Moore Silence?

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 [email protected]
Reply To: [email protected]
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?

Comments

[Gene Semon]

Hey George, why don't you put up or shut up and come over to Tara's Place for actual, instead of hypothetical public service.

I know, I know, I take myself too seriously.

Good for you, you've found an all -purpose excuse.

[George]

Gene,

If you think Dr. Smith and her readers would have any interest in discussing Delbruck's analogy of a scientist, you can reprint my few posts relevant to that over there.

Since no one here appears interested in my only reason for introducing it, namely that the Moores and Smiths of this sadly deteriorated academic world make scientific claims based on a mixture of "data" and "moral truth" in possibly equal proportions. An activity that Max would have found anathematic to science, as I do.

I cannot any longer (if I ever could) discuss polymerase subunits or micromillimoles of triphospahte exchange or any of the technical stuff I think you are involved with over there.

Maybe you would like to read this*, if you haven't. It is not as "hilarious" as Beckett, but it makes some of the same points as the Delbruck interview with Norm Davidson, and it has some pretty funny one liners as well.

*http://post.queensu.ca/~forsdyke/bioinfo1.htm

Gordon

[Darin Brown]

Mark --

I did not propose the debate at the wiki. Bialy did.

As far as who would be moderator...what other possible choice is there? Do you really think a member of the orthodoxy is going to legitimate such a debate by even team-moderating? The highest members of the orthodoxy have all but declared such a debate immoral and a danger to health. They would be excoriated by their own.

In any case, I think it states at the original proposal that the debate would follow well-known protocols and my "moderating" tasks would involve little more than uploading PDFs and formatting webpages.

[Darin Brown]

George said,

>>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,

PNAS 1989??

>>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.

Maybe it's not possible to make such a conclusion from Bialy's book, but you don't *really* think it's not true, do you? If you honestly think this is all based on nothing more than scientific disagreements and that the ostracism and personal despising of Duesberg and others is all some kind of figment of our imagination the past 15 years, you must be living in a different world than me. Maybe you've been on the sidelines -- have you ever been called a Nazi, evil, psychopath, retarded, incompetent, fascist, dangerous, a quack, mischievious, selfish, etc., etc. I've been called all of these things by SCIENTISTS. (I haven't even started).

>>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.)

When did papers from NAS members to the Proceedings start getting rejected?? The whole POINT of the Proceedings is that any Academy member can publish there, and be virtually guaranteed acceptance.

The whole point of the NAS file is that the 34-word rejection email is absurd on its face. As it is.

[Darin Brown]

George said,

>>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,

PNAS 1989??

>>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.

Maybe it's not possible to make such a conclusion from Bialy's book, but you don't *really* think it's not true, do you? If you honestly think this is all based on nothing more than scientific disagreements and that the ostracism and personal despising of Duesberg and others is all some kind of figment of our imagination the past 15 years, you must be living in a different world than me. Maybe you've been on the sidelines -- have you ever been called a Nazi, evil, psychopath, retarded, incompetent, fascist, dangerous, a quack, mischievious, selfish, etc., etc. I've been called all of these things by SCIENTISTS. (I haven't even started).

>>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.)

When did papers from NAS members to the Proceedings start getting rejected?? The whole POINT of the Proceedings is that any Academy member can publish there, and be virtually guaranteed acceptance.

The whole point of the NAS file is that the 34-word rejection email is absurd on its face. As it is.