Since our favorite foil, Prof. John Moore, -- he with big ego and prolific e-mail capabilities -- was smacked down by Prof. Gerald Pollack, a funny thing has happened.
1. No Moore exchanges with Doc Brown.
2. No Moore exchanges with Doc Bialy.
3. Hell, not even a haughty e-mail to me, stuffed with odd references to Star Trek and the West-Wing.
We earlier asked if someone, anyone, would pry his "gnarled hands away from the computer."
Hmm. Mebbe someone has.
But, in the meantime, ANOTHER Doctor, -- this time, Wilhelm Godschalk, PhD., has asked why Moore talks such a big game about AIDS, yet slithers away from any scientific challenge:
From: Wilhelm Godschalk xxxxx@xxxxx
Reply To: xxxx@xxxx
To: [email protected]
Subject: Thoughts of a senior colleague
Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 2:25 PM
| Dear Dr. Moore, When I heard of the high-handed, though cowardly manner in which you declined a public debate on HIV/AIDS, I called you a fraud on the pages of our Dutch web forum Andere Kijk <http://www.anderekijk.esp.nl/> , so now your name is a household word here in the Netherlands too. I am not unfamiliar with the behavioral defects of members of the AIDS orthodoxy. I have had a public debate on the subject myself, with a proponent of the "Let 'em eat AZT-cake" philosophy. TV cameras were rolling, but the debate was never broadcast. I was not too surprised by this cowardice. In conclusion, I have a question for you: Do you know anything about Virology and Biochemisty? I hear you're from England. I used to know some pretty smart fellows over there, such as (Sir) Aaron Klug, John Finch, and Reuben Leberman. But maybe science went to hell in the U.K. too, as it has everywhere else. Too bad. Wilhelm Godschalk, Ph.D. |
Will there be any reply from Silent John?
And, of course, he can immediately pick up the gauntlet over at Tara's where he can persuade all of us how Wilhelm misuses science.
Posted by: Gene Semon | June 23, 2006 at 01:12 PM
Oy vey, Hank!
I wish the debate would commence immediately just to pipe you down.
But, I must say, from the sidelines, it is quite revealing.
Posted by: Schwarz | June 23, 2006 at 02:53 PM
Lansman Schwartz,
Actually the debate already has gone, only you have to go hither and yon to find it.
The FACT of no continuation in Nature or Science of the "Policy Forum" should tell you all you need to know as a skeptic about the actual outcome of such a debate, as either Bialy proposed with Moore or a high-level one behind the closed doors of a select Academy panel, would be.
If you have not studied the hyperlinked Phar. Ther. mongraph available at the AIDS Wiki, I urge you to do so. It is a self-contained debate because Duesberg, unlike his adversaries, always discusses their best arguments and refutes them, and provides abundant (some say over-abudant) references. The amazing file I refer to contains almost all the full texts of these references, and many of them have marginal notes by the professor.
If you have a serious scientific background, this is *all* you need to make up 100% your own mind about whether Duesberg is dead-on in his 20 year critique or whether he has been indeed refuted.
Although the monograph is from 1993, it does not matter in the least because there have been no arguments presented since that would in any way make the 93 critique "dated". And if you wish the up to date version, look at the 2003 monograph in J. Biosci. that is available all over the net. After reading the hyperlinked one, you will be convinced that you can trust his citations!
Posted by: George | June 23, 2006 at 03:15 PM
Gene:
Is Moore over at Tara's blog? That would be great!
Schwarz,
No more Yiddish on my blog!!!! Actually, you do offer good advice. I would shut the %@$^ up, if some titans in the scientific community would battle it out in a civil, public forum. Baltimore, Gallo & Moore v. Duesberg, Bialy and Mullis would be a heluva show.
On second thought, we may have to demote Moore from titan status to all-hat-no-cattle status.
George:
Thanks for the link to the Pharm. Ther. paper by Duesberg. I may have to do a separate post on that when I get some time freed up today. This weekend --takin' the missus to a Bed & Breakfast in Half-Moon Bay -- gonna do some horseback riding on the beach!
HankBarnes
Posted by: HankBarnes | June 23, 2006 at 03:52 PM
Hank,
You ahve provided yet another example of my point of the apparently unavoidable lapse into the trivial.
And since the monograph in question was discussed (more or less) "ad vomitus" at Esmay's place months and months ago, and I think you were even a participant, I am surprised you feign surprise at my bringing it up now.
Be that trivia of my own as it might, the whole point is that *any* PUBLIC debate is an entertainment.
The only debate that would be convincing to the powers that need to be convinced is one held under the exact conditions Brown sets forth in his Rockwell post. As I wrote above...and behind closed doors!
Afterwards the panel would submit a report to the head of the NIH, which the major media would of necessity need to cover.
