My Photo

Bulletin Board

December 2008

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31      


  • The NIH Keeps Up With The Times: 1, 2, 3. David Baltimore Has A Flashback: ***. The NY Times Keeps Up With Times: ***. The Faith of Anthony Fauci: ***. Anthony Fauci Explains How HIV Causes AIDS: ***. Robert Gallo on The Force of Ejaculation: ***, on HIV Theory: ***, Lectures in Marseilles: ***. David Ho Does The Math: ***. John Mellors Sets the Record Straight: ***. Bono, el Magnifico, Holds (Another) Press Conference: ***. Anthony Fauci Explains Journalism in the Age of AIDS: ***. Anthony Fauci and David Ho Disprove an Old Adage: ***. Anthony Fauci Explains ICL and AIDS: *** The CDC Can't Keep Up With The Times:*** The Method of the "Small Inquisitor" Moore:*** The Co-Discovery of a Nobel-Worthy Enzymatic Activity:*** The Revenge of the "Very" Minor Moriarty:*** Julie Gerberding and Anthony Fauci Learn Arithmetic:*** Osama Obama Has a Message for Africa:***

Bad Manners and Good Gossip

« I Question the AIDS Orthodoxy | Main | John Moore Lamely Rejoins the Amazon Wars! (Part 1) »

July 18, 2006


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Reasoned, dispassionate, fair, balanced and unemotional. WHAT A CONCEPT! Duesberg and Bialy are victims of the MSM (mainstream media) and those few who, as we learned in law school, call the other side names when the law and the facts are against them. Extreme mega Kudos to Doc Margulis.

Lawstud, out.


Margullis leads the way in evolutionary thinking, pushing the mainstream to rethink and recant their cherished (and quite recent but nearly religious) view that all material species evolution must be the result of some sort of accidental gene drift, (like so much sediment drifting to the bottom of the lakebed is responsible for all geographical forms on the earth's surface).

She has also been occasionally villified for pushing this boundary, and for identifying the earth as an organism, essentially.

She has maintained that she is not a creationist or an I.D.'er - and she is not - but one knows in reading her work that she is no close-minded reductionist, intent on creating popular science in order to reflect popularized, dogmatized, fossilized theories.

She reports from deep observation and wide experience. A lesson for all in the sciences - and quite the exception to the current trend in specialization ad absurdium, that dominates (and is destroying) our cherished sciences.

The world is certainly a living place to her, and her wonderful work reflects it.

I recommend her fun and involving "Five Kingdoms," as well as "Microcosmos" (which describes the symbiogenesis hypothesis) but I especially like "Acquiring Genomes".

All available at Amazon:

Is it any wonder that one who looks widely and deeply across the many connected (and artifically isolated) fields of science, can easily and clearly see the forced, warped and degenerate foundation of the much belabored standard one-cause AIDS paradigm?

Cheers, Lynn! Hero of the day, to say the least.


post script - and while we're talking about great science and great women, I'd like to throw everyone a line to the gap-bridging work of Barbara McClintock. Her biography, "A Feeling For the Organism," is very good, very readable, and still thorough. Her Nobel speech is available online, as are some of her papers, for the intrepid.


Hey Liam,

Margulis is one of the biggies. Independent-minded, formulating hypotheses --testing them -- exhibiting a rare, healthy, open-minded skepticism towards various sacred cows.

Clearly, she is one of the best science has to offer.

These AIDS stooges should take notice on how its SUPPOSED to be done.


p.s. I wonder what Barbara McClintock thinks about the viral theory of AIDS and Duesberg's critique thereon?

Dean Esmay

Nice to see others noticing the great Barbara McClintock, and noticing her similarity to Margulis.

I wouldn't be surprised to see Margulis herself win the Nobel one day. Not for anything she has to say about Duesberg of course, but rather her groundbreaking work on evolutionary biology and eukaryotic cells. Not to mention being one of the only period to seriously change the dynamic of evolutionary biology (and for standing up to the Neo-Darwinian bullies, to use her own phrasing!).


Wow - great! Readers of McClintock and Margulis. Two of the best.

I suppose the question has to be "what *would* Barbara McClintock *have thought* of the AIDS mafia...", as she has departed to that other place.

Here's her Nobel speech - but by golly, have a look at that book.

banquet speech:
nobel lecture:

She understood the movement of genetic material in cells like she heard the strands singing, or saw them in colors, or shades, or patterns of movement.

It was, at least it seems that she was nearly (forgive me for speculating) but nearly native american or aboriginal, in an interior sense, in her relationship with the small parts of the natural world.

