Here's a "new" web-site -- constructed by our friend, John Moore. Is he a 19-year old dweeb with plenty of time from his dorm room? No, amazingly, he is a professor of immunology at Cornell. The mind is boggled.
Anyway, if you troll around his site, you see some fairly interesting things -- in addition to his whiny, pliant, UNPUBLISHED letters to Harpers.
Two things struck this old eagle eye:
1. There is a link, entitled, Facts, Resources & Links . It directs you to the U.S. Government -- the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, known as NIAID. The page lists a buncha nice, friendly web-sites .......including, surprise, surprise, .....
Moore's own site: AIDStruth.org: Website presents the scientific evidence that HIV is the cause of AIDS and that benefits of antiretroviral drugs (ARVs) outweigh the risks.
Hmm. Kinda cozy, there John. Is this some kind of scientific mobia strip? A perpetual "I'll-scratch-your-back-you-scratch-my-back" machine? How did Sir John so swiftly get in tight with the Feds with his embarrasing, piss-poor web-site?
2. Then, there's Moore's 5th or 9th or 11th screed about Harpers (frankly we've lost count), with the usual cosmic and scientific laments about this and that, wrapped up in feeble ad hominem attacks, poor manners, free of ANY citations to the literature, and a few pot-shots at Rodger Hodge, the courageous young editor of Harpers. Yeah, yeah John. We get the drift -- you were denied a free lunch and published letter and you're upset. Well, get over it. But, again, in the midst of his incoherent rambling mess, is another gem:
Hodge's quotes in Gay City News reveal that he still sees AIDS denialism as something honorable, a case of the little guy taking on the big bad wolves of the federal government and the pharmaceutical industry, standing up to be counted, risking it all for the sake of the truth and freedom of speech. If this were true, Hodge would have the full support of all of us, for we share this predisposition. We, like most scientists and AIDS activists, are liberals and progressives. That's why it's so difficult for us to accept that Harper's Magazine, a journal aimed at liberal intellectuals, would print Farber's article.
We are liberals and progressives?!!?
Did I read that correctly?
Who's "we" kimo sabe?:)
And, more importantly, since when are liberals and progressives: (1)Paid stooges of the Pharmaceutical Industry, (2) scientific henchmen of George Bush's National Institute of Health principally devoted to promoting toxic prescription drugs for phantom diseases, and (3) vicious character assassins of authors, editors and scientists who resist this massive industrial/medical putsch towards junk science?
The rules are hereby waived. We hereby confer, in perpetuity, upon John Moore -- our liberal and progressive John Moore -- the high honor of Scientific Schmuck of the 21st Century!
Hi Hank,
Isn't "phantom diseases" a little sloppy?
Surely, you don't claim that AIDS is a phantom disease?
But, aside from that, I like your spunk and your humor.
Posted by: Schwartz | April 26, 2006 at 02:11 PM
Hi Schwartz,
Fair point. "Phantom" is a poor adjective. It is actually a reclassification and aggregation of old diseases.
The term "AIDS" has become so emotionally loaded, that it is rendered meaningless.
Lemme explain.
I had tuberculosis once. Nobody cares.
I had pneumonia once. Nobody cares.
My beloved Aunt had cervical cancer once (and died from it). We all cared.
For the tuberculosis, you treat it.
For the pneumonia, you treat it.
For cervical cancer, you (try) to treat it.
None of this is political, emotional, confusing, conflicted.
Yet, in the presence of a purported HIV antibody, if you have any of the above 3 diseases (and 26 more), you now have AIDS!
And, the treatment shifts, abruptly to killing a virus with chemotherapy that is so sparse, doctors can't even culture it.
AIDS is like the United Nations of disease -- a group of several unrelated, disparate diseases, now cobbled together under the same rubric.
The only "new" thing is the purpoted mechanism of disease -- virus=>loss of T4-cells=> Tuberculosis=AIDS.
Of course, this presents a "new" opportunity to sell "new" drugs to address this "new" mechanism.
I have some serious concerns about whether steps 1 & 2, really add anything to health equation, and whether we should address the SYMPTOMS, not all these unreliable diagnostic tests --particularly the viral load and T4-cell counts.
In the alternative, find ways to boost the immune system, rather than chasing the virus, might be better as well.
Hank Barnes
Posted by: HankBarnes | April 26, 2006 at 02:33 PM
Hank, you're doing an awesome job. Keep it up. I'm posting here to announce my retirement from the blogosphere on this issue. I'm being attacked from both sides now, and I find it's time to leave. Perhaps I'll write about this again in the actual press at some point, perhaps not. But you keep it up. I've referred a lot of folks to your site. Thank you for what you are doing. Email me if you want a strand of emails I have with Gregg Gonsalves of GMHC -- they're priceless, like the Moore strand, but I don't have it in me after all these attacks to continue. I'd gladly turn them over to you, though. Best wishes always,
Mark Biernbaum
Posted by: Mark Biernbaum | April 26, 2006 at 03:49 PM
Hola Hank,
Felicidades of the morphogenesis of "Barnes-ville".
Are you sure that this John Moore fellow is not an internet clone of "Dale/Daf/Nick double not doc Bennett/Dickhead Dick Jeffries / the XX almost clone, the dangerous assistant professor Smith and a few others of low intellect but high bloviation indices that we have come to know over the last year in the marvelous blogosphere?
Posted by: Harvey "Prof. Tryptophan" Bialy | April 30, 2006 at 12:48 PM
Hey, it's my pal, the mad doctor, Professor Tryptophan!
Otherwise, known as one of the few good doctors!
Long time, no talk Senor Harvey!
As for Dale/Daf/NicK Bennett, nah, I ain't seen 'em.
I haven't seen Richard Jeffreys for a while, since we tussled at John Blackman's place, Evolutionary Middleman.
I've never seen John Moore. But, I've read much of crappy work!
He wrote an ugly review of Duesberg in Nature, a while back.
Perhaps, they are all one hellish, amorphous blob of bad scientific intellect -- like the creature in John Carpenter's "The Thing!"
Hell, I don't know even know what I'm talking about:) It's early Sunday -- I oughta be in church.
But, I wish you good health and good cheer, Harvey, and hope to see you pop up here in the future.
Best Regards,
Hank B.
Posted by: Hank | April 30, 2006 at 01:02 PM