My Photo

Bulletin Board

December 2008

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31      


  • The NIH Keeps Up With The Times: 1, 2, 3. David Baltimore Has A Flashback: ***. The NY Times Keeps Up With Times: ***. The Faith of Anthony Fauci: ***. Anthony Fauci Explains How HIV Causes AIDS: ***. Robert Gallo on The Force of Ejaculation: ***, on HIV Theory: ***, Lectures in Marseilles: ***. David Ho Does The Math: ***. John Mellors Sets the Record Straight: ***. Bono, el Magnifico, Holds (Another) Press Conference: ***. Anthony Fauci Explains Journalism in the Age of AIDS: ***. Anthony Fauci and David Ho Disprove an Old Adage: ***. Anthony Fauci Explains ICL and AIDS: *** The CDC Can't Keep Up With The Times:*** The Method of the "Small Inquisitor" Moore:*** The Co-Discovery of a Nobel-Worthy Enzymatic Activity:*** The Revenge of the "Very" Minor Moriarty:*** Julie Gerberding and Anthony Fauci Learn Arithmetic:*** Osama Obama Has a Message for Africa:***

Bad Manners and Good Gossip

« John Moore Lamely Rejoins the Amazon Wars! (Part 3) | Main | Curtain Call for the Moore Follies! (Say Goodnight, Gracie) »

July 21, 2006


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


it's looking pretty clear that you'll get no debate from Dr. Moore.

Amazon reviews aside, he's actually beginning to look like a real lightweight in all of this. My opinion from what I've been reading is that he doesn't have what it takes to get into a debate with Bialy.

I'm almost inclined to ask you to "pick on somebody your own size". He just doesn't seem to be worth the effort.



Don't be fooled, Moore is a bigwig in AIDS research, funding, peer -review and journalism.

He gets quoted all the time in the mainstream press. He carries weight in the AIDS kingdom. True, he has demonstrated himself a putz in the real world, but in the bizarro world of AIDS, he's up there.

Think of a bureaucrat at the DMV, who gets to determine, on his own, whether you get a license!



"he's actually beginning to look like a real lightweight in all of this"

I'm talking about the sort of thing we're doing right now, discussing the topic on the internet.

The Amazon contribution I read by him was weak, his replies to you are weak. He looks like a lightweight in "this" arena.


He is weak. The Emperor has no clothes, not even a scarf!




maybe you'd like to add a "feature"?...AIDS charlatan of the week! There would be NO shortage of those who could be bestowed with this honor.


Hank Barnes,

You have outdone yourself, and every single other blogger who has stuck his neck out in this arena to play with the pussycats who pretend to be tigers.

The four episodes are worth "sucking turn and turn again", and unlike the stones of Beckett's ideation of the scientist (according to Delbruck) these sucking stones have distinctive and delightful sabors.

Bravo young man with stamina to envy. I hope this show gets replayed all over, and all over again. It's better than "You Bet Your Life" even -- the double entendre, while quite intentional is not funny in the least.

Stephen Davis


This is my first post, and I’m amazed at how you can keep laughing at all this. Maybe I’m too new into the fray, but I sometimes get overwhelmed with the illogic, the insanity, the frustration of it all. Reading Barnesville helps me keep some perspective, and for that I thank you.

I’m in the process of writing my next book, “A Death Sentence?”, about the arbitrary and capricious HIV blood tests, all based on circular logic, and I can’t believe the lengths that people like John Moore will go to justify a faulty premise. It’s like saying that the moon is made of green cheese; but upon finding no green cheese anywhere on the moon, explaining that all the green cheese must have morphed into something else when the cow jumped over it.

I’m in a very similar email conversation with a Brian Foley at the HIV Genetic Sequence and Immunology Databases. I can’t get Brian to answer a straightforward question directly, and I truly amazed at what he (and others) can pull out of…..thin air when their arguments are clearly contradicted by scientific fact. I have decided that perhaps it is not malicious on their part, or even a symptom of unwillingness to give up the sacred cow, but evidence that our educational system, run by the same government that gave us HIV, has failed to teach anyone how to think logically any more.

So I’m sure you’re aware, Hank, that we’re not going to “win,” since any documented science we might put forward will simply be met with more indefensible fantasy. But at least maybe I can learn from you how to have fun trying! Keep up the great work!



I have to remind myself, sucking stones, sucking stones, sucking stones. Not bean-counting, bean-counting, bean-counting.....

Hey, you're helping me elevate my game, George.

Stephen Davis,

Welcome! Gotta bring some levity to this awful farce, all the while, not forgetting who made it awful, and what should be done about it.

Hey, I enjoyed your recent book. Lemme know if you'd be interested in me interviewing you here. E-mail me at [email protected]



"Beckett, not bean counting" is more alliterative and rhythmic.

For the benefit of those who may not have any idea what we are referring to, let me recapitulate a bit from what now seems ages ago when I made my first comment at Barnes-ville, in a post I can no longer remember or even locate -- Groucho's George Fenneman not having yet installed a search feature.

In 1975, Max Delbruck did an interview with Norm Davis as part of the CalTech "Science and Society" lecture series. In it Delbruck spent most of his time presenting the "sucking stone episode" from Molloy (easily found on the web) as a perfect description of the mind, activity and posture of the *real* scientist.


I'd be greatly interested in having two more questions answered by Moore:

1. Why do you continually claim that you "won't debate with" what you maliciously describe as "denialists", and yet you have seemingly had dozens of email exchanges with Darren Brown, Hank Barnes, Harvey Bialy and probably others I'm not aware of - all of whom I'm quite sure you would describe with derision? What is the point of doing this, if not to "debate"? I ask this question because it seems to me that the ONLY thing you will not "debate" about HIV and AIDS is the SCIENCE!

2. You assert that you are no longer going to bother with Dr. Bialy because you are off on to some unnamed bigger fish. Who might those be? I'm sure there is no "secret society of AIDS Denial" and if there was, you certainly wouldn't be one to protect their identity so, PLEASE, tell us who you intend to fry?

By the way, Hank - great ploy on asking Moore's permission to post. Brilliant. And funny he wasn't so busy with "having a life" that he couldn't immediately respond!


Let me clarify my second question - he won't bother any more with a world renowned doctor and author of an acclaimed book on the subject because he is going on to deal with the more important players. I simply can't imagine who that might be. Can you?



er, wait, you're Blackman, not Moore, right?

Where ya been, buddy!

Great follow-up questions to the AIDS guru. Have you ever seen scientists in your life, dodge so much science?!!?

A timid bunch. Lotta federal dollars thrown their way, but timid nonetheless.


Johnny B.

Maybe I should started posting as "Johnny Blackman" as one of my blogosphere friends has been known to call me.

Or I could appear to be highly self-impressed and sign off as "The Mensch"! But I think that particular title is better left to you - who has clearly shown what he's worth.

The comments to this entry are closed.


  • Comments are regarded as letters to the editor. They are subject to the same policies as the NY Times and Nature, and are not published until after editorial review.
Blog powered by Typepad