There are wonderful passages from colleague interviews in "A Feeling for the Organism"

Her direction was chasm spanning - she was rewarded for her work with the Nobel accordian some twenty-five (or was it more?) years after the doing the work for which it was awarded.

It is possible to say that she worked so far outside of the limits of her paradigm, that she almost failed to be recognized for what she was observing. Life is alive, deeply, profoundly, intrinsically - expressive, creative, active. And so, even the genes can't sit still, and like to move and jump and rearrange.


It's a very eloquent, thoughtful book review.

Who'd have thought that a book review page at Amazon would become "ground zero" for an AIDS debate?


Bialy maybe?


Look at this Moore!

Dragged back like a closeted sado-masochist to the Reeperbahn!

What will be left of his credibility at the NIH-newsletter (NY Times)?

And by credibility, I mean, well, whatever-the-hell passes for medical investigative work at that sorrowful dog-trainer.

James  MacAllister

I must correct an assertion made about Prof. Margulis. She does not identify the earth as an organism. She would say that no organism survives eating its own waste products. She thinks the Earth is an ecosystem (and perhaps the only complete one. Her colleague, James Lovelock, the author of the Gaia Hypothesis, does refer to the Earth as an organism, but this is metaphorical--to counter the conventional notion that Earth is just a "pile of rocks". Lovelock is a brilliant scientist and one or the most inventive minds on the planet. He too knows the difference between the scientific definitions or organism and ecosystem.


James MacAllister,

Welcome, Sir! We really enjoyed your review with Dr. M of Bialy's book.

Not to be overly obsequious, but we also think y'all are the best science has to offer. Keep up the great work. We hope to see you show up here every now and then.

Listen up, Boneheads:

The Earth is NOT an Organism. Repeat NOT an organism. It is an ECOSYSTEM!

Anyone who confuses the two, will be henceforth banned!


James  MacAllister

Thanks for the welcome. Prof. Margulis is the author of the Bialy review. I just did some editing and share the view.

My background is three decades as a producer and writer of programs about various medical topics. At 58, I am currently a non-degree graduate student working on a documentary about what science is and what it is not, the methods of science, and the effects on science of the cultural zeitgeist. Prof. Margulis pointed me to the HIV-AIDS controversy.

Like most people, I assumed that AIDS was caused by a virus called HIV and dismissed Duesberg out of hand without even reading his book. Eventually, I read Bialy, then Duesberg, then everything I could find. I will be the first to admit, there's a lot of technical stuff I do not understand in the literature. I do not know if HIV causes AIDS or not. But what I do know (subjectively as a writer who had to translate complex medical topics into plain English) is that the folks who question the HIV-AIDS hypothesis do a much better job of presenting clear, logical arguments with citations to the primary science literature than do the folks who do not question the HIV-AIDS hypothesis.

I note that to be science, the research on HIV-AIDS would be as interested in falsifying the hypothesis as proving it. I could be wrong, but that does not seem to be the case. Duesberg on the other hand, suggests ways of testing his ideas.

I also note that things that might cast doubt on the veracity of individuals, such as Robert Gallo's "co-discovery" of Montaigne's virus or his lucrative patent from the AIDS test are strangely absent when the folks who believe that HIV is the cause of AIDS are telling their truths.

The absence of citations to primary scientific literature in the NIAID Fact Sheet "The Evidence That HIV Causes AIDS", not to mention the misrepresentations and omissions it contains just smells funny.

I also think that designation of the HIV virus as the cause of AIDS and the patenting of the AIDS test preceding the evidence being published, peer reviewed, and reproduced is not a practice that gives me great confidence. What are the odds of this being a lucky guess?

I'm not convinced that the various AIDS tests are proof of infection by HIV because I cannot find any study that documents HIV being purified. Given the manufacturers' disclaimers on these products, their use as diagnostic tools is clearly "off label". I wonder if this fact is shared with people being given their status as HIV+?

So you see, I have doubts, intuition, questions, appraisals and curiosity. Like you, I await convincing evidence.



This is a great, sober, reasoned assessment.

Who could possibly deem it controversial?

And, yet, if you were make this exact same comment to folks at the NIH, NCI, NAIDS -- they would
besmirch you, calling you a "Denialist" and then they would
exhibit Houdini-like mental gymnastics, trying to dodge your questions.

