John Moore Lamely Rejoins the Amazon Wars! (Part 2)

Ok, we continue.

Frazzled by his self-inflicted "knee-slapping gaffe" over Margulis, Moore gathers his composure and returns -- 17 hours later. Here's what he writes to me.

Hank,

If you actually bothered to read what I wrote, you would see that I said I didn't know who wrote the review that Bialy referred to (by surname only), as I couldn't be bothered looking up the Amazon site any more. That remains the case: I'm no longer interested in the Amazon reviews as, like I say, we've now moved on to more important denialists than Bialy, who's ancient history. Dr Margulis can hold whatever views she wants; they don't alter the facts of HIV causing AIDS.

John

Notice how he slyly substitutes "surname" instead of "Margulis" to suggest it was an innocent mistake. A crafty, little devil, ain't he? So, I'm thinking, hmm, maybe in his frazzled state, he will engage me on the merits. I throw a few harmless jabs, but then I get into some substance. Here's my response:

Nice recovery, John. But did you really need a full 18 hours to formulate that tepid response?

You write:

"I couldn't be bothered looking up the Amazon site any more"

Well, you wrote 2 reviews of Bialy's book there. You possibly entreated Mario Stevenson to write a third. Seems kind of abrupt for you to go cold turkey all of a sudden -- regardless of your claimed reasons.

You write:

"Dr Margulis can hold whatever views she want;.."

Yes, but why would you waste 8 words stating something so obvious and meaningless?

"...they don't alter the facts of HIV causing AIDS."

Well, humor me on these 3 simple questions. You're a self-professed Colonel  in the AIDS War. It shouldn't too hard.

(1) What paper would you cite that first demonstrated the "fact" that HIV causes AIDS?


(2) What paper would you cite that tested the competing hypotheses that: (a) HIV was a pathogenic virus and (b) HIV was a passenger virus?

(3) What evidence would falsify your claim that HIV causes AIDS?

As Always,

Hank

These are 3 neutral questions that should be posed to every single person on the planet who insists that HIV is the sole cause of AIDS. If they cannot or will not answer these questions, then you can rightfully confirm poseur status on the person in question.

So, how did Sir John answer these simple, basic, fundamental questions? We shall see!

[More to Follow]

Comments

[Dean Esmay]

What I'd guess he's trying to do here is write to whatever heads of journals like Science or Nature, plus whatever reporters will listen to him at places like the Washington Post and the New York Times, to try to get them to a "damaging" piece on all of this.

[noreen martin]

Hank, I like the 3 questions to ask, I am sure that I will use them often. Just wanted to let you know that the interview has made a differecne. Another female read it, has contacted me and has a similiar story. These blogs are making a difference. It makes it easier for others to tell their story.

Best,
Noreen

[Dan]

"like I say, we've now moved on to more important denialists than Bialy, who's ancient history"

I find this statement difficult to believe.

Really, how many "important denialists" are there?