rails? A lively mind like Summers’ is the right one for the job, because we need new ideas combined with hands on engagement with the reality we are dealing with. That reality has not much to do with the depredations of cheats and liars going forward, they have been effectively sidelined.

    Meanwhile the capitalist crowd has been won over and will cooperate in Obama’s efforts to lead this country out of the morass with a working mind and a sense of purpose not seen in Presidents in recent memory. Let us respect obvious qualities when we see them, and not give rein to anachronistic cynicism and paranoia.

  6. MacDonald Says:

    Indeed the way to prevent future crime is to forget all about past crimes and reward the criminals with new trusted positions.

    We could save a deal on courts of law and detention facilities that way as well. All in all an excellent idea, and one worthy of an entrenched Beltway pundit like our wise host. but how about expending some that fine bloviating on Seth Kalichman and his new book, reaching heights of that form of logical incoherence which is also called hypocrisy unattainable even by the Truthseeking one.?

    http://denyingaids.blogspot.com/2008/12/what-is-hivaids-denialism-aids.html#comment-form

  7. Truthseeker Says:

    One of the great reforms ready to be implemented is indeed the second chance for people imprisoned often wrongly for aberrations sometimes temporary. To condemn anyone forever for a crime expiated over time in a cruel and unusual setting such as a prison cell or social ostracism is morally repellent to all feeling liberals. Precisely. The idea of repentance based on outcome is the only justification for prison sentences, is it not? Perhaps you are not a Christian, who believes that our sins are forgiven by being offloaded to Christ? In that case you will have failed to realize that our Savior Obama has taken unto himself the dreadful sins (alleged) of Summers, and healed him with the blessing of public forgiveness.

    Why don’t you apprise us of your own opinion of this new book, and detail in what respect it claims to have mounted heights of hypocritical incoherence as yet unattained by this blog, which we feel is impossible? Are we merely to serve as a target for your turnip throwing, our feet in the stocks of an ill considered (in your opinion) post?

  8. Seth Kalichman Says:

    MacDonald
    Not sure why you brought me into this blog. Are you suggesting that AIDS denialists are truth seekers in parallel to 9/11 truth seekers? We are in full agreement on that. My book Denying AIDS (all Royalties donated to buy HIV medications in Africa) offers a psychological autopsy of AIDS denialism, which is essentially the same phenomenon as 9/11 denial and holocaust denial. I appreciate your interest in this form of psychopathology.

    for more information on Denying AIDS and other oddities visit http://denyingaids.blogspot.com/

  9. Robert Houston Says:

    Use of the terms “AIDS denialists” and “AIDS denialism,” which psychologist Kalichman keeps repeating as his chief argument, is a cheap smear tactic that is used to tarbrush HIV dissidents with the guilt-trip of Holocaust deniers, and hence, Nazi sympathizers. However, there’s no evidence that any prominent AIDS dissident is a denier of the Holocaust. Since the term “denial” is relative, one could also describe a believer the earth is round as a denier of the former consensus view that it’s flat.

    The above two comments by Truthseeker are impressively skillful and reassuring defenses of Barack Obama, which everyone in the world would wish were true. If one is satisfied with the Bush administration policies, then to “Stay the Course” would seem a reasonable direction and this is indeed what the Centrists advocate: continued war and deregulation and bailouts of Wall Street, amounting to transfers of wealth from the poor and middle class to the corporate rich. Satisfied by the status quo, a cult of personality – a Dear Leader attitude characteristic of foreign autocracies – could be indulged harmlessly.

    However, Sen. Obama campaigned on the theme of bringing meaningful change by withdrawing from Iraq and changing the mindset that put us there, and by restoring proper regulation and concern for the middle class to the financial system which the deregulaters had put in chaos. His appointments have shown the entire campaign to be a lie: he’s appointed a national security and foreign policy team consisting only of war-hawks and militarists, and his economic team consists of prominent deregulators and Wall Street toadies who created the current economic turmoil. Furthermore, far from listening to all sides, Obama has excluded the left, liberal, progressive views which have no representation at all among his advisors and nominees. Thus the result is a right wing administrion continuing the abominable policies of Bush and the neo-cons.

  10. Dr. Hope Says:

    TS, can you do a full workup on this fool, Kalichman.

    So far, his “blog” has censored dozens of posts that show him to be just another aids lacky, ala JP Moore, whose financial well being is at risk of exposure by the dissidents. He has so far censored the words of MacDonald, Michael Geiger, David, and several other dissidents who fully exposed his chicanery. I think it may be important to have the censored posts listed beneath a piece dedicated to him, his conflicts of interest, and his foolishness.

    His work has been continuously and exclusively funded by the National Institutes of Health since 1992. Kalichman serves on NIH grant review panels, has over 200 peer-reviewed journal articles, and has authored and edited five books in the area of HIV/AIDS prevention and care services, including Positive Prevention, recently published by Springer. He is also the current editor of the bimonthly journal AIDS and Behavior.

  11. MacDonald Says:

    Seth,

    Perhaps it’s because you’re a cowardly piece of shit, a third-rater hack? You don’t know enough psychopathology to write the astrology pages in the Sun newspaper. That’s why you had to branch out and become an AIDStruthie. A sure sign of a career that never was.

  12. MacDonald Says:

    Here’s one of the many censored posts. It goes in right after his “answer” to De Harven. Kalichman must have really felt the sting badly since he is cyberstalking me:

    “Seth Kalichman,

    I take it you’ve decided to give up on both the psychologizing and the real science. You are now relying on Pubmed contests to make your points.

    Right then, stooping to your own level once more, let me ask who are you? Have you ever published any hard science on HIV, or is it all merely in the mind a far as you are concerned?

    You are suggesting that Prof. DeHarven’s standards of virus isolation carry no authority today. You will now tell us which standards are the proper ones for purifying, isolating and establishing the existence of “HIV”. Until you have set us right on these standards, it would be pretty silly to ask for papers that fail to confirm the existence of the Virus, wouldn’t you say?

    Above I tried to demonstrate fair debate rules by quoting and linking. This paedagogical approach seems to have been unsuccessful, so let me be more direct: Chapter, verse and import of the following please:

    [Claus Koehnlein]has, however, been a liability to HIV/AIDS denialism. His statement that people treated with ARVs remain healthy is inconsistent with Duesberg’s claim that the medications are toxic. In addition, he has said that one of Duesberg’s central premises, that ARVs cause AIDS can be easily empirically tested and yet is obviously false because there are tragic numbers of children who have never taken illicit drugs and never treated with AZT who have died of AIDS”

    Since this is your main argument, can you tell us exactly what has Koehnlein said, where and in which context?

    By your logic, is every HIV scientist that is not in agreement with Robert Gallo or Luc Montagnier a liability to HIVism? Or is disagreement only a liability when it comes to Duesberg and Rethinkers?

    In the hypothetical event Montagnier were to show that there is no cell killing in “HIV” culture in the presence of certain antibiotics would he be a liability to himself? If I could find a statement from Montagnier to the effect that HIV requires “cofactors” to kill, would that be a liability? If I could quote Robert Gallo saying Kaposi’s Sarcoma is not caused by “HIV” would that be a liability? If I could produce peer-reviewed papers showing that qualified physicians are unable to determine clinically who has AIDS and who doesn’t, would that be a liability? If I could produce a large ten-year study of serodiscordant couples with no sero-conversions after study entry, would that be a liability? If I could quote “HIV experts” at you, saying that “purified HIV” is basically cell debris, and that more “realistic” research material is needed, would that be a liability? Various scientists complaining that it’s impossible to validate new “HIV” tests because there is no gold standard to validate them against, would that qualify as a liability?

    Please inform us of your standards, Dr. Kalichman, and I will be happy to educate you.

    In the meantime here’s a a lesson in basic logic, necessary to even have a discussion:

    A causes some B therefore A causes all B.

    Is this a valid inference, Dr. Kalichman? Once you’ve worked out the answer, apply it to this “obvious inference” of yours:

    “that ARVs cause AIDS can be easily empirically tested and yet is obviously false because there are tragic numbers of children who have never taken illicit drugs and never treated with AZT who have died of AIDS.”

    If you still feel like advancing your argument, we can continue by examining its factual basis.”

    But alas, Seth Kalichman didn’t feel like putting any of his “arguments” to any kind of test. He is, as I’ve said, a third-rater, ranking below even the likes of Chris Noble and Snout, who had to come to his rescue.

  13. Seth Kalichman Says:

    Thank you all for your interest in my blog and in my new book Denying AIDS (All of the royalties from sales of Denying AIDS are being donated to purchase HIV treatments in Africa). I plan to regularly post new and important information regarding AIDS denialism at http://denyingaids.blogspot.com/.

    Yes, it is true that I am not posting every comment that comes in. There are just too many, especially too many from Michael Geiger!! Michael, where do you find the time? Besides, it seems there are plenty of places to voice you denialism. My blog is not one of them. Henry Bauer’s is one place you can, but he won’t post my comments either. Such as this one…

    >>>>>>>>>
    In a local paper concerning a lecture you gave after the publication of your book, a college junior in computer sciences who attended pointed out the flawed logic in your arguments. The student said comparing HIV to two bacterial infections was a ‘‘fundamentally bad
    analysis,’’ like comparing ‘‘apples and gerbils.’’ You seemed caught off guard and thought perhaps you should look at Hep B or perhaps HSV. Have you examined these patterns?
    Also, can you explain why you would draw conclusions on HIV prevalence in one population (military recruits) in relation to AIDS prevalence in completely different populations 10 years later (gay men and injection drug users)?
    And finally, can you explain where Nessies may be laying their eggs in the Loch and how global warming may impact their growth?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>

    MacDonald, I know the word denialism hits a touchy spot. But you missed my point about Holocaust deniers and AIDS deniers. See, all deniers share the same psychopathology. It is not that AIDS deniers are Nazi sympathizers. This can be confusing because Peter Deusberg’s father was a Nazi doctor, although Peter does not seem to take pride in this .I do find it a curiosity that many AIDS denialists are German. I so discus s this in my book.
    The aim of Denying AIDS is to show AIDS denialism for what it is. And you guys blogging as you are sure does help me make the case.

