Curtain Call for the Moore Follies! (Say Goodnight, Gracie)

With the 4-part installment of the Amazon Wars, (also known as the "Moore Follies,") we have taken a rare glimpse into the mindset of the modern-day, AIDS scientist activist. Specifically, we have engaged (or, more  precisely, been engaged by) the haughty, insufferable, highly perturbable John P. Moore from Cornell University, by way of Cambridge, by way of H.Salt Fish & Chips.

So, what did we learn? Well, it's hard to say. Ignoring his television drama-show gaffes, sarcasm, poorly attuned sense of wit , and overall dyspeptic demeanor, we learned one salient feature:

We have a scientist, who refuses to "discuss or debate" science.

Is this not a rarity on par with the finding of an offspring of a Dodo Bird?

If he were alive today, would Einstein be ducking simple questions about relativity?

Anyway, NO, we are not comparing the great Albert Einstein, to the not-so-hot, John P. Moore -- we are illustrating the absurdity of self-professed "Colonels" in the AIDS War, who get awful shy and tempermental when asked to explain their opinions, bases for said opinions, and references to the scientific literature (not gov't websites, John) that support these opinions.

Instead, all we get is a strange repetitive mantra: "HIV causes AIDS. You're a denialist. HIV causes AIDS. You're a denialist. HIV causes AIDS....."

Out of good cheer and perhaps a bit of devilish mischief, right before the weekend, I e-mailed Moore with the links to the aforementioned "Moore Follies."

It was a nice e-mail. It was very short. It consisted of 6 words in the subject heading: 

"John & Tara, Check out Barnesville"

So, how do you think he responded?  A polite "f@%@ off, Hank"? A non-response? No, he again tried to engage with meaningless, pitiable, self-abasement. Here's his response, in full:

I don't waste my time reading your Blog myself, Hank, but we do monitor them, and sometimes we do pick up some useful information from there that  helps us counter more influential AIDS denialists in areas where WE think it matters (trust, me the Blogsphere is not where the real fight is being played out). This particular exchange will probably not lead to any useful  information, as we've already got enough on the kinds of people who have the time to read and respond to your Blog postings. But hey, you never know, so thanks for trying on our behalf, even if you don't realize what you're doing (or, more to the point, what WE'RE doing). We don't publicize  our successes, but if you did you would be surprised at how helpful you and your fellow Bloggers have been to us. In reality, as I say, the real fight is being fought elsewhere. You guys just don't realize it - yet.

And I really don't give the proverbial rat's ass if the kind of people who read your Blogs have a laugh at what they think is my expense. If I cared about what you and your internet buddies think, I would never have entered into any email exchange with you (nothing in emails ever stays private
unless they're between close and trusted friends, in academia or in any other walk of life; you think I maybe don't realize that at my age?????).

So, post away, do whatever you like. If I think there's something useful to be gained from communicating with you, I'll let you know. In the mean time, what's the phrase? Knock yourself out, buddy!

John

And, here, in blue, was my interlineated responses to his pointless twaddle.

"I don't waste my time reading your Blog myself, Hank,..."

Well, you DO waste time reading and writing Amazon reviews of Duesberg's biography, right?

You DO waste time writing a whole buncha letters and e-mails to the editor of Harpers' right?

You DO waste time lurking at Aetiology, right?

What's the difference?  

but we do monitor them, and sometimes we do pick up some useful information from there that  helps us counter more influential AIDS denialists in areas where WE think it matters (trust, me the Blogsphere is not where the real fight is being played out).

Who is this ubiquitous "WE" you keep blabbering about? The same incompetents who wrote that unreadable, unpublishable "grid" rebuttal to the Harpers' piece?

Why not simply stand alone  -- like a man. Why do you need a buncha AIDS sychophants and lapdogs around you at all times to "monitor" people? This ain't the goddam Soviet Union, you know?

This particular exchange will probably not lead to any useful  information, as we've already got enough on the kinds of people who have the time to read and respond to your Blog postings.

