Signs of Civil War Erupt at Toronto AIDS Conference // John P. Moore - The Dissidents' Best Friend

The AIDS Conference in Toronto Canada opened today. Melinda Gates was one of the opening speakers, and strangely had nothing to say about HIV drugs. She did say she would like to see the research and production of microbials and oral preventatives that women can protect themselves from disease with, put into full speed forward research. Canadian Conference co-chair Dr. Mark (Put Duesberg and all the Denialists in JAIL) Wainberg, who also is the proud owner of HIV Drug Patents, was naturally back to his standard dope dealer routine. "One goal of the conference is to make sure drugs are available to those who need them around the world, regardless of ability to pay", he said.  Prime Minister Stephen Harper has said he will not attend the six-day conference because of other commitments, a decision that will thrill Re-Thinkers, but has rankled and baffled organizers, researchers and AIDS activists - not just in Canada but elsewhere in the world. Clement and Minister of International Co-operation Jose Verner are representing Canada. Perhaps Minister Harper (I love the name Harper, reminds me of a magazine article I read a few months back) is another one of the few leaders of a country to see through the thin veneer of HIV/AIDS pseudoscience.

There was an astounding amount of lackadaisical attitude on the part of the inhabitants of Toronto. Strangely, the only banner of notice was for the International Dragonboat Festival that had ended today. No red ribbons in the Park. Nothing advertised on the subway. There were newspaper accounts in the local press, but that was pretty much the only notice that the fair city was being descended upon by 25,000 HIV worshippers.

John P. Moore, The Rethinkers BEST FRIEND,
has helped us all to further disseminate HIV Dissenter’s information to the world press today. Every time he opens his mouth, or puts keystroke to computer he either sells HIV Dissenter’s books, promotes HIV Dissent magazine articles, or further informs the world of the importance of HIV Dissent issues. 

Witness:This mornings first session,  co-chaired by John P. (I Hate The Denialists) Moore, was about press coverage. It was called the HIV Science and Responsible Journalism session. 

His message was the same old song; he hollers something to the effect of “Look at those damn AIDS denialists, No, don’t look at them, you’ll turn to stone”, in a bit of a falsetto shrill, of AIDS denialism kills and all of us AIDS Denialists should be cooked slowly over a picnic barbecue. He ranted about the abuse of science (he should know, he is to be considered an expert in abusing science), he droned on about the rethinkers not getting through the thick walls of Media Censorship to publish any of their own work in peer-reviewed journals like Science, Nature, the Lancet, etc. And naturally, he screamed that we are pure liars, with HIV Dissenter’s well-proven claims that AZT is one of the world's most toxic chemicals.   

It is always a pleasure to hear Dr. Moore uttering words such as AZT IS ONE OF THE WORLDS MOST TOXIC CHEMICALS”, if only he would leave out the rest of his driveling untruths.

Naturally, Nathan Geffen, policy coordinator for Treatment Action Campaign in South Africa, joined Moore in his screed filled screech in touting the AIDS(un)TRUTH website as the only responsible place for journalists reporting on HIV/AIDS to get the proper brainwashing. Strange, cause the only truth I could find on his site, was the words of Dr. Bialy, and the link to Harpers! Both Moore and Nathan Geffen, policy coordinator for Treatment Action Campaign in South Africa, plugged AIDS Truth as a means for journalists reporting on HIV/AIDS to get reliable information.

A civil war began to erupt, when the panel discussion, which included such un-notables and unquotables as Marilyn Chase with Wall Street Journal, Tamar Kahn, science and health editor at South Africa's Business Day, and Kim Honey, health editor at the Toronto Star, opened up a debate over whether journalists should challenge scientific consensus. For some strange reason, Geffen opposed it, and naturally, planted-into-the-audience, was Lancet chief editor Richard Horton who begged and pleaded for journalists to rise up to honk only on the Propaganda Horn. He accused journalists of being far too polite, of listening to the dissenting views of us damn denialists, and daring to print HIV Dissenter’s heretical words, because we are far too often invited to speak on the world's stage. Strangely he asked, “Isn't our job to keep the public informed about fact, not fiction?” 