Posted by: George | June 23, 2006 at 04:21 PM
Let the games begin! The HIV causes AIDS side who choose not to debate are cowards. I would love to ask them a few questions or better yet, show them my medical records before, during and after the anti-virals. Just today, I got my first, normal, liver enzyme levels because I am not on the medications. I never felt better, look fine and am doing quite well. I would love for them to explain me.
Posted by: noreen martin | June 23, 2006 at 04:34 PM
Noreen Martin,
Can I interview you? You have such an incredible story. I know the folks at Barnesville would love to hear it.
As I understand it, you tested positive for HIV, and then, at some point, were told you had AIDS?!!?
In any event, here's to your continued good health.
Despite some of my attempts at humor, I honestly believe that HIV/AIDS patients who are taking the drugs or who have chosen not to take the drugs, should have their stories put front and center.
So, only if you are interested -- no pressure whatsoever -- i'd love to interview you by e-mail and then write it up here.
Good weekend to you, Noreen.
HankB
Posted by: HankBarnes | June 23, 2006 at 04:51 PM
Hank,
I think that is a great idea as PLA's and others need to know how some persons have fared on and off the drugs. I would also encourage others to tell their stories because the internet is all the support system that some may have, speaking from experience.
Posted by: noreen martin | June 23, 2006 at 04:58 PM
Noreen,
Wonderful. E-mail me at [email protected] and we will hammer it out.
Best Wishes and Good Health,
Hank Barnes
Posted by: HankBarnes | June 23, 2006 at 05:15 PM
Dana is far from the first HIV+ person I've heard from who's thrown away the HAART. Some gave it up years ago.
The very fact that the HIV establishment is willing to slander even THEM as crackpots and lunatics and liars says a good bit more than a lot of these debates.
And George: I think these public discussions, as lengthy and repetitious as they sometimes may be, do serve an important purpose: to hold the establishment's feet to the fire until they do indeed do what you ask.
Except: it's going to be a mistake to hold the whole thing behind closed doors entirely. It must be seen WHO is going to be behind those closed doors. Letting the establishment run roughshod over the entire affair would be an enormous mistake. It would just allow them to do what the editors at Science did to Peter back in the '80s. That won't do. There is damn well a need for answers here, and the ongoing pretense that the debate was settled scientifically "long ago" needs to be challenged hard.
There's only so much the public can do, but the discussions must go on until the right things are done.
By the way, Hank: I don't get over here every day but let me know when you've got your interview with Noreen. I'll gladly publish it.
Posted by: Dean Esmay | June 24, 2006 at 01:09 AM
A fun little non-debate on the non-discussion that didn't happen at the NY Times (regarding the unspeakable issue):
http://www.gnn.tv/threads/16887/Why_people_still_believe_HIV_causes_Aids
Posted by: LS | June 24, 2006 at 01:34 AM
Mr. Esmay
A select committee of the NAS is hardly the establisment running roughshod.
Your verbal histrionics and exaggertaed rhetoric are not helpful.
If the NAS would ever agree to take up the issue, it would be done properly.
You are not a protector of the public good, as much as you would like to think yourself such.
Posted by: George | June 24, 2006 at 01:39 AM
Histrionics? Oh George. Don't be condescending just when you're getting interesting.
We already know what goes on at NAS, as revealed by Serge Lang's having had his last paper on Duesberg shot down from PNAS for entirely political reasons (according to him, anyway, not long before his death).
David Baltimore, Robert Gallo, and quite a few others who despise Peter are also members of the NAS. Have you read Harvey's book?
Posted by: Dean Esmay | June 24, 2006 at 02:01 AM
Assuming you haven't read Harvey's book, I recommend reading this PDF. It was Lang's last to the NAS:
http://www.reviewingaids.org/awiki/files/NAS.pdf
I take from this only two possible conclusions:
1) Serge Lang, Richard Strohman, and a couple of others were simply mad and rightly rejected by the NAS.
2) NAS cannot be trusted and a greater degree of transparency is required than they currently offer.
How important I am or not is irrelevant in the vast scheme of things, except that whatever sneering people want to do at webloggers, the fact is that collectively we have done more to raise public awareness of this issue in the last two years than anyone in mainstream journalism circles has done in quite some time. Now that is either useful or it is not, it makes people like me either renegade fools or gadflies (in the best classical sense) who can't be shoo'd away. Take your pick. In either case I'll keep doing what I do.
Be well.
Posted by: Dean Esmay | June 24, 2006 at 02:24 AM
Oh, now to correct myself:
Lang's papers only invoke Duesberg peripherally. I should not have described them as being "on Duesberg."
Good night now.
Posted by: Dean Esmay | June 24, 2006 at 02:40 AM
"Condescending" Mr. Esmay? Hardly.