Yes, but it's quite witty and enjoyable.

But hey, you never know, so thanks for trying on our behalf, even if you don't realize what you're doing (or, more to the point, what WE'RE doing). We don't publicize  our successes, but if you did you would be surprised at how helpful you and your fellow Bloggers have been to us. In reality, as I say, the real fight is being fought elsewhere. You guys just don't realize it - yet.

What successes? The vaccine success. The success with Mbeki. The success in spiking the Harpers' piece. The successful strategy to scare and kill a lotta gay men with AZT in the 80's? Your only success has been to waste a lot of tax-payer $$, shut down scientific discussion, and hornswoggle a small claque of gays into joining the bad guys to oppress the vulnerable guys. This ain't gonna last forever, John. The Berlin Wall came tumbling down. Big Tobacco came tumbling down. Merck is a bit wobbly over Vioxx. You'd best be thinking of an exit strategy, when it gets ugly, my friend.

And I really don't give the proverbial rat's ass if the kind of people who read your Blogs have a laugh at what they think is my expense.

Well, the mirth-meter is pretttttty high today, I must say. As for the kind of people, do you care whether Dr. Lynn Margulis and her colleagues read the blog. If y ou had ANY cojones whatsoever, you'd call them "Denialists" in public. In fact, by now, you've read (or had your flunkies read to you) the Margulies review of Bialy's book. A salient excerpt for you:

We find the paucity of evidence published in standard peer-reviewed primary scientific journals that leads to the conclusion that "HIV causes AIDS" appalling. No amount of moralizing censorship, rhetorical tricks, consensus of opinion, pulling rank, obfuscation, ad hominem attacks or blustering newspaper editorials changes this fact. The conflation "HIV-AIDS" may be good marketing but is it science? No.

Any written response to her, or just that same awkward silence, when you get flustered?

If I cared about what you and your internet buddies think, I would never have entered into any email exchange with you (nothing in emails ever stays private unless they're between close and trusted friends, in academia or in any other walk of life; you think I maybe don't realize that at my age?????).

Well, I don't know your age (late 40's?), but that's not what you said Wednesday at 2"13 p.m. Do you remember this: 

"Yes, I object to you publishing what I believed was a private exchange. John"

You're a wiley fellow, John/ We should play chess sometimes.  I didn't go to Cambridge, but I bet $500 bucks I'd whip ya. Even with black.

So, post away, do whatever you like. If I think there's something useful to be gained from communicating with you, I'll let you know. In the mean time, what's the phrase? Knock yourself out, buddy!

This is the second time you've utterly wasted 7 good words with a meaningless, tautological platitude. Post away, do whatever I like? Well, gee, John, don't I always?

Best,

Hank.

p.s. I construe your statement "So, post ways, do whatever you like" as permission for me to publish this exchange too. You don't mind, do you:)

This concludes the Moore Follies. The curtain is down, the lights are on. You don't have to go home, but you can't stay here. Good day, my gentle readers.

Comments

[Dan]

"We don't publicize our successes, but if you did you would be surprised at how helpful you and your fellow Bloggers have been to us. In reality, as I say, the real fight is being fought elsewhere. You guys just don't realize it - yet."

Hank, who are the "WE" Mr. Moore refers to? Fellow scientists? If so, he mentions them fighting...fighting for what? And what are these "successes"? Are they medical successes? It would be obvious if there were. I'm guessing if they exist at all, he's talking about PR successes.

So, this is about a FIGHT. Strange, I thought it was about helping people. He and his "WE" can fight all they want. I want to help people, help them out of this horrible medical nightmare.

[HankBarnes]

Dan,

Exactly. They are fighting to get more drugs to more people. Period. However, they are oblivious to the notion that more drugs may make matters worse.

Hank

[TS]

Stop being cruel to AIDS babes, Hank. At least leave them a shred of tattered dignity.

He certainly is a faithful reader of your blog. Cannot imagine why he would want to deny it. The reason is surely that those who stand on a deep fault line must pay attention to know when the quake comes.