    Seth Kalichman
    http://denyingaids.blogspot.com/

    All of the royalties from sales of Denying AIDS are being donated to purchase HIV treatments in Africa

  14. MartinDKessler Says:

    How nice to see that the Nazi Seth Kalichman is promoting genocide in Africa by seeing to it that the poisons (nucleoside analogues and protease inhibitors with the Orwellian term ARVs) are properly distributed to kill off the African population without a single shred of proof that any of the poisonees are infected – how could they? HIV has never been isolated from a single human being since before the acronym AIDS was invented. Of course SS officer Kalichman wouldn’t know that, he’s a quack, a pseudo scientist – that’s what psychology is a pseudoscience – like astrology or phrenology – the transubstantiation of unwanted behaviors into mental disorders.

  15. MacDonald Says:

    Seth, I’ve already tried to explain to you that there are a couple of vital points to remember when you are debating:

    1. You have to make an argument. Thus, if you wish to argue that the epidemiology of HSV or Hep B is comparable to that of HIV you have to give the figures and references – chapter and verse as I called it above. You have yet to formulate a single academic standard argument; why should anyone believe your book is different? In my first Comment on your blog, I told you, you’re simply a low-ranking AIDStruth hitman, so why should we buy your book when we can get all the original talking points for free on AIDSpravda.org and donate to a charity of choice?

    2. Try to stay on point. You are invariably dodging every substantial argument and going for the gutter-level smear instead. Would you mind if I ask how old you are?

    3. An important point which touches on what I said above, Seth Kalichman and his new book, reaching heights of that form of logical incoherence which is also called hypocrisy: You have yet to accuse anyone of a fallacy, or pathology if you will, which you do not commit or suffer from yourself.

    Here you ask: can you explain why you would draw conclusions on HIV prevalence in one population (military recruits) in relation to AIDS prevalence in completely different populations 10 years later (gay men and injection drug users)?

    You then immediately go on to say: It is not that AIDS deniers are Nazi sympathizers. This can be confusing because Peter Deusberg’s father was a Nazi doctor, although Peter does not seem to take pride in this. I do find it a curiosity that many AIDS denialists are German.

    It is not just that you are, as always, factually wrong (A far more pertinent observation would be that many Rethinkers, including those you censor, are Jewish, gay or Africans), or that you are making no attempt to present a real argument; the problem is you invite us to draw conclusions about one population in relation to a completely different population 70 years apart and on a wholly imaginary basis.

    Thus, even if Prof. Bauer had actually committed the fallacy you attribute to him (It would help if you actually tried to understand the argument instead of relying on Noble’s and Snout’s misrepresentations), your own argument is off the chart, pathologically speaking.

    Seeing as you are a little wet behind the ears, Seth, I’ll throw in a some friendly advice as well: Don’t get yourself in way over your head. You should probably slither back to your own censored mudhole and practise a little on Martin Barnes before you jump in with the big boys. What do you say, shouldn’t we call it bedtime while you’re still behind?

  16. MacDonald Says:

    Martin,

    If you go to Seth’s website, you will learn, apart from the fact that he is considerably more well-fed than most of those he pretends to care about – the gravy train is obviously still rolling,

    Denying AIDS was written with minimal interruptions for scholarly citation

    That is actually his own characterization of the book. Not bad as euphemisms go LOL!

  17. MacDonald Says:

    Mr. Houston,

    One couldn’t agree more with your analysis, except the part about TS’s defence of Obama being reassuring. I find it rather creepy.

    Mr. TS in view of this statement:

    The idea of repentance based on outcome is the only justification for prison sentences, is it not?

    I conclude your understanding of penal theory is woefully inadequate. First of all, repentance real or imagined, is not reliably brough about without punishment, without even the threat of punishment. Deliberate and selfish behaviour is not likely to be discouraged if is rewarded.

    Then there’s the question of Justice. The system in its finest form does not exact revenge; it redresses in some manner an injustice. The criminal suffers in som esmall measure as his victim has suffered, and ideally makes further amends via his good works and useful education while serving his time.

    In the cases where repentance is not achieved – often it is not – there’s the practical matter of eliminating a threat to the general public for a period of time.

    But the most important aspect is deterrence. As good Christians we can rejoice in repentance and forgiveness, or even forgiveness without repentance, but the harmful behaviour must be deterred for the survival of a civil society. The criminal may or may not repent, but if he is not punished, how do we deter others, not prone to repenting, from future crimes?

  18. Seth Kalichman Says:

    You guys are great. Not very busy with life, but great.
    Please, keep blogging my name. The more exposure, the more Google hits. The more Google hits the more people will see my book. The more people who see my book the more will buy it. The more who buy it the more antiretrovirals get to people who need them.
    Thanks for helping save some lives.
    Seth
    http://denyingaids.blogspot.com/

  19. Truthseeker Says:

    Having glanced at Kalichman’s site, we see that its author’s outstanding scientific inauthenticity and self-condemning evasion of openminded consideration of alternative explanations of the gross unreason and inconsistency of the long exploded current AIDS paradigm is bound to be immediately apparent to anybody whose brain is still functional and capable of independent reasoning ie not in Denial that HIV/AIDS has neither reason nor evidence to support it which stand up to the slightest inspection.

    So we welcome this delightful new recruit to the debate about the prima facie grossly incredible conventional belief in the current HIV/AIDS paradigm ie the notion that a new field was started four decades ago concerned with RNA viruses, went in search of a human disease which could justify funding, came up empty handed with cancer, then by some extraordinary miraculous coincidence unique in history there suddenly appeared a hitherto unknown major illness of deadly consequence which was caused by none other than one of these otherwise uiniformly harmless retroviruses, truly a miracle, especially blessed since it enabled people of absolutely no scientific merit or inclination to be well funded members of a community of true scientists which normally would have blackballed them from joining the club on their pretense of a vocation which they manifestly lack.

    In other words, thank the Lord for the existence of Seth, who has already served to provoke some excellent responses from the people who know far better than he that this whole charade is nothing more than a relabeling of other illnesses as “HIV/AIDS”. His site will serve as an excellent tutorial for newcomers to this debate, which is largely hidden from view in the main media, except on the Web.

    At the very least people will be able see the intelligence of the critics and compare it with the unwarranted presumption of the host that the world’s most obviously fallacious public belief must be true because it recent won a Nobel awarded by a committee about to be prosecuted for taking bribes, if Celia Farber’s latest report is as accurate as everything else she has written so well.

    We will send as many people as possible to this truly denialist site, and record the text here and add any posts which are barred from it, as well as any contributions of his which are barred from other sites.

    Here is Seth’s latest masterpiece:

    THURSDAY, DECEMBER 18, 2008
    What Is HIV/AIDS Denialism?

    AIDS denialism actively propagates myths, misconceptions, and misinformation to distort and refute reality. Denialism is the outright rejection of science and medicine. It involves actively contradicting and disregarding medical advice. It is steady state. Denialism is not open to criticism, and evades modification. Denialism is only open to additional evidence supporting its tenets and such evidence most often comes from the misuse of science and from pseudoscience. AIDS denialists, often for the sake of personal preservation or recognition, hold fast to old ideas in the face of new evidence.

    One feature of denialism is the tendency to think of the denialist position as beleaguered, and under attack and in a minority that has to stave off the assaults of the vast wrong-thinking majority. As a consequence, those involved in denialism often, in the other justifications for their position, declare their strong allegiance to the principle of free speech. Interestingly, then, denialists often set themselves up as plucky underdogs, battling for their right to speak the truth against a tide of misinformation and, as often as not, conspiracies aimed at keeping them silent.

    Deniers and denialists are both terms that describe people who refuse to accept the historical reality of Nazi Germany and the Holocaust. There are also 9/11 denialists and those who deny that man ever walked on the moon. Denialism emerges from defiance against objective historical records or, in the case of AIDS, defiance against established science. Still, those who doubt that the Holocaust or 9/11 ever happened do not identify themselves as “denialists” but rather “truth seekers”.

    It is plain to see, however, that HIV/AIDS denialists represent just one variant of the broader phenomenon of denialism, sharing common characteristics with Holocaust Deniers, 9/11 Truthers, and others who refuse to accept an indisputable historical record. At the core of denialism is mistrust–in the case of HIV/AIDS, the mistrust is of science and medicine. Scholars have identified the characteristics of political extremists and fringe groups that promote Holocaust denialism. These same characteristics apply equally well to HIV/AIDS denialism.

    Like other extremist groups, denialists hold an absolute certainty that they are the sole bearers of “The Truth.” For HIV/AIDS denialists, the truth is that HIV is a harmless virus that cannot possibly cause disease, and that anti-HIV medications amount to nothing more than poison, DNA terminators that can themselves cause AIDS. Second, extremist groups believe that governments are under the control of conspiring forces. In the case of HIV/AIDS denialism, the power of Big Pharma and the medical establishment have corrupted the National Institutes of Health and biomedical sciences in general. A third characteristic of extremists is a hatred for its opponents, often seen as conspiring with their enemies. HIV/AIDS denialists attack the most visible scientists; especially those who are widely exposed in the media as well as those who have publicly debunked their rhetoric. Fourth, extremists deny basic civil liberties to those whose views they see as their enemies. Ironically, denialists censor science by cherry-picking results of research while claiming to be the victims of censorship themselves, and often claiming that their rights to free expression are being systematically thwarted. Finally, denialists, as do extremists, indulge in irresponsible accusations and character assassination. As expected, denialists refer to AIDS scientists and medical specialists as Nazis, the mafia, and murderers.