Yes I have read Dr. Bialy's excellent book (more than twice). Have you? I do not recall anything about the NAS "riding roughshod" over the iconoclastic professor Duesberg, and the editorial board of the proceedings is not a "select committee" of the academy, like the one that nailed Gallo. I also have read the Lang NAS file, and sometime before you, as I was one of its recipients, Mr. Condescend.
You fail to understand that IF such a debate as we would all like to see was actually endorsed that it would demand total visibility of the kind that matters -- just no TV cameras and no entertainment value at all, sorry America.
That Baltimore and others dislike Duesberg intensely is a deduction on your part. I also do not recall Bialy ever writing anything explict describing the *personal attitudes* of anybody, only their dismissal of his published work. It was, in fact, one of the things that pleasantly surprised me when I first read the book.
When did Richard Strohman become an academy member BTW (No slight at all on the very distinguished professor. He certainly deserves it more than Gallo. But then, you deserve it more than that unpleasant scoundrel.)
Your ‘either/or’ logic is as flawed as the rest of what you have written. I observe this to be a common affliction of people who grew up with computers and think that because Boolean and brain both begin with the same letter they go together like “love and marriage, in the song.”
I also note that you have not, though I urged you, even partially begun to chew over the views of Max regarding the social role of the scientist. Or are you only interested in Beckett’s “hilarious” writing? And why did you think to mention that you discovered “Molloy” to still be in print? That’s a lot like saying, “O, thank you for the great bit from that play. I see that “A Midsummer Night's Dream” is still in print....”
Time for this old man’s Sat. morning 10k through a NY that is still so lovely in the early mornings of early summer.
Posted by: George | June 24, 2006 at 06:54 AM
I have peeked before my shower, and see that Mr. Esmay has not sucked the Barnes-ville stone in its scientifically determined (I hope) turn as yet, so let me add a bit more condescension.
Can you point out to me where I wrote (or even implied) that you were "important" in the "vast" or even miniscule "scheme of things"?
I implied only that you took yourself much too seriously when I wrote you are not a guardian of the public trust, which you are *not*.
And I also did not imply that bloggers were not useful in raising public awareness, becasue indeed they are. And for your part in raising such awareness even a little, you have my respect.
George Ivanovitch (PhD, Physics 1958)
NYC
Posted by: George | June 24, 2006 at 09:09 AM
Correction (and point of additional illustration)
"guardian of the public good, not trust"
Posted by: George | June 24, 2006 at 09:30 AM
George; Who IS the "guardian of public good", in your opinion?
Are you absolutely positive that Dean is NOT one of guardians?
Aren't we ALL to some degree, and for those who choose to devote their lives to writing about their beliefs with a clear point of view of "the public good" even more so than the average one of us who do not take such steps?
I disagree with Dean on a lot of his opinions. But he performs a valuable service that he dedicates a large portion of his life to. I admire that in him. I wish I could focus well enough to do similar. But we all guard the public good to whatever extent we are capable of giving.
You are free, like me, to disagree with Dean. But I agree with him that you are being condescending when you tell him not to take himself so seriously as the guardian of the public good.
Also, would you mind explaining his logical fallacies, rather than merely asserting that he has made one? I can guess at what you mean, but if you are going to say something like that he deserves an explanation.
Posted by: John | June 24, 2006 at 10:08 PM
You both take yourselves much too seriously.
Max would be chuckling too.
Posted by: George | June 24, 2006 at 10:47 PM
Your short response speaks volumes. Thank you for clarifying.
Posted by: John | June 24, 2006 at 11:50 PM
Everyone is ignoring a serious problem with Dr. Brown's proposed debate -- that he would be the moderator. If I were John Moore, I certainly would not be enticed to debate the issue if I knew the views of the moderator were in opposition to mine. For any such debate to work, there would need to be at least two moderators if we were to insist on sceintists moderating -- one from both points of view. A better idea yet would be to have journalists serve as moderators, like they do in presidential debates.
Posted by: Mark Biernbaum | June 25, 2006 at 09:36 AM
One more thing -- although I respect Dr. Bialy, this debate that we are all so keen on must be between Duesberg and Moore. For 20 years, Duesberg has allowed many other scientists and journalists to represent his views publicly. The debate between Bialy and Moore is a debate between a Duesberg-adherent and Moore. The time for that is over. Peter Duesberg needs to be the debator. No more representatives standing between him and the establishment.
Posted by: Mark Biernbaum | June 25, 2006 at 09:51 AM
Where's all the love?
I'm back from my nice weekend.
Yes, debate! We need a debate!
Dean had a great blog debate way back when, made into a cyber book
Hey John and Mark -- my buds.
HB
Posted by: HankBarnes | June 25, 2006 at 07:15 PM
We've been holding down the Barnes-ville fort while you've been galloping around. Welcome home, Mongo.
Posted by: John | June 26, 2006 at 12:55 AM