The rumbling seems to be getting louder and louder, John. Well, just cling to Bob. He is good in emergencies. We were once stuck in an elevator with him for 40 minutes and he behaved very well.

[Wilhelm]

Nice going, Hank. What do you think, could we get as much mileage out of Tony Fauci?
Hatchet Day is drawing near, you know.

[George]

I recently heard from a student of a former colleague the following explanation for why the (often strenuously) peer-reviewed papers of Duesberg must be wrong: If they were not, then they would have persuaded the majority of scientists.

Simple. Incontrovertible. Idiotic.

Perfect for Moore to add to his "Johnny One Note" arsenal of argument.

[David Crowe]

I wonder what Moore has in store for us. Are we all going to be rounded up as terrorists for attempting to spread a virus we don't believe exists? (or maybe we really do believe it exists, but being scientific psychopaths, we're trying to encourage people to spread it around). I just hope when the big shot dissidents get arrested that I do too because, after all, this is only an attention getting device (questioning AIDS, that is) and I'd hate not to get the attention of others!

[HankBarnes]

David Crowe,

Hah! I have 2 good friends at home who ain't gonna let ole' Hank get rounded up by nobody!

HB

[Harvey]

Hank et al.

This quartet+ has been "moore" fun than a barrel of gp120-treated monkeys, and free of scatological or other unseemly innuendo too. Thanks.

BTW, here is my favorite "negative" review. It has the virtu of being written by someone who evidently read the book, as against the Moore/Mario/Manny show, although it is not nearly as amusing (nor useful to the sale's reps at PGW).

"13 of 30 people found the following review helpful:

difficult to read for the layman,

July 24, 2005
Reviewer: G. Federico

it requires a lot of effort if it should be read by a person without the background in the subject. i couldn't get much out of it."

[Johnny B.]

No question it's a difficult read for the complete layman. But if your interest in the subject is high enough, you will wade through the science (absolutely necessary to establish the veracity of the assertions) and in so doing will come across dozens of golden nuggets that any layman can grasp.

Certainly, all of the "political" aspects of AIDS, as presented by the author are well within the grasp of any reasonably intelligent reader. And one must assume a reasonably intelligent reader when he/she is interested enough to pick the book up.

I wonder if perhaps the reviewer didn't really read the book, and simply tried and gave up and then wrote the review. I will go to Amazon and see if that was the entire review.

[Stephen Davis]

Hank,

Jerry McGuire said “SHOW ME THE MONEY!”

I would only start to listen to people like John Moore if they gave up their cushy government salaries and grants that eliminate any possibility of objectivity on this issue. Of course, that will never happen. Meanwhile, they have a serious conflict of interest.

When I was in the state senate, I was prohibited by law from voting on a bill in which I had a financial interest. It was called the Sunshine Act, and it was a good idea. It would be a good idea for Moore and company as well, to introduce some ethics into their actions.

Moore & Co. are part of a medical monolith that today receives over 1 BILLION dollars annually in the U.S. alone to keep the HIV=AIDS hypothesis in place. As Peter Barry Chowka recently said (http://members.aol.com/pbchowka/medicalnemesis2006.html) ...

“It is simply incredible that the biggest part of the $2 trillion-a-year business of American medicine (in terms of government-funded research and public and private infrastructure) is HIV/AIDS-related, particularly when one considers that AIDS, according to government figures, currently accounts for about 15,000 deaths a year in the U.S., versus over 500,000 from cancer and almost 700,000 from heart disease. In fact, AIDS isn't even on the list of the top ten causes of death in the United States. Yet, federal spending on HIV/AIDS dwarfs the amounts of money spent on cancer and heart disease – not to mention lower profile diseases like diabetes, which kills at least five times as many Americans every year as AIDS.”

(TO: John Moore... I'm Stephen Davis, author of WRONGFUL DEATH: The AIDS Trial, www.theAIDStrial.com. Come get me!)