Surely, we did not expect our previous Schmuck of the Week, John Moore, to outdo himself with continued childish behavior. Of course, he is "liberal" and "progressive." (and wants everyone to know that)
But, then he posted a simultaneously feeble, simultaneously vicious little hit-piece in the New York Times, where, among other things he tries to exploit a child's death and then whines
The AIDS denialists use pseudoscience and non-peer-reviewed Internet postings to bolster their false claims about H.I.V.
Did someone say false claims about HIV and fail to mention Robert Gallo again? My ....how convenient.
What a poor, disgraceful old sot. If this were a schoolyard from 30 years ago, I would smack him upside his pointy-head, and then make him do my homework.
Never fear -- Dr. Bialy to the rescue! You remember Dr. B -- Phd in biology from Berkeley, former Editor at Nature/Biotechnology.
Dr. Bialy challenges Sir Schmuck-face to prove up his charges, to mix it up, to hash it out.
And How does Moore respond?
Like the sniveling little Coward he is:
Participating in any public forum with the likes of Bialy would give him a credibility that he does not merit. The science community does not "debate" with the AIDS denialists, it treats them with the utter contempt that they deserve and exposes them for the charlatans that they are. Kindly do not send me any further communications on this or any related matter. John Moore
Wah, wah, wah -- I've heard better whining from a hysterical teenager.
We've had enough of John Moore. He oughta be taken out and horsewhipped. Or better yet, have his Pharmaceutical funding stripped by Merck/Glaxo/Abbot.
What a disgrace to science. He's degenerated into a pure Pharma Whore.
"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".
Posted by: Dan | June 09, 2006 at 07:50 PM
Dan,
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.
Posted by: HankBarnes | June 10, 2006 at 04:24 PM
"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.
Posted by: Dan | June 10, 2006 at 04:37 PM
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"
HB
Posted by: HankBarnes | June 10, 2006 at 06:51 PM
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.
Posted by: Starbird | June 10, 2006 at 11:32 PM
Is Dr. Moore a medical doctor? Man, I hate doctors -- impersonal, corporate, rapacious sons a bitches.
Posted by: Milton Pearle | June 11, 2006 at 11:36 PM
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!
Posted by: LS | June 13, 2006 at 10:23 AM
LS, You forgot the 'amen'.
Posted by: McKiernan | June 13, 2006 at 11:43 AM
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.
Amen
Posted by: Gene Semon | June 13, 2006 at 05:19 PM
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.
Posted by: McKiernan | June 13, 2006 at 06:33 PM
McK,
Well, surely you think that Moore should have a civilized debate with Bialy, correct?
HB
Posted by: HankBarnes | June 13, 2006 at 07:22 PM
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.
Posted by: McKiernan | June 13, 2006 at 08:47 PM
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,
Gene
Posted by: Gene Semon | June 15, 2006 at 02:53 PM
Gene,
We are still hashing it out at
Tara's place:
http://scienceblogs.com/aetiology/2006/06/wrong_again.php
Hank
Posted by: HankBarnes | June 15, 2006 at 04:43 PM