    Psychologist Michael Shermer is the leading authority on Holocaust denialism and he has found that Holocaust deniers’ “fallacies of reasoning are eerily similar to those of other fringe groups, such as creationists”. Remarkably, these same personality features that Shermer describes in holocaust deniers are immediately recognizable among HIV/AIDS denialists. First, denialism concentrates on opponents’ weak points without making definitive statements about their own position. In HIV/AIDS denialism, without a shred of credible evidence to the contrary, there is an incessant call for the one study that proves HIV causes AIDS while not recognizing the thousands of studies that accumulate to irrefutably show that HIV causes AIDS. Even knowing the complexity of HIV and the barriers it poses to vaccines, Peter Duesberg looked me dead in the eyes and said that failure to achieve an HIV vaccine means that an infectious agent cannot be the cause of AIDS. Second, denialists exploit errors made by AIDS scientists, implying that a few errors detected in a mass of work calls into question the entire scientific enterprise.

    Holocaust and HIV/AIDS denialism share other common features. For both, millions of people died with the vast majority of Holocaust historians and AIDS scientists confirming the causes. The enormity of human suffering caused by the Holocaust and that of a plague like AIDS offers a platform for denialism. Another commonality is that conspiracy theories drive both Holocaust and HIV/AIDS denialism. There are striking similarities in rhetoric, using selected excerpts from credible documents and calling for a debate on matters for which there is universal agreement. Denialist groups of all types claim mounting controversy and the need for a debate. Both Holocaust and HIV/AIDS denialism have established their own publication outlets, such as the Journal for Historical Review for Holocaust denialism and Continuum magazine in HIV/AIDS denialism. There are full-length films produced by both movements, The Truth behind the Gates of Auschwitz, produced by David Cole for Holocaust denialism and HIV=AIDS: Fact or Fraud, produced by Gary Null and The Other Side of AIDS produced by Eric Paulson and Robert Leppo for HIV/AIDS denialism. The major deniers of the Holocaust are knowledgeable of World War II history and on the fringes of academia, just as the major HIV/AIDS denialists are well versed in the science of AIDS. Denialists of all types seize opportunities by political leaders who express support for their denialism, as has occurred in 2006 by Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad expressing doubt that the Holocaust occurred and President Thabo Mbeki of South Africa expressing doubt that HIV causes AIDS.
    Denying AIDS and this author’s blog are intended to debunk AIDS denialism and open access to the facts surrounding the human tragedy of HIV/AIDS.

    Seth C. Kalichman

    Here are the replies so far, excepting the ones quoted above which were barred:

    Martin Barnes said…
    Dear Seth Klichman,

    I understand you have a new book coming out about AIDS denialism.

    Are you aware that the original papers published by Robert Gallo are faulty?

    Please see the press recent release at the top of

    http://www.rethinkingaids.com/

    Note that all those 37 distinguished scientists and pros who signed to have the foundation papers for the HIV – AIDS causal connection withdrawn because of fraud. Do you think they are all crazy?

    You refer to ”the thousands of studies that accumulate to irrefutably show that HIV causes AIDS.” Could you please cite a few of these thousands of references for me? I’ll be you can’t!

    Furthermore after all this time scientists don’t know the aetiology of how HIV kills the CD4 white blood cells. Can you give me a reference that shows the mechanism of cell death or even that HIV is killing CD4 cells in sufficient numbers to cause illness?

    I’ll bet you have not read Peter Duesberg’s book ‘Inventing the AIDS Virus.’ As a psychologist you would be interested in the ‘perfect storm’ of political pressure, the CDC epidemic goon squad, and and the virologists financial need created the destructive paradigm which you now support.

    I have not mentioned the epidemiological evidence showing AIDS cannot be an infection, the incompetence of the viral load and CD4 tests, and the documented flakiness of the tests for HIV positivity.

    sincerely,

    Martin K. Barnes
    maisondemartin.com
    December 18, 2008 12:32 PM
    Seth Kalichman said…
    Hello Martin

    Thank you for your note.

    I am quite well aware of the issues concerning Robert Gallo and the events of 1984. I actually just watched the classic movie ‘And the Band Played On’ again a few nights back. I have talked with several people named in the book and they tell me it is pretty accurate.

    But today HIV/AIDs is more than about Robert Gallo.

    The early papers in Science that you refer to are important in the history of AIDS, but they are really only historically important now. What we know about HIV causing AIDS is not grounded in those few papers, faulty or not. As you noted there are thousands of clinical, immunological, and epidemiological studies that do, in fact, prove HIV causes AIDS. I understand that you would like to see ‘the one study’ that proves HIV causes AIDS. You are referring to what I call the single study fallacy.

    There is no one study.

    There are over 120,000 studies at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez concerning HIV pathogenisis the processes by which HIV causes disease and ultimately AIDS. A few references that I think you will find of interest are,

    Fogli M, et al. Lysis of endogenously infected CD4+ T cell blasts by rIL-2 activated autologous natural killer cells from HIV-infected viremic individuals. PLoS Pathog. 2008 Jul 11;4(7):e1000101

    Vahey MT,CD4+ T-cell decline after the interruption of antiretroviral therapy in ACTG A5170 is predicted by differential expression of genes in the ras signaling pathway. AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses. 2008 Aug;24(8):1047-66.

    Musey L Cytotoxic-T-cell responses, viral load, and disease progression in early human immunodeficiency virus type 1 infection. N Engl J Med. 1997 Oct 30;337(18):1267-74

    Brahmbhatt H, Mortality in HIV-infected and uninfected children of HIV-infected and uninfected mothers in rural Uganda. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2006 Apr 1;41(4):504-8

    The danger posed by these references, of course, is that without the proper training and background to understand them we are prone to confusion and misinterpretation. Believe me, none of the Rethinkers who signed the letter to Science has the background in clinical medicine to understand this work. If I am wrong, can you please name who in that list has treated infectious disease patients or worked with retroviruses?

    Review papers are easier to digest than primary studies, so here is one recent review of how HIV causes AIDS that even I can understand.

    Forsman A, Weiss RA. Why is HIV a pathogen? Trends Microbiol. 2008 Dec;16(12):555-60. Epub 2008 Oct 30

    To answer your question Martin, I did read Peter Duesberg’s book and as you can see to the right on this page I met him as well. I actually have a signed copy of his book. I dedicate an entire chapter in my book to the psychology of Dr. Duesberg.

    So I have read Dr. Duesberg’s book.

    My question is, will you read mine?

    As for the 37 ‘distinguished scientists’ you note, I am not sure who you are referring to. I have come to know these guys pretty well.

    Al-Bayati exploits the autopsies of dead children by posting them on the Internet,

    Harvey Bialy is a student of Peter Duesberg whose major contribution is telling the Peter Duesberg story,

    Kelly Brennan-Jones is a social psychologist who actually got me interested in denialism,

    Roberto Giraldo conducted pseudoscientific experiments on HIV tests,

    David Rasnick conducted unlawful/unethical (as ruled by the South African courts) vitamin studies on humans with Matthias Rath in South Africa,

    Henry Bauer has proven HIV cannot cause AIDS; he also believes in large green monsters lurking beneath Scottish waters and other ‘scientific explorations’.

    Most interesting about the letter to Science is who did not sign it – Peter Duesberg. Could it be that Dr. Duesberg is backing off from AIDS in the hope of receiving NIH funding for his Aneuploidy work? I sort of doubt that. Can he no longer stand being associated with the fringiest of the fringe in pseudoscience that denialism has attracted? Perhaps he will tell us why he did not sign this important letter.

    To answer your other question, I do not think that all of the signers are ‘crazy’. I spent over a year interacting and studying these denialists. I think only some of them are crazy. Some are surely misguided. Some are more interested in conspiracy theories and intelligent design than they are AIDS. Some more generally do not believe in ‘germ theory’. Only a very few are evil in that they are doing intentional harm for self-gain. Evil or not, they are all harmful to individuals and to the public health. That is why I wrote Denying AIDS.

    I appreciate your taking the time to write me.

    Seth Kalichman
    December 18, 2008 11:29 PM
    Brian Foley, PhD said…
    Thanks Seth. It is sad that such a book needed to be written.
    December 19, 2008 3:21 PM
    Tomás said…
    Holocaust Denier? and the Royalties of your book go to Poisoning Africa. Are you ok Mr Seth? I don’t think you are.
    December 20, 2008 4:16 PM
    Alfred MacDonald said…
    Seth Kalichman,
    I see you’re quick to shift the focus from the science of HIV/AIDS to a field with which you apparently feel more comfortable, the psychology of “denialism”. Changing topics or goal posts, bait and switch, pontificating on scientific issues while at the same time claiming that you are no expert, all the tactics of the perverted denialist mind is that not so, Dr. Kalichman?
    So which is it going to be, real science or the pseudoscience which you call “pshychology”?
    I’ve done a bit of psychology in high school and Bible class myself, and your unreferenced unsubstantiated screed above struck me as a classic exmple of projection, you know the beam in yur own eye and all that; for what you are describing in every detail is people such as Dr. Foley, the various shills from South Africa and AIDSpravdadotorg. For example you write:
    “Denialism is not open to criticism, and evades modification. Denialism is only open to additional evidence supporting its tenets. . .”
    You mean like so?:
    “We will not:
    Engage in any public or private debate with AIDS denialists or respond to requests from journalists who overtly support AIDS denialist causes. The reasons are:
    The debate has been settled: HIV causes AIDS, AIDS kills, and AIDS can be treated with significant success by the use of antiretroviral therapy. These are the facts.”
    http://www.aidstruth.org/new/denialism/answering_denialists
    Does this strike you as a manifesto written by people open to additional evidence that does not support their tenets? Hey what was it you said about about denialists thinking they are
    “the sole bearers of “The Truth.” For HIV/AIDS denialists, the truth is that HIV is a harmless virus that cannot possibly cause disease, and that anti-HIV medications amount to nothing more than poison. . .”?
    That’s actually funny. You have quoted John Moore’s manifesto from the AIDStruth website almost word for word, reversed it and shown it as an example of denialist psychology. You are not even original Dr. Kalichman; you’re but an AIDStruth clone.
    Let’s drop the pretenses shall we? I think we all realize you’re not treating of the phenomenon of projection, or psychology in any other form; you’re simply a commmon hack, executing a low-class smearjob, and as all such I could easily skewer you on your own hypocrisy a million times over.
    Now I’m fully expecting you to complain how uncivil it is of me to call you a hack when all you have done is compare me to a Holocaust denier. Or am I just being paranoid? I guess time will tell if it is going to be censorship or the couch eh Doc?
    December 20, 2008 5:58 PM
    Ema Nekaf said…
    W-O-W…. Bible class huh? Impressive…. I find it amazing how much one can be hateful…. The point I think Dr Kalichman is trying to get across when he compares AIDS denialism to Holocaust Denialism is that both are irrational since there is such overwhelming evidence…
    As a Jew I find it hurtful when people deny the genocide that happened… I would assume and HIV positive person would feel the same way.
    When someone makes an argument one way or another I think there should be at least SOME research on the topic… Oh and a hack? You’ve resorted to name calling? How mature… I just think that Dr. Sues is right when he said “Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don’t matter and those who matter don’t mind.” and since I want to matter I respect both sides… but that doesn’t mean I have to agree with both… Maybe you should try it some time….
    ~Yours Sincerely
    Ema Nekaf
    December 20, 2008 6:52 PM
    Etienne said…
    Kalichman, You said, and I quote: “If I am wrong, can you please name who in that list has treated infectious disease patients or worked with retroviruses?

