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