HIV/AIDS Skepticism

Pointing to evidence that HIV is not the necessary and sufficient cause of AIDS

The German Connection: Kalichman’s not-so-Komical Kaper #3

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2009/03/21

That scientists are by “nature and training systematic and objective” brought me about equally guffaws and disbelief — guffaws at the absurdity of the assertion, disbelief that it could emanate from anyone who believes himself qualified to write about science. I found myself distinctly more disbelieving than chuckling, though, when I read (p. 54):

“much of the groundswell of support for Duesberg has come from his German colleagues, suggesting a nationalistic source for at least some of his support. As a German-born and German-trained scientist whose father served in the German Army during WW-II, Duesberg may evoke a sort of nationalist sentimental loyalty among some fellow countrymen. . . . The number of German colleagues who rally around Duesberg is notable: . . . [7 names] . . .  Henry Bauer, Austrian born academic”.

Kalichman really believes this, repeating it elsewhere:

“Denialists . . .  base their argument on the views of a group of German men born during the years of Nazism . . . .” (p. 145).

Let me emphasize at the outset that I feel genuinely honored to be associated for any reason with Duesberg and the others that Kalichman names in this connection. Let me state also that, to the best of my conscious knowledge, I have nothing against any individual generic German; indeed, I have some very good friends who are certifiably genuine born-in-Germany Germans.

BUT:

I learned “at my mother’s knee”, on countless occasions, that Austrians are not Germans. That view was by no means idiosyncratic to my mother. Describing an Austrian as a German is perhaps analogous to calling a Canadian an American (meaning a citizen of the United States of America) — though even less acceptable. It’s perhaps analogous to telling a Moslem Kosovan that he’s really a Serb, though perhaps not quite as bad. Or think of telling a Turkish Cypriot that he’s really a Greek citizen. And so on.

Not, of course, that a professor of social psychology is under any obligation to know about such matters — unless, perhaps, if he chooses to write about them and to draw inferences which imply that he knows what he’s talking about.

But there’s more than that. My personal website has been up for many years, and by means of annotated maps it shows where I’ve lived. Vienna, Austria, it says, 1931 to 1939. Australia, it says, 1939-56 and 1958-65.

It would be natural to wonder, wouldn’t it, why a family might make the long move across the world from Austria to Australia?

Recourse to a history book or an almanac for “1939” might bring the clue that international events in 1939 included the outbreak of World War II. A more detailed enquiry into events concerning Austria and Germany might yield the information that Germany under Hitler had pressured Austria to become part of Germany, and Austria under Chancellor Dollfuss had resisted; whereupon Nazi thugs assassinated him. I say “thugs” advisedly here. Not all Nazis were thugs, some number of them were just taking the path of least resistance, not questioning the consensus beliefs, “going with the flow”, “doing what everyone’s doing”. As one of my friends says — a friend who himself survived Nazi concentration camps —, the guards were just ordinary people, some were quite nice and others weren’t so nice. But the thugs who assassinated the Austrian Chancellor, a devout Catholic, were so devoid of any humanity that they refused to let him have a priest to hear his last confession and obtain absolution.

Schuschnigg, successor to Dollfuss as Chancellor, also refused to have Austria annexed to Germany, and eventually scheduled a referendum on the issue. A few days before Austrians could make their choice by voting, German troops invaded Austria — the so-called Anschluss, March 1938.  Schusschnigg went into a concentration camp.

I don’t need recourse to history books to recall all that because, throughout her life, my mother could  hardly carry on a conversation for long without finding some connection to “the Nazis” and related matters. She, my father, my sister, and I were among the most fortunate, of course, to be able not only to get out in time but to be accepted into that wonderfully civilized country, Australia.

Anyone who noted the journey we made in 1939 could rather readily infer why we moved and why I would be unlikely to harbor toward things German “a sort of nationalist sentimental loyalty”. But I’d like to underscore that by offering an insight into why Kalichman’s inference strikes me as not only unwarranted but even offensive, re-awakening memories that were better left asleep.

We got out of Austria just in time, sure enough. But not before my mother had been forced by the Nazis to scrub off the streets, on hands and knees, Austrian emblems that the same Nazis had painted there for the very purpose of making Jewish women scrub them off. Nor did we get out before my father had spent a week locked up in a camp where some of the guards amused themselves by making selected groups — lawyers were a favorite — run gauntlets between lines of club-wielding thugs. Yes, thugs is again quite a proper term.