    You are quite wrong.

    Rethinker Dr. Duesberg had been labeled as “The Greatest Virologist in The World” by none other than Robert Gallo.

    Rethinker Claus Kohnlein has personally treated dozens of hiv positive patients and none have yet died in more than 20 years.

    And then there is also myself, another Rethinker of HIV whom you so carelessly label as a “denialist”. I specialised in EM photographs of retroviruses for many years, and here is a letter recently sent to the now under investigation for conflicts of interest Nobel Committee:

    The Nobel Prize in medicine has been recently awarded to Barre-Sinoussi and Montagnier for “The discovery of immunodeficiency virus (HIV)».
    This award is, to a large extent, based on a paper published by the laureates et al. in May 1983, in «Science» (vol 220, pp 868-871). The conclusions presented in this paper result, in a large part, from observations made by transmission electron microscopy. Having been responsible for research on electron microscopy of retroviruses, at the Sloan Kettering Institute of New York from 1956 until 1981, I do have scientific competence to raise the following questions related to the significance of the paper under reference.

    This 1983 paper is illustrated (Fig. 2) by an electron microscopy image of thin sections of virus-producing cord lymphocytes. Three day old cultures of T lymphocytes from two umbilical cords had been «infected with the cell-free supernatant of the infected coculture». This «coculture» consisted of cultured human normal T lymphocytes admixed with lymphocytes that originated from the lymph node biopsy from one patient «at risk for acquired immune deficiency (AIDS)». The author’s interpretation of Fig.2 is that it demontrates that cord blood lymphocytes had been successfully infected by retroviruses from that patient.

    Unquestionably, Fig 2 illustrates typical retroviruses (C-type), budding from the surface of a lymphocyte.

    Highly questionable, however, is the origin of these retroviruses.

    The authors of the report claim that they originate from the patient lymph node, via the «cell-free supernatant» of the coculture.

    This interpretation is not satisfactorily supported by the data presented.

    Indeed, if this interpretation was correct, one would have expected :

    1) evidence, by electron microscopy, of the multiplication of retroviruses in this «coculture», and
    2) evidence, again by electron microscopy, for the presence of retroviral particles in the «cell-free supernatant of the infected coculture».

    Since 1) and 2) evidences are totally missing, how could the authors of this paper justify their claim for having «infected» the cord lymphocytes with the «cell-free supernatant of the coculture» ?

    The authors have regarded their «coculture» as «infected» only on the basis of reverse transcriptase activity in sucrose fractions from the supernatant. Sucrose fractions at density around 1.16, however, are known to contain large amounts of cell debris that can readily account for the observed transcriptase activity. In short, one is asked to believe that cord blood lymphocytes have been sucessfully infected with the supernatant of a coculture the viral infection of which has not been demonstrated.

    As indicated above, Fig. 2 of the paper shows typical retroviruses (C-type) budding from the surface of a lymphocyte. Where are they coming from, if it is not from the «cell-free supernatant of the coculture» ?

    There is another possible explanation for the viral electron microscopy evidence of Fig. 2, an explanation that did not, obviously, received the slightest attention from Barre-Sinoussi, Montagnier et al.

    The observed cultured lymphocytes came from cord blood, and therefore originate from the placenta. It is well known, since the late 1970’s (Sandra Panem’s work, in Current Top Pathol, 1979, 66 :175-189), that the normal human placenta contains loads of C type retroviruses (HERVs). Placental lymphocytes are, therefore, likely to contain the same HERVs that, when placed under stimulating culture conditions, may bud from cell surfaces and form complete retroviral particles (C-type) recognizable with the electron microscope (Fig. 2). Barre-Sinoussi et al. avoided to explain why their experiment apparently wouldn’t work with lymphocytes from the peripheral blood, instead of those from cord blood? The simple explanation is that human peripheral blood lymphocytes do not harbor HERVs.

    In my opinion, Fig. 2 illustrating the paper under consideration totally fails to convincingly demonstrate that the observed retroviruses originated in the lymph node of one patient «at risk of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome». There is no scientific reason, therefore, to refer to these particles as «LAV» nor as «HIV». Referring to these particles as «LAV» or «HIV» mislead the Nobel Committee, and resulted in a seriously questionable award of the Nobel prize.

    Etienne de Harven, MD, Emerit. Prof, Univ. of Toronto.
    December 20, 2008 10:11 PM
    Tomás said…
    Ema Nekaf who you fooling? it’s no secret that the name calling began with the the HIV Industry Pundits feel a surge of opposition smacking against their nicely polished bank accounts. How ignorant can one be to post a response of hipocrite neutrality when the very essence of the epithet “denialist’ is plastered all over this blog.

    As for denying the Holocaust, it’s a desperate attempt at changing the topic,when the very nature of the Reappraisng AIDS movement has for 25 years try to expose the current Antiretoviral Death Holocaust taking place before our eyes. If anyone is a Holocaust denier it’s Mr Seth he is sending Gas ovens to Africa with his book royalities!

    I can’t believe you would tell us not to call people names when the very epithet “denialist” or “denialism” is the very address of this blog.

    who you fooling Ema ?
    December 20, 2008 10:20 PM
    Snout said…
    Hi Seth

    Unlike Alfred, above, I think that the psychology of AIDS denialism is a really important thing to come to grips with, and, I’m looking forward to reading your book when it comes out.

    I find it much easier to understand how someone directly affected by HIV might fall into denial as a way of “coping” with the reality of what until recently was the prospect of a grim and uncertain future. That’s kind of a normal human response to a threat, at least temporarily.

    But most of the “leading lights” of AIDS denialism are not making an understandable if unhelpful response to personal distress: rather their denialism is a form of pathological hubris.

    Some, such as Bauer and de Harven are retired science academics and seem to be looking for a new interest without realizing that their previous expertise is not transferable to a new scientific field they lack broad basic knowledge of. Others like Duesberg and the Perthians became stuck on a wrong scientific hypothesis decades ago like “retroviruses can’t cause disease” or “this new immune system disease is a manifestation of our oxidative stress hypothesis”. Instead of abandoning their erroneous beliefs once they were found to be incompatible with the evidence, they cling to them even more tightly, and as time goes on become more and more divorced from reality. This is a cognitive trap that all scientists can fall into: it is hard to let go of a hypothesis you have invested time, credibility and intellectual activity into – kind of like the Gambler’s Fallacy.

    A surpising number of denialists are lawyers, perhaps because they more than any other profession have been trained to use (or misuse) the concept of “reasonable doubt” to defend a position no matter what the truth may be. Others are “alternative” health practitioners with eccentric ideas about human physiology and pathophysiology, and sometimes commercial interests in promoting their goods and services.

    Some are “journalists” who have convinced themselves, or been groomed into believing that they have found the Big Story that will make their name, while lacking the insight into their own lack of grasp of their subject matter.

    These are people who are not directly threatened by the virus themselves who have embraced denialist ideologies (plural). There are many mutually contradictory varieties of denialist beliefs: the only thing many seem to have in common is that the rejection of mainstream science. That’s the one defining characteristics of AIDS denialists: what unites them is not what they believe but what they are unable to accept.

    It is of only minor concern to denialists that they can’t even agree if HIV exists or even what AIDS is: what is more important is to define themselves in terms of and against the mainstream (reality based) position.

    What they all have in common is a pathologically unshakeable conviction that they are right, even if their beliefs are completely incompatible with any of their other denialist “colleagues”. And a total lack of insight into the harm they do promoting their personal agendas to people with HIV or the governments charged with dealing with epidemic, when such an audience lacks the basic scientific know-how to be able to critically evaluate denialist claims.
    December 20, 2008 10:59 PM
    Michael Geiger said…
    By the way, Seth, we know that you have a conflict of interest with the discussion, but how about Snout.

    Snout, mind telling us all your conflicts of interest with this? Are you an HIV researcher, do you treat patients? Do you have any direct connections to hiv treatment or research?