This is a good comment. Unless you object, I'm going to elevate this to the front page



James MacAllister

Fine by me.

noreen martin

James, you have well articulated how many of us feel. I am going to take a copy of it to my new, resident doctor who I will meet next month. Like most, he or she will be unaware of any controversy on the matter.

Hank, my two, environmental doctors listened to what I had to say and were impressed. They know that I am doing quite well without the meds. There is hope yet!


James MacAllister

Just found somethings on the subject of giving pertinent information to patients about the AIDS tests. The link is:

"A recent lawsuit
questions the HIV story"
by Kim Marie Bannon. Quoting the article:

"When I asked for copies of my own medical records, I found that the “confirmation” Western Blot (WB) test that I was given when I was diagnosed contains the following language which no one bothered to tell me previously:

'Indicates possible infection by virus. Viremia may be present. Positive results are not diagnostic of AIDS. Biologic false positives still possible in some select cases… Follow up testing may be advised if clinical findings are discordant with test results.'”

Two items about the HIVNET 012 study which should be read and compared when judging motivations for Dr. Fishbein's whistle blower lawsuit. A the new reappraisal of the quality of science of the HIVNET 012 study. The first is at

"Oral deposition of Mary Ann Luzar, Chief, Regulatory Affairs Branch, DAIDS, before the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, in the case of Jonathan M. Fishbein, M.D. v. Tommy Thompson, Secretary, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the National Institutes of Health, EEOC No: 120-2005-0038X, Agency No: NIAID-2004-0004, Tuesday, December 14, 2004."

this links to the document at:

I would suggest reading the entire deposition, but I call everyone's attention to the part from bottom of page 42line 15 Q "Can you describe the level..." through page 47 line 6-7 A "So this was becoming the standard of how not to conduct a trial in our circles."

Then read the next article headlined on the website. Linked to the document at:

The National Academies online News article of April 7, 2005.

"Contacts: Christine Stencel, Media Relations Officer
Megan Petty, Media Relations Assistant
Office of News and Public Information
202-334-2138; e-mail


Findings From Perinatal HIV Prevention Study in Uganda are Valid, New Review Says.

"The data from the HIVNET 012 study, which showed that nevirapine effectively prevents many infants from contracting HIV from their infected mothers, are sound and reliable," said James Ware, chair of the committee that wrote the report, and professor of biostatistics, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston. "None of the shortcomings that we discovered upon reviewing the data and conducting our own original analysis of source documents indicates a need to retract or discount the study's findings. Our confidence in the trial's data and findings is based on several factors, including evidence that the study's design was both scientifically sound and ethically implemented, that participants adhered well to the treatment regimens, and that a high percentage of participants remained in the study so that the effectiveness and safety of the drug could be thoroughly assessed."

James MacAllister

I apologize. Word ate the link to the last article "Findings From Perinatal HIV Prevention Study in Uganda are Valid, New Review Says."

The link is:


Greetings Hank et al,

I am Jimmy Gatt, a gay man and an HIV/AIDS dissenter. I came across this position years ago when I actually started reading the alleged evidence that has been put forth by the HIV/AIDS orthodoxy. Needless to say, I think it sucks and am happy to find others who agree with me, particularly since I learned that saying that I don't believe that HIV causes AIDS is about a million times more offensive to some people than saying that I don't believe in Jesus Christ. This blog has been added to the blogroll and I will return to comment on what goes on.

Celia Farber, you rock. I count myself honored to be in your e-presence.

Liam Scheff, you rock. Your reports make me weep, but only because you're brave enough to report on AIDS: the Religion of Death.

Dean Esmay, I'm glad to have you here with me despite the fact that I earnestly wish you would turn the same critical eye that you have aimed at HIV/AIDS toward ....

If there is one and only one thing that I would like to impress upon all the readers here, it is STAY ON TOPIC. And the topic is: What is the scientific evidence which supports the HIV/AIDS theory? If you see the behavior of the HIV/AIDS cheerleaders in this forum, you'll easily notice that answering questions regarding their crappy "evidence" is the absolute LAST thing they wish to do. (But they sure can make a bunch of noise about logical fallacies! Care to talk evidence next time, Skeptico?) Their reluctance to discuss evidence is easy to comprehend: it is the area where they are the weakest. All of their impressive titles and big money will not stand up to the light of reason, and that is why we must remember to squish the petty bedbugs of our emotions (and who doesn't have angry feelings about this?) and remain committed to the cause: science.