Well, I would certainly agree, and I hope he gets with the program sometime soon. Perhaps we should all give John Moore, Nathan Geffen, and Richard Horton, HIV Dissenter’s very first Honorary “Question Orthodox AIDS” Ribbons, when the  conference ends. That is the only way I think they could benefit AIDS dissent more than they already have.


Michael Geiger
HEAL
San Diego

Comments

[Peter Troyer]

I was thrilled when The Globe and Mail published my letter to the Editor about this today.......you can check it out on my blog.

[jspreen]

16th International AIDS Conference: Stunning last minute addition.

Following the link below you can download a PDF version of the full transcription of the "last minute" addition to the Opening Session of the XVI Internal Aids Conference.

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/jan.spreen/english/16thiac.pdf

[Dan]

Michael,
thanks for the update.

I'm glad they're talking about "responsible journalism" when it comes to "HIV/AIDS" reporting.

If they were "smart", they wouldn't have even brought up the subject. Now they're trying to make something "off limits", possibly even taboo. That's only going to make people more curious. It's a big red flag when they're telling people not to look behind the curtain.

For some of us, it's an open admission of medical/scientific dictatorship. This isn't what science is about...or is it?

[noreen martin]

Awesome comment by Guest Speaker Jan Spreen of France at the above link: "Germs do not create condition. They follow changes in condition". This goes back to the fork in the road so to speak about the "germ theory" vs. pleomorphism in medicine. Pasteur the father of the germ theory supposedly recanted his position about this on his death bed; the terrain is everything, the germ is nothing!

This is why modern medcine misses the boat and will never cure anything with medicines and vaccinations regardless of what new disease or problem is on the planet. Until the terrain or the PH of the body is correct, there can be no health and well-being.

[George]

Mr. Geiger,

I know you must be very busy, but I hope you will favor us with an update or two.

If Broder is there, and you can get close to him, please say hello from George Ivanovitch. He will remember me, don't worry. But if you are short of stature you might wish to be prepared to duck because he is likely to take a swing at you.

[Samba Diallo]

The piece below originally appeared at DW on Jan. 19, 2005
(www.deanesmay.com/files/ThinkingTheUnthinkable.pdf).

**VIRUS ALERT**

For some time now, a new computer Virus is out there. Its mode of transmission is uncertain, but it has been revealed by government researchers that it is sufficient to read all or part of Dean’s World logs to get you computer infected. In some as of yet unexplained manner, the dot configuration on the screen backfeeds into the system making it increasingly fragile and error-prone.

The virus is hardly detectable by existing software (Norton, VirusShield, and the like), as its structure is virtually indistinguishable from numerous system files, is deeply embedded in the operating system and its informational content is highly disperse. Infection of the system by the virus inevitably results in some 30 computer malfunctions of varying severity (hardware and software, such as susceptibility to infection by OTHER computer viruses by interference with anti-virus programs already installed, computer freezing, hard-disk malfunction, power-source burnout, incapacity to create temporary files, etc., the list is still growing, albeit more slowly than initially). The problems manifest themselves in a time period between 12 hours to 30 days after reading the mentioned page. The end result is that you have to shut down your computer (death) and restart it (death, if you believe in reincarnation). It is not clear yet whether reading the posts more than once, or even writing comments, increases the chances of malfunction.