    Come on now, Snout, be honest… for a change.
    December 20, 2008 11:23 PM
    Seth Kalichman said…
    Dr. de Harven
    I do not believe we have met but Anthony Brink has told me much about you.
    Please note that Dr. Durebserg has never done any research on HIV or AIDS. I believe the Gallo quote is true and was true of Duesberg in 1980. How Dr. Duesberg went from scientist to dissident to denialist is central to my book.
    I am aware that Claus Koehnlein was a German physician affiliated with the Department of Oncology at the University of Kiel up until 1993. Like you he too was on the Mbeki 2000 South African Presidential AIDS Panel. He has only one scientific publication to his credit and it is co-authoreed with Peter Duesberg and David Rasnick. He has, however, been a liability to HIV/AIDS denialism. His statement that people treated with ARVs remain healthy is inconsistent with Duesberg’s claim that the medications are toxic. In addition, he has said that one of Duesberg’s central premises, that ARVs cause AIDS can be easily empirically tested and yet is obviously false because there are tragic numbers of children who have never taken illicit drugs and never treated with AZT who have died of AIDS.
    I understand that you are retired from the University of Toronto and had been a Professor of Cell Biology at Sloan Kettering Institute New York from 1956 to 1981. I am aware that you isolated and conducted electron microscopic studies of the murine (mouse) friend leukemia virus. I believe you challenge the proof that HIV has been isolated, according to the standards laid down by, well, you. Didn’t you say “Dominated by the media, by special pressure groups and by the interests of several pharmaceutical companies, the AIDS establishment efforts to control the disease lost contact with open-minded, peer-reviewed medical science since the unproven HIV/AIDS hypothesis received 100% of the research funds while all other hypotheses were ignored.”
    Looking you up in PubMed shows that you have never published on HIV or AIDS (aside from letters to editors and commentaries). In fact, the last research article (not opinion piece) that you were authored on was published in the journal Stem Cells in 1996 (see for http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez and search de Harven). May I ask why you have never published findings that fail to confirm the existence of HIV? I suppose the peer reviewer conspiracy strikes again. If you would like to post your unpublished articles here on my blog I may be able to help you with that.
    Thank you again for writing.
    December 20, 2008 11:35 PM
    Martin Barnes said…
    Hello Seth,

    Can you post the reference for the “tragic numbers of children who have never taken illicit drugs and never treated with AZT who have died of AIDS.”

    thanks, Martin
    December 21, 2008 3:35 AM
    Seth Kalichman said…
    Hi Martin

    About a quarter million children in the world have died of AIDS and 2 million have HIV infection. Se WHO/UNAIDS report of 2007 linked below.
    I do not find it logical to say they had done drugs or even that all of their mothers had done drugs? The rate of illicit drug use in the places with the most AIDS is the lowest in the world.

    Many (if not most)of these children live in places that do not have HIV treatments. When they do have treatments they live longer.

    Some are in poverty others are not.

    What all children who have died of AIDS have in common is they have HIV antibodies.

    And counter what Henry Bauer would say, they are not all Black/African.

    Thank you again for reading my blog.

    link to UNAIDS Report http://www.unaids.org/en/KnowledgeCentre/HIVData/GlobalReport/2008/2008_Global_report.asp
    December 21, 2008 9:35 AM
    Snout said…
    No, Michael, I have no conflicts of interest in this matter.

    I’m fascinated that you consider trying to understand and confront the phenomenon of denialism to be a “conflict of interest” for a health care provider. I’d have thought it was part and parcel of the job.

    To be honest my own specific interest in AIDS denialism comes from the fact I’m a gay man and therefore belong to the community that in my country at least has borne the brunt of the epidemic and has also taken on the lion’s share of the responsibility for dealing with it, along with quite a few non-gay people who have responded with intelligence, decency and diligent hard work.

    Now, I do feel some sympathy (as well as frustration) for those most affected by HIV who use denial as a personal, if dysfunctional, coping mechanism. There are much more sensible and effective ways of dealing with reality.

    However I have no patience at all for those cranks and hobbyist denialists who use the internet and other media to promote their idiot pseudoscience to vulnerable people who lack the scientific background to be able to always tell when they are being fed bullshit. I find that dishonest, contemptible, exploitative, manipulative and profoundly unethical, and it makes me very angry.

    So I hope that clears things up for you, and thanks for asking.
    December 21, 2008 4:56 PM
    Clark Baker said…
    Seth:

    If I once believed that your comments were legitimate, you lost all credibility when Brian Foley of the Los Alamos National Laboratory praised your blog.

    As a 28-year investigator who has conducted thousands of criminal and civil investigations (and unlike Dr. Gallo was never formally accused of fraud or misconduct), I was asked last May to investigate the AIDS industry and alleged “denialism.” Almost immediately, I was pressured and ultimately attacked by members of AIDS Inc. – individuals who coordinated their attacks with Dr. Foley and John Moore, PhD (Cornell). While your so-called denialists welcomed my unbiased investigation, members and beneficiaries of the pharmaceutical industry applied tremendous pressure (and still do) to get me to discontinue my ongoing investigation.

    So please Seth, please explain to me why independent investigators intimidate the so-called scientists you defend? Why did they want an independent investigator to stop his investigation? Why do they behave like Gambino Family enforcers? If you have proof that HIV attacks cells and causes AIDS, wouldn’t it be easier to post links on your blog that shows us exactly how the AIDS industry proved it so that other independent investigators and scientists could corroborate your findings? Why write about denialists when you can simply post your proof for everyone to see? What’s the big secret?

    If AIDS science was so compelling, why would you and your friends work so hard to attack an independent investigator or write a book about so-called denialists? Why do you think your friends attacked me? Why do you think Foley used a fake name and Los Alamos servers to attack one of my witnesses? Why do you think one of their cohorts stole my ID (LAPD Report 08-0619018)? Why did you write a book that attacks real scientists and others as denialists?

    Denialism is clearly not a mental disorder, but an epithet (not dissimilar to “Jew-lover” and “N-GG-R lover”) designed to protect dysfunctional and corrupt scientists and pharmaceutical companies from getting caught the way Bernard Madoff was recently caught with his $50 billion fraud. His sophisticated investors were duped into believing something that did not exist. Until scientist Jeffrey Wigand exposed the tobacco industry, tobacco industry scientists and doctors said there was nothing dangerous about inhaling tar or nicotine. 30 years ago, the tobacco industry would have hired you to attack Wigand and other “tobacco denialists.”

    Having investigated criminal gangs before, I’ve found that AIDS Inc behaves not unlike any other criminal enterprise I’ve investigated, greased by nearly a trillion taxpayer dollars since 1981. Your book is merely a continuation of those attacks.

    Anyone familiar with US universities today understand that freedom of thought and speech no longer exists on campuses. Why can the PC crowd prevent others from telling the truth on campuses like Cornell? Could it be that honesty would stop the flow of millions of research dollars each year that are used to perpetuate the myth? If you suddenly discovered that HIV science was a myth, would you have the courage to lose your funding to tell the world the truth? Your book only proves your cowardice.

    So Seth, instead of creating a blog that attacks the questions, why not post your reports that show exactly how the AIDS industry proved that HIV attacks cells and causes AIDS? If you do that, I’ll get an independent lab to prove that HIV attacks cells and causes AIDS and I will gladly modify my report to prove to your alleged denialists that they are wrong. Please, help me help you.

    One more thing – Your UNAIDS Report does not jibe with South Africa’s mortality report:

    http://www.statssa.gov.za/publications/P03093/P03093.pdf

    If UNAIDS told the truth, their employees would no longer receive funding.

    Lastly, I have one favor – please get your pharmaceutical friends to call their dogs off me.
    December 21, 2008 6:10 PM
    Brian Carter said…
    Dear Snout,

    In your long winded diatribe describing who the deniers are, you left out the common folk who see right through the diabolical trappings of your overly protected, heavily funded death and dying club. They grow in numbers day by day. Jesus… you and the good old boy Dr. Kalichman make it seem there’s there’s just a handful. You both severely underestimate.

    In the meantime answer for the casual reader who stumbles on to your blog: Why is it that people on treatment with anti-HIV medicine are dying from the side effects of these drugs more often than from illnesses associated with AIDS? (Reisler et al – Grade 4 events)
    December 21, 2008 6:12 PM
    Snout said…
    Clark,

    While your “investigation” may have exposed you to ideas and beliefs you were previously unfamiliar with, your report is nothing more than a rehash of the same old discredited denialist canards that have been circulating for years if not decades. Sorry to burst your bubble.

    As for the Stats SA report you cite, maybe you missed this bit on page 2:

    “This release covers mortality and causes of death broadly, and hence does not focus
    specifically on HIV and AIDS. It does, however, provide indirect evidence that HIV may be contributing to the increase in the level of mortality for prime-aged adults, given the increasing number of deaths due to associated diseases. The data captured through this exercise can contribute to detailed studies in which the incidence of deaths due to AIDS related conditions is estimated (see, for example, Groenewald et al, 2005).”

    The Executive summary of the 1997 – 2004 Adult Mortality Report makes it even clearer:

    “HIV death rates have a distinctive pattern by age in which there is an increase to a given age and then a rapid decline at older ages. This peak occurs at 30-34 for females and at 35-39 for males. Many HIV deaths are registered as being due to some other cause of death. This problem is aggravated by the fact that HIV is not a reportable disease in South Africa, unlike some other communicable diseases. Based on the age pattern of death rates by sex, it is likely that a high proportion of deaths registered as due to parasitic diseases, parasitic opportunistic infections, certain disorders of the immune mechanism and maternal conditions (females only) are actually caused by HIV. Some registered causes of death rise to a peak with age but then decline at older ages more slowly than HIV, especially for males. For these registered causes of death, some of the deaths are likely actually due to HIV, but some of the deaths are likely due to something other than HIV. These causes of death include all infectious diseases, tuberculosis, malaria and nutritional deficiencies.

    http://www.statssa.gov.za/PublicationsHTML/Report-03-09-052004/html/Report-03-09-052004.html
    December 21, 2008 9:41 PM

    Readers may easily decide for themselves which is the poison, and which is the antidote.

    We will turn all this into a post anon when the repair of this blog from its recent corruption on a BlueHost server is complete. Please add any other comments which have been barred at the truly Denialist “denyingaids” blog.

