Dueling Scientists at Amazon!

There is a great book about the scientific times of Dr. Peter Duesberg, called Oncogenes, Aneuploidy & AIDS by our pal, Doc Bialy. Even if you have no scientific background, it is a fascinating read about one of the last great scientists in America.

Now, go check the reviews of the book at Amazon. Focus on two reviews by some contemporay scientists. The first is by Nobel Prize winner, Dr. Kary Mullis.

Why has Peter Duesberg, one of the smartest, imaginative, hard working, and honest biological scientists of the last fifty years, had such a rough time convincing other people and spreading his irrefutably superior ideas in the areas of cancer and AIDS? Why is Peter not incredibly successful and loved as an indefatigable thinker and keeper of the scientific faith? It is a mystery why this man is not a famous and well-funded director of an influential institute leading our young scientists.

Harvey Bialy has been around Peter and molecular biology for forty odd years, observing and collecting notes, and now he tells the intriguing story. I think it is important, because Peter is one in a million never to be repeated again.

His story, predicted by Jean-Paul Sartre when he pronounced somewhere that we all make our own hell out of the people around us, is told up-close and brilliantly by Bialy.
It is about humans taking on a vast responsibility, with the usual suspects - money, glory, and stubbornness. Unfortunately only an insignificant fraction of them seem concerned with the mission of saving lives. Bialy tries to remember it all, with some of the raw edges chewed back by time as he wisely allows the unsavory characters to hoist on their own inelegant petards.

It is a well-told tale with the humor of a sympathetic observer, a humor that reminds me not a little of the same incorruptible humor of his protagonist, Peter Duesberg - head and shoulders above the competition in so many ways, but unable to pull it off. He seems to know that something has damned him to that space, but maintains nevertheless a vital resignation in that razor sharp cortex, which misrepresents nothing and would never in a fair hearing be called on to answer for misdeeds. We meet a lot of the contenders in this well researched and deeply considered book, their powers and their fallibilities - their own statements a most readable report.

I recommend it to anyone who cares to be entertained or educated in the details of how the science of cancer or AIDS has been done in this last half century. But it is far more than that. It is a window cracked not just on Peter's travails but on all of the science and sorcery since the invention of money. A long winter's tale.

Pretty good, no?

Scroll down a bit. Compare Dr. Mullis' insightful prose to that of another scientist -- our pal, John Moore.

It is hard to imagine that this book was actually written by a professional scientist. The author displays only his ignorance and his prejudices when championing the extraordinary argument that HIV does not cause AIDS. This theory, of course, is utter nonsense, but it is a nonsense that was created by Peter Duesberg, the maverick scientist who is the focus of the book. Hence the author is writing a hagiography of one of his heroes, not a fair and accurate representation of the scientific facts and moral truths about HIV/AIDS. The book should therefore be read (or preferably not read) in that political context: it appeals to the small clique of AIDS denialists who think like the author does, and it should be ignored by anyone who respects science and the truth. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and when it comes to HIV and AIDS, the author and his hero are prime examples of the aphorism in practice. For factual information on HIV/AIDS, interested people should consult http://www.XXXX.XXX or the NIAID's web-site, amongst other bona fide resources.

So, which scientist makes the better, more clearer observations based on facts?  Which scientist has actually read and analyzed the book, and which scientist is merely offering pointless twaddle to pimp an obscure website?

Amazon asks, Was Moore's review helpful to you?  Tough call, but.......HELL NO:)

Comments

[George]

I suspect it was, and will be very useful to Bialy however!

I further posit as a testable hypothesis that Moore is an insurgent sleeper in very deep cover that has now been told to wake up.

[Schwarz]

This Mullis fellow seems like my type of guy. I'm gonna order his book and the Bialy book. Maybe some summer reading on the beach.

[Lawstud6]

This Moore guy, does he have a significant other? Has he been laid in the past 40 years? Me thinks not!

Lawstud out!

[Dan]

Hank,
I've found that different people have their own personal "triggers" that get them to wake up and start questioning this HIV/AIDS scam.

So many of us focus on the "science", as if that alone was all this thing is about. It isn't. I hammered one of my coworkers with all of the paradoxes in the "AIDS" paradigm with only mild effect. When we got into the money and politics of "AIDS", he became keenly interested, and opened up immensely to the idea that this is all a sham. For me, originally, it was the psychology that kept me from completely allowing myself to be taken in.

Each of us has different "triggers". So, as Dr. Bialy has pointed out, Dr. Moore's empty rants coming from a supposed place of medical authority may wake up a lot of people who might not otherwise be open to simply hearing about all of the inconsistencies involved with the "science". I don't think Dr. Bialy is joking when he states how important Mr. Moore has become to "our side". His emotional rants may get a certain number of people to open up to questioning this.

[Lawstud6]

Dan:

Exactly! Moore is not the quite confident type and, you are spot on, that his rants belie his weakness. The science should be the strongest arbiter of who pervails on the argument, but following the money ususally gets one to the same place. Moore uses the current political weapon of name calling. In law school we were told to argue the facts and if that doesn't work, then argue the law and if that too doesn't work call the other side names. Moore is obviously in that mode. Shame on him.

Lawstud

[HankBarnes]

Dan & Lawstud,

Hey, some cogent observations!

It seems to me there are 3 important groups on this:

1. The scientists who have figured out the HIV scam

2. The victims -- mostly gay men -- who have been stigmatized as HIV+ and struggle whether to take the drugs or not;

3. The almost-victims -- again, mostly gay men -- who rejected the the pressure and kept away from the entire AIDS apparatus.

So, for different groups, Yes, definitely there are different triggers.

The corruption of science, the greed of Big Pharma, the alternative, tofu-eating, bean sprout enema crowd -- there are a million different angles to view this problem.

HB

[John]

As I mentioned to Dr. Bialy, I believe that Moore's review will indeed be "helpful" in the grand scheme. People flock to controversy. Look what happens every time the religious right comes out swinging against a movie, a piece of music or a book. Their most recent fiasco was the stident attacks on The Da Vinci Code. Net result - over $200 million in worldwide ticket sales the first week of release. Does anyone really believe the movie would have done anywhere close to that without major organized religion's thoughtful advertising campaign. Hell, if I hadn't read Dr. B's masterpiece of science, Moore would have convinced ME to go take a closer look!

[noreen martin]

Tofu, bean-srpouting, edema crowd, classic, a good laugh. All of the above comments are correct. Let's hope that the pot stays stirred up and at some point everything will come out in the wash.

Best, Noreen

[HankBarnes]

John,

Da Vinci Code? Man, was Tom Hanks havin' a bad hair day or what?:)

Hank