Do not let them sidetrack you into meaningless discussions. Force them to answer: How do you know that my antibodies are NOT cross-reacting given that the antigens are well-known to be polyclonal and, thus, antibodies promiscuous? Force them to answer: How do you know that the "HIV proteins" came from HIV? If the orthodoxy is right, then they will be able to answer us and we should submit to the evidence. If they are wrong, then their evasions, insults, and weasel words will betray them. And who here hasn't seen that nasty, juvenile behavior from the orthodoxy, no matter how many pompous titles they have?

HIV/AIDS delenda est!

Jimmy Gatt


great post!

If you see the behavior of the HIV/AIDS cheerleaders in this forum, you'll easily notice that answering questions regarding their crappy "evidence" is the absolute LAST thing they wish to do.

As a layperson, I find that just getting the AIDS promoters to stick to correct language and definitions can be challenging! I think we need to be persistent, otherwise we get drawn into long-winded tangents regarding related scientific minutiae (which I'm sure is just what they wanted to happen), and losing the heart of the argument.



I totally understand how you feel, because it's happened to me, too. We lay persons are at a significant disadvantage because an HIV/AIDS Priest can easily exploit many techniques which can quickly silence folks like us who have legitimate doubts. Consider the following response given by HIV/AIDS Priest Robin Weiss regarding isloation of HIV:

The important thing is serial propagation of the microbe. Koch and Petri over 700 [70] years ago 'purified' bacteria by propagating them as colonies (clones) on gelatin in Petri's dishes - nowadays we use agar-agar with nutrients in place of gelatin. Did Koch purify the microbes. Yes in his and my terms, maybe not in yours. Certainly he did purify [?not] them by biophysical methods such as sucrose gradients, but nothing else kept reproducing itself on the 'impure' nutrients. So it is the same for viruses. As intercellular [intracellular] parasites, of course, they can only be propagated in living cultured cells (or in plants, animals or humans) but one can 'plague-purify' them - a term dating from early bacteriophage studies in the 1920s. Animal viruses were similarly plague-purified: polio in 1952; vaccinia around 1955. We used a plaque 'purification' or biological cloning technique for HIV in 1989. No, these were not physically pure, but they were biologically pure, ie they were cloned. Molecular cloning, however, as I mentioned already is one step better. Both methods to my mind, are sufficiently purified to draw scientific conclusions, although one must be cautious not to draw conclusions beyond the validity of the data, including the kind of purity, biological, molecular, chemical or physical.

(Note Robin Weiss putting quotes around the term "purification". This is a tell.)

Robin Weiss here can exploit several weaknesses we have: 1) our lack of knowledge about scientific procedures, 2) our lack of knowledge about NEW scientific procedures, 3) our inability to observe what he observes. These things are intimidating, and rightly so! Which one of us wants to talk out of our ass and promote the antithesis of science as an ersatz healthy skepticism?

To answer Robin Weiss, it often takes someone who knows much more than we do. This interview was answered by Valender Turner of The Perth Group, and I highly suggest you read it if you have not done so yet.

EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE Between Val Turner and Robin Weiss

By the way, if you want the answer to why Robin Weiss is wrong about his "purification" of HIV, his methods of "purification" involve propagation of matter but say nothing about the ORIGIN of the matter being propagated. I might as well take some proteins from my own skin, propagate it through molecular cloning, and then claim that the resultant proteins are "purefied" proteins of a unique retrovirus. This is the shit that passes as "science" in HIV/AIDS research and it disgusts me, and it's important for me to suppress that disgust so that the evidence alone will damn the evildoers.


We lay persons are at a significant disadvantage because an HIV/AIDS Priest can easily exploit many techniques which can quickly silence folks like us who have legitimate doubts

the techniques they use are the same techniques used in debates for hundreds of years. Luckily, there's nothing new there.

Tactics include: intimidation, obfuscation, changing language, changing definitions, non-sequitors, straw-men, the list goes on. But the biggest one they use is peddling religion as science. As long as the public thinks it's science, they're easily duped.


Jimmy, the techniques they use are the same techniques used in debates for hundreds of years.

I agree with you. Same bullshit, different day is another way to say it.

As long as the public thinks it's science, they're easily duped.

It's statements like that (and I made one of those statements, too!) that are starting to make me feel wary of the term "science". It becomes quasi-religous in its usage and has been abused many times. I think that I'm moving away from using it and relying on the works "reason" and "evidence" since those convey precisely what I mean: reason and evidence. Just a thought.

The comments to this entry are closed.


  • Comments are regarded as letters to the editor. They are subject to the same policies as the NY Times and Nature, and are not published until after editorial review.
Blog powered by Typepad