Since I was then only seven years old, I experienced lock-up or street-scrubbing only at close second-hand. Nevertheless, that close second-hand was rather traumatic, and it was also traumatic to be ejected from public school in the middle of 2nd grade because people like me were unfit to participate in normal human activities.

Altogether, it was not the sort of experience that would instill in most people “a sort of nationalist sentimental loyalty” toward the nation that had created those rules and unleashed those thugs.

The experience of emigration was also not what most people would welcome. We were torn away not only from home but from extended family; some of ours managed to get to England, Finland, India, or the United States. Our family had been comfortably middle-class in Austria. In Australia, we arrived with no knowledge of the English language beyond that gained in a couple of weeks in London and 6 weeks on a British ship. My father’s degree in agriculture brought him a job milking cows on a dairy farm, until he was allowed into the Australian Army. After the war he joined the civil service, entering there in his forties at the same grade and pay level as fresh high-school graduates. My mother worked as a seamstress and piece worker her whole life, at home and in factories. The first vacation my parents could afford, in Australia, was one that my sister and I arranged and paid for after we had begun to earn money.

——————————

This autobiographical interlude seemed to me necessary if readers of this blog are to be able to sense the degree of my astonishment and disbelief upon reading that, in Kalichman’s view, my alleged “support” for Peter Duesberg stems somehow and in some part from my “nationalist sentimental loyalty” to Germany and Germans.

Of course, there would be no reason for Kalichman to know anything about my personal experiences; but there is ample reason for him to put together “1939” and Austria-to-Australia and thereby gain a general awareness of the sorts of things  families like ours experienced.

But might Kalichman perhaps be a denialist about the Anschluss, the German annexation of Austria? Might it even be that Kalichman is not only an Anschluss denialist but a closeted Holocaust denialist as well? After all, he wouldn’t be the first man to excoriate publicly what he practices privately. It would even be consistent with his predilection for assuming fake identities like “Joseph C Newton”.

33 Responses to “The German Connection: Kalichman’s not-so-Komical Kaper #3”

  1. Andy said

    This article leaves me speechless that even such offending nonsense is not too flagrant for Dr. Kalichman to discredit “denialists”. Anyway, thank you for sharing your interlude, Henry.

    Andy

  2. Martin said

    That Kalichman engages in manufacturing lies about others whom he knows nothing about, then goes about criticizing those lies as though he were criticizing the real person, shows what kind of a lowlife he is. Kalichman is nothing more than an AIDS Establishment Nebbish. Once the house of cards that is the AIDS edifice collapses, Nebbishes like Kalichman will disappear as though they never existed. The term “AIDS Denialist” is a denigratory term taken seriously as a psychiatric diagnosis. I consider this pseudo-medicine because a psychiatric diagnosis is nothing more than a moral judgement caged in (pseudo-)medical diagnostic terminology. Sigmund Freud disparaged and denigrated his two main protoges, Karl Jung and Abraham Maslow, with diagnoses because they disagreed with him.

  3. pat said

    I am German therefore I am wrong… S**t… it is in my genes then! Like Rumsfeld’s! And Eisenhower’s [Eisenhauer’s], and …boy, let’s not talk about the Battenbergs [Mountbattens; Prince Philip is a relation].
    Pseudoscience and humanity blinders at another lowpoint.

    Just for historical note:

    Bush said:

    “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.”

    Hitler youth slogan:

    “Wenn nicht mit Uns, dann gegen Uns”

  4. pat said

    I am a Bauer, therefore I am wrong…?

  5. Dave said

    Martin wrote:

    Once the house of cards that is the AIDS edifice collapses, Nebbishes like Kalichman will disappear as though they never existed

    Speakin’ of “house of cards,” have y’all heard of House of Numbers?

  6. Dr. Bauer,

    You ought not apologize for writings of such monumental power as “The German Connection: Kalichman’s Not So Komical Kaper #3.”

    I doubt if I have ever seen “autobiographical” writing that is more quietly devastating.

    In the real world, Kalichman is finished–on so many levels I have lost count. In the parallel universe where Kalichman and his ilk dwell, nothing, but nothing–certainly no facts–can ever act as a corrective tonic to their feverish dreams of AIDS “denialist” demonology.

    This German/Jewish/WW2 angle is a particularly low-class one, even by their standards, and one marvels at the absence of mortification on their part.