Fortunately, some major software developers are putting out emergency programs to prevent transmission between computers and to delay consequences of infection. The understandable and praiseworthy preocupation of the authorities resulted in the creation of an emergency fund of many million dollars (the actual amount has not been publicly disclosed yet) for the development of appropriate software for early detection and elimination of the Virus. The earliest antivirus program (Executioner 0.0beta, originally made for defense purposes during the last period of the Cold War) eliminates the virus, but it conflicts with many system files and causes a very high frequency of crashes/deaths on its own. Recently, a second generation of programs (Bourreau 2.0, Verdugo 7.1, Hashishin 2) are being beta-tested on an undisclosed number of computers throughout the world, and although the computers on which these programs have been installed do not crash as early as those with Executioner, other problems, such as monitor burnout, screen-refreshing impairment, and some unexplained crashes have been reported. Fortunately, software developers are flocking into the funding agencies to get the means to attack this frightful problem which endangers ALL the world’s information community.

Some old school computer scientists (led by Prof. Noter Chomsberg) have been saying it is impossible that all those hardware/software problems alleghedly caused by the Virus are an artifact, and that in fact they would occur anyway with a certain frequency. They have said that if you try to simultaneously, for example, 104 burn a DVD, scan a document, read/write a comment in Dean’s World, videoconference with your pals in Ulan Bator and Papeete, edit a image data set of 1 GB with Photoshop, and print high resolution pictures of your dog, your system will probably crash, and that the reading of Dean’s page will be irrelevant. They have even had the temerity to say that no known computer virus can spread into the system from the display of a certain pixel configuration on the screen of the computer and that those 30 (or so) malfunctions happen all the time at similar frequencies even if the Virus is not there. While they were known, at their time, to have been some of the most knowledgeable academicians on computer science, it has been countered that this is a wholly new generation of computer viruses, operating under a new class of consequences of a mathematics which is just beginning to be discovered. Even more so, although they do not know the screen-to-system feedback mechanism, there is OVERWHELMING evidence that if you read Dean’s weblog, in the absence of a specialized antiviral program, any of the 30 or so problems will hit your computer within a month. If they don’t, your computer is a long -term survivor and the software developers would like to study it in detail. In either case, please report to the authorities to contribute to understand the problem.

However, the government perceives these criticisms as dangerous to the less aware blogger community, and they are urging them to take measures after reading Dean’s page, particularly recommending NOT READING IT AT ALL, and if not possible (too late) then installing the anti virus software of their choice and following the instructions religiously. Those refusing because that impairs their computers so severely they can’t work anymore are considered dangerous denialists as their computers continue to propagate the virus and increase the probability of innocent, non bloggers getting infected as the virus is very very intelligent and seeks new screen configurations that will maximize its spread and survival. In particular, it seems that even if you did not actually read Dean’s page, it may be enough that Dean’s page was mentioned in a Google or Yahoo search and the link displayed to suffer the consequences.

For example, recent research has shown that in Africa the Virus spreads even faster than here in the developed world, notably because over there it is enough to use ANY email program to get infected. Although the data on African computers is scant, estimations by the UN World Information System Experts (UNWISE) say that all of African computers will be infected in no time, severely limiting their entry into the global information system and its benefits. They have decided (in Bangui, Central African Republic) that since running the necessary and sophisticated tests is, as of now, virtually impossible there, it will be assumed for for statistical purposes that ANY malfunction in the list IS a consequence of infection by the Virus. The picture is, folks, dreadful. Negotiations are proceeding to expedite some soft loans to African governments to install Executioner, or even Verdugo (the cheaper antiviral programs) in all government and private computers. The urgency of the situation has been rashly contested by some African authorities, who say that the number of email-ready functional computers in Africa is so low that the risk is not very important (as most people actually talk to each other to communicate, or even use the phone) compared to others, and that agricultural development (their top priority) is not very dependent on computers anyway and that they prefer to spend that money in other, and they say more socially beneficial, programs. They have also had the the temerity of using some of the of Prof. Chomsberg’s arguments regarding the feebleness of the proposed mode of transmission for Africa, and stated that computer malfunction in Africa is endemic (particularly as electrical supplies are rather unstable and limited) and that the little existing data does not show an abovenormal increase in computer malfunction, even for those very few who read Dean’s page, due to the alleghed new Virus.

