John Moore: Sex, Monkeys and Microbicides!

What's the deal with our favorite AIDS whore, Prof. John Moore? And Why is he all hot and bothered over sex, monkeys, drugs and AIDS? (1) & (2)

Oh I see. He wants to save us all with a new class of hyped AIDS drugs -- the Microbicides (pesticides for humans?)

The history of "miracle drugs" is not good. They kill 106,000 people per year. (3) Let's see how AIDS drugs have fared.

1. Plan A: In 1984, the AIDS cult promises to develop a vaccine in 2 years. It never comes. Ooops.

2. Plan B: In 1987, they turn to AZT, a highly toxic, cancer-chemo drug that is carcinogenic in mice and monkeys. (4) For 10 years, Moore and his buddies wipe out an entire generation of mostly gay men, with massive over-prescriptions of toxic AZT. Oops.

3. Plan C: In 1996, they turn to protease inhibitors. Ooops. These cause Buffalo Hump -- where bulges of fat form into a hideous hump on the back of your neck. (5)

4. Plan D: Merge all these toxic drugs together into a "cocktail" and call it HAART. Oops. These cause liver failure, heart attack and more severe illnesses than the virus. (6)

So, now, touting Plan E, we have --- the Microbicides!

Moore Theory: HIV is spread thru sex. So, Moore wants the world to apply these pesticides, er, I mean microbicides, on female genitalia before intercourse! And, supposedly, these will kill the dreaded virus. Bring us the female monkeys to experiment, bellows young John!

But, before touting a drug that reduces the risk of sexual transmission of HIV, ya gotta first establish what that risk is, right?

I mean, heck, I can sell bottles of "dragon repellent" to my gullible in-laws, and I guarantee you after spraying, no dragons will appear.

So, John, I ask again: What is the risk of sexual transmission of HIV?

Remarkably, this genius IGNORES the LARGEST epidemiological study of heterosexual transmission in the United States. (Padian et al., AmJ.Epidem. 351-357 (1997).)

In Padian, we saw 175 HIV-discordant couples having sex over 6 years. The results? "No serconversions" (Padian, pg 354).

Let me repeat: AFTER ALL THAT SEX WITH HIV PARTNERS (38% anal sex too!) NOT ONE PERSON CONTRACTED HIV. (These are humans, John, not monkeys)

So, Padian estimated a heterosexual transmssion rate of 1/10000 (woman to man).

In other words, the risk is either ZERO or .0001.

Will Moore explain to the scientific world why he deliberately omitted a discussion of the Padian study from his paper?

Will Moore explain why -- in light of the nearly non-existent risk -- spraying toxic gel on your female consort is a good idea?

Will Moore explain to us if he -- scientific geek writ large -- has touched a female breast since the frickin' Magna Carta was adoped? (Just kidding John).

And I know all of you must be thinking as I did when I encountered the title of this paper proudly displayed as his latest and best scientific contribution. Gee even if this works as advertised isn't it like a gazillion times more expensive than a condom?

REFERENCES:

1. Moore et al, Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy (2003) 52, 890-892.

2. Veazey et al, Nature Medicine 9, 343 - 346 (2003)

3. Lazarou, JAMA. 1998 Apr 15;279(15):1200-5

4. Olivero et al, Journal Of The National Cancer Institute, Vol 89, 1602-1608, (1997)

5. Paparizos et al, AIDS: Volume 14(7) 5 May 2000 p 903

6. Reisler et al., JAIDS: Volume 34(4) 1 December 2003 pp 379-386

Comments

[Lawstud6]

Hank,

Gee Whiz, another unguent to apply before the "deed" is done. Do they come in flavors?? Root Beer perhaps??

Lawstud out.

[Schwartz]

Happy Father's Day, Hank!

Moore seems like a greedy fellow.

[Dan]

"So, Moore wants the world to apply these pesticides, er, I mean microbicides, on female genitalia before intercourse!"

Rrrroooowwwwrrr!!! Sounds sexy!
I think you're avoiding the erotic possibilities, Hank. Don't be such a sourpuss (no pun intended).

Hey! I've got a solution! Just make sex illegal. The only people that can have sex are married couples who've been tested for every thing under the sun, and are only engaging in intercourse for the express purpose of procreation. I'm serious.

[Dan]

I forgot to add something...there should also be legal consequences to the couple (mostly the woman, though...sorry, but that's how it works)if the woman fails to become pregnant.

Am I being too cynical? 'Cause I don't think this Orwellian nightmare has reached its climax yet.

[Lawstud6]

Dan:

Do you realize how Freudian your posts are on this string? I rather like it!!

Sawstud

[HankBarnes]

Hi Dan & Lawstud,

Clearly, these AIDS geniuses needed to "sex" AIDS up in order to get gov't $$ for all their silly scientific boondoggles.

Scientifically, there is no reason to link AIDS with sex. Padian debunks heterosex (which most people silently agreed with anyway). But I think it debunks anal sex, too. Based purely on demographics, there are many more women getting buggered than homosexual men.

The AIDS cartel makes $$ and derives power by bymming our collective mojo:)

HankB

Even Padian showed that 38% of the heterosexual couples were engaged in anal sex.

If so, then where are all the straight, white, affluent suburban chicks getting AIDS?

HankB

[noreen martin]

Hello Hank,
Great website! I guess my husband and I are missing out on all the fun as we use no protection, flavored or not, and he is HIV negative. Dr. Moore cannot explain couples like us.

I personally feel that the AIDS rethinkers must unite as a group and meet in a major city. We are spread all over the states and the world for that matter and hopping from website to website. We must unite to let our voices be heard and finally get some news coverage!