  20. MacDonald Says:

    TS,

    You are as always very flattering, but I don’t think any amount of flattery will “recruit” Seth to “the debate” any more than it did Todd DeShong. Actually Todd and Seth could easily be the same person; the style is quite the same, the lack of authentic career likewise – although judging from the pictures, Seth is around 80 lbs heavier. That means he would probably have to avoid Abacavir if he were ever to enjoy some of his own life-saving drugs:

    HIV Drug May Double Heart Attack Risk – HIV AIDS
    A widely used anti-HIV drug is found to increase risk for heart attack.

    A team of scientists from Copenhagen University examined several AIDS drugs and found no risk, except from Abacavir and Didanosine. Didanosine is found to be less risky than Abacavir. It increases heart attack risk by 50%, compared to Abacavir’s 200%. Abacavir itself is the most widely used anti-HIV drug.

    http://blog.find-group.com/?p=371

    Dr. Seth can send some Abacavir to Africa, though, since most of the recipients there won’t be as bloated as he. Their daily chores will probably also offer more opportunity for exercise.

    In other words, TS, you are quite right in claiming that Seth’s website reads as an autopsy of a cadaverous paradigm; a paradigm which serves as repository of all manner of mediocre people with otherwise stillborn careers. We predict, however, that when Dr. Seth himself is dissected by the discerning reader, she will come to the conclusion that Gluttony is the proximate cause of foul odour.

    The question is, has the AIDSpravda Squad also realized this? Apart from a non-committal one-liner from Dr. Foley, none of Seth’s distinguished pharma pals has graced his blog with words of encouragement so far. The strikingly similar “reviews” of his book found at the bottom of the blog are to an editor’s eye unmistakably the sort that can be written without having to read a single page of it. Pure politics. Given the apparent lack of enthusiasm displayed by the home crowd, I think the only way this book could generate enough royalties to put an intercontinetal stamp on a dose of Abacavir would be if Seth pulled some strings and got his book on the Required Reading list of some mandatory freshman course. Poor kids.

  21. Dr. Hope Says:

    Quite telling how Kalichman said his blog post was especially flooded with comments by Michael Geiger:

    Kalichman said: “Yes, it is true that I am not posting every comment that comes in. There are just too many, especially too many from Michael Geiger!! Michael, where do you find the time?”

    Yet only one single sentence of Geiger’s “flood” of posts ended up in Kalichman’s blog.

  22. MacDonald Says:

    Dr. Hope,

    Michael Geiger is Jewish, so maybe Dr. Seth doesn’t encourage Jews posting on his blog. We have yet to see him accuse Rethinkers of something he is not himself guilty of, and it is not difficult to see what his pet obsession apart from HIV is. . .

  23. Truthseeker Says:

    “You are as always very flattering”

    Actuallly we regret the rather too insulting nature of our comment, which broke the cardinal rule of this site to always encourage any misguided establishment Denialists to express themselves fully and thus stand condemned out of their own mouths eg John “I have decided to keep quiet in an era where funding may not be as forthcoming as hitherto” Moore, etc.

    The Todd-Seth type is an amazing oddity that this absurd paradigm occasionally produces on the Web for the edification of all. But how does their psychology operate? Obviously they hope for promotion into the ranks of the better placed proponents of the HIV/AIDS and perhaps even gain a little favoir or two, but does this ever happen? Does their application for funding at the NIH gain support? Perhaps so.

    It is hard to see that they benefit otherwise in their embarrassing display of public nakedness in all its grotesquery.

  24. Seth Kalichman Says:

    Hi Mac and Truth
    I am not posting everything that comes into my blog. As you can see, I am not denying denialists access. But when the comment goes on and on and on….it just creates clutter. When it is unintelligible I do not see the point.

    Michael Geiger is a good example. If Michael formulated a rationale thought and communicated it in a few comprehendible sentences I would be happy to post his comments.

    My blog is not a form for the pseudo-debate on AIDS. It is a forum on AIDS denialism. It is also not set up to distribute pseudoscience (I got one of those today). It is really an Author’s blog for my book Denying AIDS, you know the one with all royalties being donated to buy HIV meds in Africa.

    http://denyingaids.blogspot.com/

    I am trying to post new material every few days, at least for now. You are free to comment, but remember it is my sandbox I get to decide who gets to play.

  25. MacDonald Says:

    Yeah we know, Sethie, you are all about “debunking denialists”, not debating Rethinkers. How else could you hope to get away with copy-pasting from Aidspravdadotorg and call
    yourself an author?

    I like the joke about you not distributing pseudoscience. But who do you think you are kidding? You are Rethinking AIDS’ best friend since John Moore, you silly boy. Why do you think we’re busy promoting you all over the Internet? You’re exactly the kind of moron we have been looking for, because all the rest have already learned to keep their mouths shut.

    You’re going to boost the sales of books written by every single Rethinker you mention in your book, you’ve already drawn in curious newcomers with your amateurish blog antics and, best of all, you keep swallowing hook, line and sinker. Dr. Seth, you profess to speak of Chaos of the mind, but to us you are the cleansing Desert Storm, a Hero of RA as we steer towards the New Dawn.

  26. Cathyvm Says:

    Perusing Pubmed for an insight into Seth Kalichman’s agenda/resume:

    (These papers all involved other contributors including what I presume to be Seth’s wife Moira – oh dear, when the paradigm collapses that’s going to be one hungry family).

    Spied on “HIV positive” people; popping in unannounced to count their pills to monitor “adherence” to HAART.

    Stuck his nose into homosexual HIV-negatives’ sex lives to warn them of how gays are such liars and cheaters that they better use those condoms anyway to protect themselves from the big boogerinfection.

    Told South African Blacks that they better not drink alcohol because that facilitates HIV transmission.

    Poking the psychological open sores of Black South African HIV-positive gay men who have become told they are going to DIE, have become socially isolated and have lost their homes and gainful employment: “And how did that make you feel huh?”

    Determined that “thickies” are less adherent to HAART than non-thickies.

    Determined that substance abuse and depression leads to non-adherence of “life-saving” HAART.

    Determined the need to specifically educate African American women who are just too oversexed and stupid in the use of the female condom.

    Determined that stress management in those we have told “OMG you are going to DIE horribly” helps with mental health but doesn’t affect immune or hormonal parameters.

    Asked lesbian women at Gay Pride rallies if they had genital warts.

    Participated in: “Risk compensation in HIV prevention: implications for vaccines, microbicides, and other biomedical HIV prevention technologies.”… “Although they can reduce the rate of HIV transmission at varying levels of efficaciousness” – Could Dr JayPee please step up to the plate and inform the ignorant Dr Kalichman that these interventions DO NOT WORK. The only “efficacy” attributable to these ridiculous products is in “increasing the spread of HIV”.

    In one abstract along the lines of “How to Brainwash HIV Positives for Dummies” we have this gem: “Prospective analyses of IMB [Information-Motivation-Behavioral Skills] predictors of unprotected anal intercourse (UAI) confirmed a good fit.” Hmm…

    Fully supports the need for case manager training in bullying people into disclosing “HIV status” to anyone who will listen.

    Poked around in the semen of HIV-positives to determine “infectivity” – strange thing for a psychologist to be doing! I suppose HIV-infected sperm need counselling.

    There were many, many others (this man is a veritable spew-fest in spurious studies) but the stench of disingenuousness emanating from my computer was just too much for me. The screaming judgemental piety and racial and cultural epithets were addling my brain to the point where I was going to go out and find a promiscuous, illiterate, hard-drinking, drug-using, depressed, homeless, unemployed, Black lesbian hermaphrodite with genital warts and slap her face with a female condom!

    I suggest a name change Seth – I shall call you Kwakerbusybodynofunbobo.

  27. MacDonald Says:

    Ah the obligatory Substance Abuse and Depression Leads to Non-Adherence of “Life-Saving” HAART rediscovery.

    Dr. Seth is obviously an expert in grant applications.

    More importantly, now we know why he holds a grudge against the delightful Prof. Bauer; Dr. Seth has been a recipient of the Bauer Golden Fleece Award for Outstanding Life-Long Achievement. How scandalous to discover that a behavioural motivator of savages and women harbours resentful feelings. Here’s the latest deja vu:

    http://hivskeptic.wordpress.com/2008/06/23/golden-fleece-award-ii-mental-illness-may-be-disabling/

  28. pat Says:

    Seth,

    In what category of “paranoid nutter” would you put Ignaz Semmelweis? He was also a LONE thinker (lonelier than Duesberg I would say. Duesberg has yet to be beaten to death in a sanatorium).
    -(whisper): Educated hind sight is verboten in answering this question.

    Also,
    If your book was published 140 or so years ago, do you think he would have been beaten to death with it?

    Your foray into the psychology of fringe thinkers is frightening and reminiscent of…(gasp, I hate to go there …)

  29. Cathyvm Says:

    Untitled Document

    I’d forgotten about the Prof Bauer Golden Fleece award. Can we award Seth one
    for each and every paper he has participated in (though I fear I may have overestimated
    his involvement; I think he just adds the byline "but this needs further
    study [hint, hint, more money]".
    I see he has posted this patronising nonsense on his dreary blog:
    "The confirmatory test (Western Blot) is very specific to HIV antibodies,
    over 99% accurate in detecting HIV antibodies. If you test positive for HIV antibodies
    with a Western Blot test, you have HIV infection."
    Golly gosh, such confidence, such braggadocio! I won’t even attempt to post
    over there as he loves his censorship but perhaps he will respond here.
    "Sera positive for Bartonella henselae, Brucella, Chlamydia
    pneumoniae
    , and Rickettsia rickettsii antibodies showed cross-reactivity
    by the Western blot assay. The highest cross-reactivity was observed with Borrelia
    burgdorferi
    ; 5 of 11 (45%) specimens were cross-reactive by the IgM-specific
    assay."
    "Cross-reactivity between B. burgdorferi and Yersinia was
    observed with the YopD antigen in all but one of the B. burgdorferi samples
    tested by the Western blot assays."
    http://tinyurl.com/a4xds9
    This 2005 study was testing cross-reactivity to Yersinia on Western
    blot – a bacteria that has been fully isolated and identified. Yersinia
    proteins are produced for the Western blot from the ACTUAL bug everyone can
    SEE yet nearly half these proteins reacted with another completely different
    pathogen, and when it came down to a single antigen ALL BUT ONE cross-reacted!!
    And yet our HIV "expert"-in-residence can claim 99% accuracy for the
    HIV WB when HIV was never isolated and nobody knows WHAT the proteins were that
    Bob pulled out of his butt.
    Jeez Seth I see a large pile of yellow, cholesterolly scrambled stuff heading
    in the direction of your oversized face. At least it might feed the family for
    a while.