So, for those who read this page (that’s YOU), BEWARE, if in an unpredictable period your computer crashes, freezes, or has to be otherwise restarted, I told you so and get to your nearest Executioner, Bourreau, Verdugo and Hashishin resellers. It is not cheap, it is not very effective, will generate all types of conflicts with existing software and cause some crashes,but its the best we have and it is, after all, a WORLD WIDE emergency.

Thank God that our best and brightest software developers (Microsoft at the head, as could be reasonably expected) are generously financed with public money by a government that cares for the public. We hope soon Africa will benefit from these undivided and selfless efforts.

Samba Diallo
1.19.2005

[McDonald]

Michael Geiger has brilliantly captured the telltale signs of imminent civil war surrounding the Toronto AIDS conference. But, alas, it is quite possible that the rift within the ruling AIDS elite is no deeper than what can be healed. In the following I will examine the issue of dissent as it was presented, and presented itself, according to the transcript from the session entitled, “HIV Science and Responsible Journalism”.

“HIV Science and Responsible Journalism”. . .

One gets no longer than the headline before one understands that something extraordinary is afoot: Not science, not HIV, but ‘HIV Science’.‘HIV Science’ is the creature that demands such special responsibility of journalists and everybody else who has the public ear.

Nathan Geffen, policy coordinator of TAC South Africa, explains why that is:

“My personal view is that it’s almost impossible for the general media, for the mainstream media to be able to override the scientific consensus. The scientific consensus, if it’s wrong it’s going to be challenged by scientists in scientific journals. It’s not the role of journalists to be challenging the scientific consensus. Does the media have the expertise to challenge the scientific consensus? In my view it doesn’t.”

In other words, nobody but the HIV scientists know enough about HIV Science to have an informed opinion about it. Only they can challenge themselves. Hence we see the special responsibility demanded by HIV Science is abdication of responsibility.

Responsibility and morals are very closely linked. That’s why Nathan Geffen calls for a new ‘ethic’ when it comes to HIV Science:

“But what I want to ask, and what I want to propose, is should we be having a new ethic in journalism?”

Well why shouldn’t we embrace a new journalistic world order where the journalists take some responsibility for their own reporting by seizing to question things they’re not trained to deal with? Nathan Geffen acknowledges himself that such steps may not be welcome to all. But after all there’s no mistaking that we’re at war, have been for 25 years, with a virus that terrorizes us, and more on the horizon such as H5N1.
It’s not as if democracy hasn’t played its role. Those with the legitimate right to vote have already voted and reached a consensus – the scientific consensus. Now it’s time to govern, to deliver, to implement initiatives that can keep the enemy off our soil. Perhaps if we take the fight to the virus abroad and hit even earlier and harder in Africa, we will have no more incidents in our part of the world on the scale of the initial Pearl Harbour of AIDS that occurred predominantly among gays, IV drug users and those entirely innocent hemophiliacs.
The strategy now is to free the women of South Africa from oppression and tyranny; a noble aim by any standards.

The point was well taken, but still there were a few voices of dissent or perhaps dissent is not the right word? Richard Horton editor of the Lancet, felt the medicine needed a spoonful of sugar to go down:

“if it wasn’t for journalists acting as a test of science that’s published in journals, such as the one I work for, the Lancet, then actually we don’t have a balance of power in the way science gets reported. So please don’t ask journalists not to challenge the scientific consensus.”

Who can disagree with this basic function of responsible journalism to act as a check and balance to power? Certainly, the media savvy John Moore, co-chairof the session, could hardly agree more wholeheartedly:

“Actually I agree with almost everything you said in that speech. I think you said very many really good points, and I certainly don’t want to see general scientific consensus go unchallenged on many things. But on the fundamentals of whether HIV causes AIDS, I think it is so certain that that is a true statement that challenging it to create trouble really does harm people. And that’s where I don’t know if we disagree with each other, but I think we probably do agree with each other. But I certainly don’t think that science is an ivory tower that should never be questioned. That I’m completely in your camp with for very many reasons.”

