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

« Big Pharma Discovers Cancer | Main | Dr. Darin Brown Shoots and Scores! »

June 09, 2006


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


"The science community does not "debate" with the AIDS denialists"

Actually, that quote of Moore's is quite untrue, as you know, Hank. Maybe there's no big, moderated public debate, but there are plenty in the "science community" who debate with the "denialists".



Good point. I don't like the term "Denialist" -- I think its slanderous. Ironically, I don't even "deny" HIV causes AIDS, I just think its an open question, and should be reevaluated.

Moore is a psychopath. He's part of the AIDS machine that killed 300,000 -- mostly gay men -- from dangerous overprescription of AZT.

True, I'm not a gay man, but I feel morally obligated to press the issue, so I do. We oughta have a Nuremburg type trial, and put some these assholes like Moore, Gallo, Baltimore, Fauci on the stand.

Hank B.


"Denialists" is a damned ugly word, Hank. As Mark Biernbaum (and others) have pointed out, that's a term that we know from our WWII history. It's used for people who claim the holocaust never happened.

For them to use this word shows how weak of character they are. They MEAN for it to be something so ugly. They also use it as a near-instant way of cutting off debate. It's been incredibly effective for them that way. Just label somebody a "denialist" and their point of view is automatically deemed meritless.


re calling folks denialists

I dunno if its effective, though. To me, its extremely weak. There must be thousands of people who are genuinely curious about the issue, let alone the thousands who take HAART and know that it is debillitating and toxic.

Simply stated, Why did they prescribe AZT for nearly 10 years?Why are there so many HIV+ folks who never take drugs and are completely healthy? Why did they
blacklist Duesberg? Why does the President of South Africa refuse to give his people AZT? Why do these supposedly neutral scientists defer to Pharmaceutical interests?

So many unanswered questions?

Aside from the human tragedy, intellectually, it is a vibrant area of inquiry.

They can call me anything they want, I ain't going anywhere. Tom Clancy once wrote: "Beware the fury of the patient man"



the moore comments are vacuous. i would expect much more from a scientist.

duesberg got this one right. i don't trust big medicine any more than i trust big oil or big tobacco.

Milton Pearle

Is Dr. Moore a medical doctor? Man, I hate doctors -- impersonal, corporate, rapacious sons a bitches.


I don't know, I'm a denialist. I deny that John Moore has balls or brain, or any critical thinking skills at all.

See? I'm a denialist!


LS, You forgot the 'amen'.

Gene Semon

Great website Hank.

Of course, denialist in the sense of rebuttalist is a backhanded compliment.

THEY mean refusal to be "educated" by aidschurch dogma, also a good thing.



Okay, now, we have opposing church choirs singing Amen but not in harmony.

Gene, you ask good questions. I covered all of them on NAR, but you know the fellow over there doesn't want to many disagreeable thoughts interfering with his emerald borders and seems to discourage discussion (as if hiv is a settled deal) so's not to upset the spear carriers in the NAR army.

Barnes on the other hand welcomes
open discussion except when he ignores answers he doesn't like.

P.S. I'll trade you six denialists for one Sir Schmuckface any day
neither of which has zilch to do with the Shoah of WW II.



Well, surely you think that Moore should have a civilized debate with Bialy, correct?



Bialy has nothing to offer a debate. But if he wants he can mail his 235,000 peer reviewed articles plus the CD for $ 39.95 to anyone he so wishes. I take that all back. I am in favor of a debate if Eccles shows up.

Hank, doncha think it's just a buncha grandstanding ?

Dork of the week, John Moore will be long forgotten as there are a million AIDS stories to ketch-up on in the daze ahead.

Gene Semon

McK, my good friend. Always a pleasure to meet you in cyberspace.

As far as the learned professor John Moore, I nominate him for the Ann Coulter of the week award.

As far as serious debates, I don't see grandstanding but perhaps because Harvey and I made Dean Esmay's greatest hits, there's a bias.

I like to think our exchange at NAR was fruitful.

Best regards,



We are still hashing it out at
Tara's place:


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