  30. Seth Kalichman Says:

    It is great to read all of this from you.
    Very confirming.
    In case you missed my latest posting, I am asking if anyone can prove that David Crowe actually exists? The photographs of him are clearly not pure. There is obviously a conspiracy to promote the myth that David Crowe exists. I posted a reward page at http://denyingaids.blogspot.com/
    I am working on a website Mr.CroweMyth.com. It will open with a petition to charge Thabo Mbeki, Manto and their 2000 denialist panel for crimes against humanity for withholding HIV treatments from South Africans. Hope you will join us.

  31. Cathyvm Says:

    Seth comes to spread his Chaos in the barren deserts of our minds here on RA. We’re expecting Horace to join us soon to complete the joining of the two mindsets. Oh joy that Seth appeared on RA to shine his own brand of light and channel his sensibilities into our intellectual wilderness.
    We await the seeds from the tree of life upon our unworthy tongues. Yes, Seth, here the AIDS denialists meet their personal Golgotha for their atrocious crimes in the AIDS holocaust. Seth holds up to us the reflection of our murderous ways.

    Tennyson springs to mind.

    Come not, when I am dead,
    To drop thy foolish tears upon my grave,
    To trample round my fallen head,
    And vex the unhappy dust thou wouldst not save.
    There let the wind sweep and the plover cry;
    But thou, go by.

    Child, if it were thine error or thy crime
    I care no longer, being all unblest:
    Wed whom thou wilt, but I am sick of Time,
    And I desire to rest.
    Pass on, weak heart, and leave me where I lie:
    Go by, go by.

    And:

    Then,—from my couch may heavenly might
    Chase that worst phantom of the night! —
    Again returned the scenes of youth,
    Of confident undoubting truth;
    Again his soul he interchanged
    With friends whose hearts were long estranged.
    They come, in dim procession led,
    The cold, the faithless, and the dead;
    As warm each hand, each brow as gay,
    As if they parted yesterday.
    And doubt distracts him at the view —
    Oh, were his senses false or true?
    Dreamed he of death, or broken vow,
    Or is it all a vision now?

  32. Cathyvm Says:

    Oh and “very confirming”? Where exactly did you refute the sloppiness and general uselessness of the Western blot in determining the presence of antibodies to a pathogen in a real disease much less a nefarious, invented one?
    Oh, right, you DIDN’T! – Very confirming indeed!

    Meanwhile, over at Todd (I am a coward and I’ve run away with my tail between my oh so shapely legs” DeShong’s blugg he made this inane comment.

    “Farber mentions Astra-Zeneca, but does not say that they do not have the patent on the HPV vaccine, and therefore have no justification for “bribing” Nobel committee members.”

    Somebody posted this – and it checks out! I thought I’d preserve it here in case he deletes it.

    Dumbo-er said…
    Oh Deshong, what a tooly, tooly, tooly cretin you are:
    Read and weep you idiot.
    “Table 28: HPV vaccine royalty payments to AstraZeneca, 2007-13 ($m) 115”
    http://www.reportlinker.com/p091758/AstraZeneca-plc-PharmaVitae-Profile.html
    No, of course Astra Zeneca had “no financial ties” – I have some beachfront property in Kyrgyzstan I need to sell.

    As it turns out AstraZeneca bought out a company with prior claims on the HPV vaccine – information found with the humble Google in the space of a split second. I guess US$115 million wouldn’t be worth bunging a few quid towards some slathering “what me? No conflict of interest” Nobel committee sell-outs.

    Oh and as to the existance of David Crowe? Yes he exists and has more integrity in the corner of his little pinky nail than you have in your entire corpulent, industry-force-fed, foie gras-stuffed body. Just remember to have a suitable receptacle handy for all that egg heading towards your plump visage – rapid weight loss isn’t kind to flabby endomorphs.

  33. Cathyvm Says:

    “Existance” above should have had an “e”. I suffer from very poor low light vision brought on by Lasik eye surgery that made my vision worse than prior (good old modern medicine).
    Our poor wee (or not so) Sethie has neglected his own psychological discipline/teachings in that he is unable or unwilling to rise above the rather lowly (second of five) level in Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. He is stubbornly and undeniably stuck at the “safety” level of “security of body, of employment, of resources, of the family, of health, of property. [my emphasis]”
    Riding on the coattails as he is of the behemoth fraud of HIV-AIDS he is unable to aspire to Maslow’s (third or fourth levels notwithstanding) fifth supreme level of “morality, creativity, spontaneity, problem solving, lack of prejudice, acceptance of facts.” Because who is going to keep him and Moira in tax-payer and industry-funded Armani knickers otherwise?
    Actually, you have to feel pity for the undoubtedly conflicted wretch, who having been schooled in things like TA, Jung’s “Shadow” archetype, Freud’s Id, Rotter’s “locus of control”, and many other theories with which I choose not to bore our dear readers, still insists on acting against his own best mental health interests.
    Now c’mon Seth – don’t you think you’d feel a whole lot better if you started “owning” some of the crap you are projecting here?

  34. pat Says:

    seth,
    you have lost the plot like Deschlong. You might be able to charge Mbeki but the panel is legally unassailable for the simple reason that opinions cannot be considered criminal; unless you have them charged in N Corea that is. But let us forget that for a minute and look into your stillborn plan:
    Are you going to have Montagnier charged for crimes against humanity too? He was on the panel, remember? Are you going to charge Gallo also for failling to show up and defend the truth? Of course you are not. You are just another hysterical footsoldier itching for a target to shoot at. Get a grip.

  35. MacDonald Says:

    Dr. Seth must be DeShong’s twin. His new posting started its short life as a blog Comment. Upon re-reading it, Dr. Seth apparently was so impressed with his own wit that he decided to make it an independent post, which he couldnt wait for us to discover, but had to come here and tell us about to feel “confirmed”. That is Deshong’s MO exactly.

    And this is the guy who jokes about Rethinkers not having a very busy schedule?!

  36. Dr. Hope Says:

    Would all dissidents/rethinkers please sign up at CHANGE.ORG and vote on this issue:

    http://www.change.org/ideas/view/take_a_new_look_at_the_cause_of_aids

    Your vote is needed. Only a few more votes are needed to make this a prominent issue that will be forwarded to Obama.

    Take a new look at the cause of AIDS
    There is a growing group of doctors and scientists who believe the common understanding of the cause of AIDS is incorrect. It is not caused by a virus but instead by drug abuse and (in Africa) malnutrition. We need to fund research to show what is really happening with AIDS one way or the other. This is important because if the mainstream idea is wrong, patients are being given drugs with bad side effects for no reason, and at great cost. Africans are given the drugs instead of the food and clean water they need.We need an independent panel to manage fair and objective research trials. Please see the site: rethinkingaids.com

  37. Seth Kalichman Says:

    AIDS denialism is killing people who buy into the pseudoscience and conspiracy theories that it is built on. Brian Carter’s MSN Message Board tells it all.

    http://groups.msn.com/AIDSMythExposed/healthissues.msnw?
    action=get_message&mview=0&ID_Message=33487&LastModified=4675690813549783756

    Here is just one sad example from an HIV+ man who says he is a ‘dissident’ and is actually a victim of denialism as well as HIV infection.

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Hello everyone,

    I’ve been dealing with some symptoms now and over the past weeks they seem to be getting worse and I don’t know what do do.

    I have what appears to be oral hairy leukoplakia, which is the least of my concerns. I have been experiencing heavy fatigue and horrible heartburn. I can barely stay awake some days. I don’t smoke, drink, don’t take any medications etc., but I am stuck now between a rock and a hard place. There are NO doctors to go to, the Aliveandwell list seems to be a joke and that’s for a big metropolitan area like New York City!

    Any suggestions?

    >>>>>>>>

    For more on AIDS denialism, go to http://denyingaids.blogspot.com and http://www.aidstruth.org/new/

  38. Cathyvm Says:

    Seth I’m surprised you have the brass neck to show up here after your shameless sock puppetry display over on change.org. AIDS denialism is killing people? Please get a new string to you bow Mr Johnny One Note because it’s getting terribly boring. Answer the points put to you in the spirit of true debate or go away and kick sand around your own now deserted sandbox.

  39. Michael Geiger Says:

    Seth, it is well known that individuals protecting their livelihood and careers made by promoting hiv, such as yourself, quite regularly plant false and misleading posts at the AME site. Of course, when pressed for any information or evidence of the truth, they always seem to simply disappear.

    As such, I would have no doubt whatsoever that you yourself are one of the prime posters of the deception that you just posted here .

    By the way, Seth. Don’t you have something constructive to do? Such as to go begging again for your next NIH grant to “study the psychology of those who you continue to project your own disowned denialism upon?

  40. Seth Kalichman Says:

    Cathy, your explanation for the postings at the AME site provide the first example of denialism of denialism that I have seen.

    It is similar to the explanations of when denialists die that are collected at http://www.aidstruth.org/new/ which I have always considered some of the sadder examples of denialism.

    By the way, I have never posted anything at AME and I have never presented myself as a person living with HIV infection. Unlike AIDS denialists I would never mock people living with HIV/AIDS. I have a 20 year public record, which you have familiarized yourselves with, that proves I have never mocked people living with HIV/AIDS.