The ever articulate, ever diplomatic John Moore thus brilliantly countered the threat of rebellion while at the same time seizing the opportunity to spell out the message of the headline for us, confirming what we’ve already guessed: It’s not just any old science that’s so sacred that it’s beyond questioning; it’s only that very special creature, HIV Science. To challenge HIV Science is morally wrong.

But Nathan Geffen the combat hardened commander on the ground, had no patience for soft line diplomacy. He planted his boot heel squarely on the snake’s
head:

“you can’t convince me that the British Spectator has the competence to challenge the notion that there is a vast HIV epidemic in Africa. You can’t convince me that the Citizen newspaper in Pretoria has the competence to challenge Nancy Padian’s findings. That seems completely unreasonable to me.”

But perhaps the diplomat was right this time, and such open hostility not necessary. Upon closer inspection, all poor Horton bargained for, it seems, was that the journals be allowed in the future to do their usual fact checking and peer reviews. It was understood all along that this doesn’t include anything so drastic as to ‘override scientific consensus’ or questioning basic moral truths such as HIV is the cause of AIDS.

In fact, it was quite clear that by reserving the right to act as a ‘balance of power in the way science gets reported’, Horton meant that only HE and his peers should be allowed the right to act as such a balance. In other words, he just wanted to keep his piece of the power cake safe from usurpers on both sides. True, he wants scientists to admit that they are often wrong, otherwise his publication would lose its power, and its editor his raison d’etre. But his main complaint was against his competition in the balance of power business:

“we tolerate these dissenting views. We respect them, and we actually pay tribute to them because those people who embody them are still invited to events and given a world stage. The day we stop doing that is the day we start to at least push that off the mainstream agenda.”

Horton sums up his self-interest neatly in his final plea, half of it directed TO one threat to his own position, half of it AGAINST the other:

“So please let’s be humble. Please let’s be modest. But please let’s go out there and not be polite with people that we know are wrong. Thanks.”

In this way, what may at first sight appear a rift was resolved in the convergence of interest oiled by an appropriate mix of protest and deference – as recognized by John Moore.

Co-chair of the session, Laurie Garret, further made clear whose power it is that needs to be checked, She put the whole question ‘in the right context’ in a remark that illustrates all too clearly how oppression and the spread of AIDS are linked:

“South Africa, Russia, China, to some degree India, these are all places where getting truth to the populace, especially uncomfortable truths about what’s going on internally with HIV in their countries, is extremely difficult . . .

(The former vice president of South Africa) is a major hero of the people of that region, the Zulu. He was arrested while I was in South Africa for raping a woman he had known since she was a child. And he had essentially been a sort of a surrogate guardian for when her father, who was a hero of the ANC, died. You folks can correct me if I’m getting any of these details wrong. And he allegedly raped her in his home with his wife in the home at the time. Of course typical male response when first arrested he said I never touched anybody. When the rape kit showed his DNA he said, “Oh, well she wanted it.”
In the trial this man who, by the way not only is the former vice president but was the head of the National AIDS Commission of South Africa, said “I knew she was HIV
positive.” She was publicly HIV positive. “But I didn’t need to worry about it because I took a shower right afterwards.” Put aside that he completely justified the rape as “she wanted it.”
So it’s in that context that I think this debate about how do you decide who’s giving accurate information suddenly the stakes rise.”

This lucid illustration of the context in which we must view the whole matter prompted the otherwise well-behaved South African guest, Tamar Lakahn, science and health editor at South Africa's Business Day, to peep something about the former vice president actually having been acquitted of the alleged crime, and showers not being a bad idea for uncircumcised men...

But this all irrelevant, for surely he will understand better than any that a mission of mercy wouldn’t ever be complete without a show of utter contempt and condescension towards the people we want to save - just so they don’t get any funny ideas about independence in the question of checks and balances on power.