    But what is stunning is that there is no proof that your leading Rethinker, David Crowe, actually exists. No proof at all. Have you ever met him? Is it possible that an actor portrays him on the classic denialist videos? I have been searching for proof that he exists and no one can offer any.

    Is David Crowe a hoax?

    I know that Henry Bauer exists, there is proof…although unlike Bauer I do not believe the Lochness Monster exists.
    I know that Peter Duesberg, Harvey Bialy, David Rasnick, Christine Maggiore, and most every other leading AIDS denialist exists because there is proof. But not for David Crowe.

    Does it concern the AIDS denialists that David Crowe may actually be a front by Gary Null to sell vitamins? This was suggested by readers of my blog http://denyingaids.blogspot.com
    If you have proof that David Crowe exists, it would be great to see it.

  41. Seth Kalichman Says:

    Christine Maggiore has died.

    http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-christine-maggiore30-2008dec30,0,7407966.story

    I know that some readers of this page will think that her loss give me and other AIDS realists some sort fo pleasure.

    I can assure you it does not.

    I am very saddened about this. Not because she refused treatment, that was her right. But because of all of the unnecessary suffering she endured by her denialism, especially her losses as a mother. What a terrible waste.

    Please, think about what you are doing before you fire off your next posting. Words really do matter.

  42. Truthseeker Says:

    Seth, we met David Crowe in person in New York a couple of years ago, or at least a tall youngish man who looked very like his photo at the Alberta Reappraising AIDS site. In fact we have no doubt he exists. We have a photograph to prove it.

    The loss of Christine Maggiore is bad luck for the dissidents, since paradigm loyalists such as yourself will represent it as proof she “had AIDS”, when as you should be well aware, it was doubtful she was even “HIV positive”.

  43. MacDonald Says:

    Well Seth, your sincere assurances notwithstanding, it seems to give you some pleasure writing about dead people, since it’s a frequent theme of yours. In this case you rush to write everywhere of a woman you don’t know, who has died for yet undetermined reasons.

    Regardless what the future trurns up, that means you are now on record as an hypocrite who couldn’t wait to dance on another grave. Just remember that.

    I see you pretend to speak on behalf of all “AIDS realists”. Since words do matter, perhaps you could inform us if you were elected for that position?

    You mock many HIV positives dead and alive by calling them “denialists”.

    You are a liar and a hypocrite through and through, and you’re badly in need of a sensible diet and some exercise. Where’s your wife at these days?

  44. pat Says:

    it is disgusting how AidsTruthy wasted no time in listing her as an Aids-related pneumonia death when no one is yet privy to any medical records. Had she died in a car crash thay would probably say it was due to Aids-related dimentia. Seth wasted no time in making prophecy either I must say. Christine was right when she said that as an HIV+ person she will not be allowed to die as anything but an Aids-related death.

    They are not doctors nor scientists; they are now prophets indeed.

    RUN FOR YOU LIFE!!!

    Requiescat In Pace, Christine.

  45. MacDonald Says:

    Pat, just imagine, of all the nice things a supposedly educated, caring guy like Kalichman could have said, what was uppermost in his mind – or should I say nethermost – was a public assurance that another human being’s tragic death didn’t give him any pleasure.

    Just take a moment to let the sheer perversity of that sink in.

    Note also that the first official speculations concerning cause of death – that is, framing of the story – came from the LA Coroner’s office, whom Maggiore was scheduled to testify against. And that was out so quickly they could hardly have had time to check the pulse a second time.

  46. Seth Kalichman Says:

    Thanks Truthseeker.
    Your evidence that David Crowe exists is the first I have heard.
    Perhaps you can post it a brief comment at the Missing Denialist section of http://denyingaids.blogspot.com

  47. Cathyvm Says:

    Did I say “brass neck”? No, I’m having a de Bono moment. There is no word in the English language to describe Seth’s resounding lack of self-awareness.
    Perhaps he doesn’t actually read anything other than his own inconsequential and insufferably boring texts.
    MacDonald the sheer perversity of it has sunk in alright for those of us with some capacity for self-reflection but for Seth it was water of a duck’s back.
    Quack, quack, quack Seth. Waddle off now and analyse yourself for a change.

  48. Truthseeker Says:

    Denying the existence of David Crowe is on a par with denying the review of HIV/AIDS which reveals there is not a single good scientific reason now to suppose that HIV is the cause of any AIDS symptoms. We like to call such resistance to common sense and the scientific literature Denialism.

    For some reason there appears to be a Freudian slip in Mr K’s naming of his site, since denying reality seems to be a theme there, one would say, a tendency beside which the efforts of reformers to change the paradigm from the always unproven and unjustified HIVis/AIDS to HIVisnot/AIDS look like anti-Denialism indeed.

    But of course as we have said before the mark of narcissism in any domestic battle is to accuse the other of exactly what you are yourself, in line with the principle that attack is the best form of defense since it draws opponents away from your weakest points.

    But there is no question that the true Denialists in HIV/AIDS are its proponents and the paradigm goons that defend it with scientific nonsense and the kind of stink emanated from skunks when you kick them.

  49. Truthseeker Says:

    Seth, we have obliged by posting the above comment at your site with two paragraphs added as follows:

    We met David Crowe in person in a meeting in New York City two years ago, and have the photograph to prove it. But why should you even engage in this trivial and indefensible pose? Presumably only as a joking thrust against those who maintain the dread retrovirus doesn’t in fact exist as an entity of fixed makeup?

    Denying the existence of David Crowe if meant seriously is on a par with denying the literature review of HIV/AIDS which reveals there is not a single good scientific reason now to suppose that HIV is the cause of any AIDS symptoms. We at scienceguardian.com like to call such resistance to common sense and the scientific literature Denialism.

    For some reason there appears to be a Freudian slip in Mr K’s naming of his site, since denying reality seems to be a theme there, one would say, a tendency beside which the efforts of reformers to change the paradigm from the always unproven and unjustified HIVis/AIDS to HIVisnot/AIDS look like anti-Denialism indeed.

    But of course as we have said before the mark of narcissism in any domestic battle is to accuse the other of exactly what you are yourself, in line with the principle that attack is the best form of defense since it draws opponents away from your weakest points.

    But there is no question that the true Denialists in HIV/AIDS are its proponents and the paradigm goons that defend it with scientific nonsense and the kind of stink emanated from skunks when you kick them.

    None of this applies to the esteemed host of this blog, of course, however misguided his attempts to defend the indefensible.

  50. Seth Kalichman Says:

    Thanks for your comments.
    But there is still no proof that David Crowe exists.

    Who is his current employer?

    What public events has he attended?

    Has he published in a peer reviewed outlet that would not allow an imposter to assume an identity?

    Rebecca Culshaw exists, just call the math dept at UT-Tyler and they will tell you she no longer has her job. You might even talk to her husband, he still has his job.

    Henry Bauer exists (barely). Call VA-Tech and you can talk to colleagues of his… and man what they have to say about the resident pseudoscience expert!

    Who shall we call to verify that David Crowe exists? What University? What Corporation? What business?

    Can someone provide proof that David Crowe exists? Why can’t he provide proof himself!! ‘He’ has responded to the call, but offers no proof.

    Because ‘David Crowe’ is a central figure in my book Denying AIDS, I now worry that I was dooped into thinking he was real.

    If you can prove that David Crowe exists, visit http://denyingaids.blogspot.com and see what prizes await you…once you provide the proof.

  51. MacDonald Says:

    Seth, no doubt the joke gets funnier every time you tell it, but let’s face it, you are not going to sell any books regardless.

    If you really want to make us laugh, why don’t you post some nude photos of yourself. I’m sure your wife wouldn’t mind dropping the fig either, since you’re both in the business of prostituting yourselves.

  52. Cathyvm Says:

    Seth – “dooped”? Did you mean “duped” or “pooped”. No really, you parade yourself as a PhD and you don’t know how to spell what you mean (or is that smelled what you peed?). Whatever, your “does David Crowe exist”, never remotely funny in the first place, is worn so thin a Donald Trump toupe won’t cover it.
    Now I’m not officially a “psychologist” Seth but I suspect a bit of OCD behaviour here. Are you washing your hands 100+ times a day? Turning in a circle 3 times before opening a door? Blessing the Virgin Gastronomicus 35 times before placing a morsel in your (well, lets face it, overstuffed) mouth?
    Just to confirm my suspicions I called the University of Connecticut and it reinforced my worst fears. Your colleagues said (not even intimated here) that you are a sexual predator the likes of which has never been seen since Dennis Nielsen (or I believe in your neck of the woods it would be more appropriate to mention Jeffrey Dahmer).
    Anyhoo, (or is that anyhooped?)
    I think Seth you need to get some help.

    Umm, nooooo MacDonald – the clothed pictures are scary enough – can you imagine all that adiposity released? Ugh!

  53. Truthseeker Says:

    “Rebecca Culshaw exists, just call the math dept at UT-Tyler and they will tell you she no longer has her job. You might even talk to her husband, he still has his job.”

    Seth Kalichman, are you not aware that if someone loses their job, as you put it, as a result of being hounded by an ignorant pack of thieves for speaking the truth as she sees it, the actions of these people flout our nation’s Constitution which guarantees free speech, breaks one of the fundamental rules on which any respectable academy is founded, is against a basic principle of good science (that claims must be freely discussed and reviewed) and is ethically abhorrent to all decent people, let alone a crime against the public interest, which demands that scientific claims on which huge public spending is posited must be freely discussed and reviewed, and political and social means of repressing such discussion and protecting such claims from review might be counted criminal and prosecuted in a court of law for misleading the keepers of the public purse and fraudulently obtaining public funding with statements the applicants know are possibly or even probably (in this case certainly) false.

    You didn’t know any of this, but boast of such activity?

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.


Bad Behavior has blocked 1244 access attempts in the last 7 days.