    I’d like to add a historical footnote to those gathered here: When, in May of 2008, Peter Duesberg and I were in Washington D.C. on the occasion of the Semmelweis Society International (SSI) Award/Whistleblowers conference, we had some time off, while SSI investigated claims made by TAG and others that we were mass murderers, etc. (SSI concluded, in July of 2008, that AIDS Inc itself was “the greatest criminal enterprise,” the investigator Clark Baker “had ever seen” in his professional life.) Duesberg suggested we use the time to visit the Holocaust Museum, which we did. Weeks later he told me that AIDS “activists” were circulating a report claiming he and I were seen exiting the museum together, laughing.

    Unable to wrap my mind around the “laughing” bit, and not wishing to invoke being half Jewish as a means of introducing one’s capacity to feel in this context, I will say only that Peter Duesberg and I did not exit the Holocaust museum together at all. I exited first, and waited for him for some 30 minutes on the curb outside. Michael Geiger was with us.

    Why bring this up? Is it part of the Great Trap to do so?

    I don’t think so: To me the anecdote is stunning in what it reveals about the ever sinking new lows of those who believe ‘HIV’ to be pathogenic. It reveals a clinical paranoia so pronounced as to constitute the very breaking ray between reality and fantasy. It is the final station for a small and shrinking subset of propagandists who know that all they have left are these far-flung scenarios of abjection and demonism they pray will protect them against the inevitable wrath of the public, when the spells wear off.

    Bear in mind that Kalichman et al are transitioning from being a “baiting crowd,” to being a “flight crowd,” (E. Canetti, Crowds and Power,) the latter of which is made clear by their (its) refusal to engage in debate. The reason is clear: They must be prepared for sudden and successful flight from the crowd they most fear, namely the “reversal crowd,” forming all around them, as they go to ever more elaborate lengths to unify these people as “denialists,” even if it means ascribing German nationalism to an Austrian Jewish academic who survived the Holocaust.

    Have you ever wondered why they don’t like to discuss Serge Lang, or who he was, or where he came from?

    They are well aware that some of their most formidable critics are men and women whose parents survived, fled, or opposed the Holocaust.

    Peter Duesberg, when pressed, said one thing to me, in 2005, about his childhood in Germany and its effect on his scientific carriage and ethos.

    “I was aware of one thing only–that I would never become a Good German.”

  7. Sadun Kal said

    Here’s the official website of “House of Numbers”:
    http://www.houseofnumbers.com/

    Seems pretty interesting:

    “It rocks the foundation upon which all conventional wisdom regarding HIV/AIDS is based. ‘House of Numbers’ could well be the opening volley in a battle to bring sanity and clarity to an epidemic gone awry.”

    It can’t be that bad I guess, and it might even be something awesome. I would appreciate more info about that project.

  8. sadunkal said

    Thanks for sharing all that. It’s really interesting.

    I’m hopeful that Prof. Kalichman will soon apologize for his mistake and try to correct the error.

    • Henry Bauer said

      sadunkal:
      There isn’t a single mistake here by Kalichman, he’s wrong on many counts.
      The only meaningful apology and the only possible way to “correct” his mistakes would be to withdraw the book and say that the “denialists” are actually right substantively.
      I’m sure I can speak for other “denialists” in saying that we have no interest in any personal apologies, and forgive all, IF Kalichman will address the substantive issues and then admit — as any disinterested observer would — that our case is supported by the objective evidence.

  9. sadunkal said

    Even I can’t be THAT optimistic I’m afraid…🙂 I was just talking about his mistake in regard to the “German Connection”, which is undeniably a nasty mistake to make. I think it would be a small step towards something less meaningless than what we have right now if he could at least apologize for one single thing… anything really. I’m just hoping for a signal from people like Kalichman where they can acknowledge that the “denialists” are actually real human beings with their own experiences and motivations. I want to see people like him interact with “denialists” like one would normally do with another human being. I just think they forget that they’re in fact dealing with humans sometimes. They try to dehumanize their perception of “denialists” with things like the above piece as much as possible so that they don’t have to feel anything apart from a discontent similar to a discontent someone might feel against a buzzing fly. But that “denial” won’t help anyone.

    • Henry Bauer said

      sadunkal:
      Your chief point is accurate and very sad. Kalichman et al. indeed don’t stop to think that those who question HIV/AIDS happen to be rather typical human beings in many ways, except that they tend to think for themselves more. When he writes, ” it is important that I say that the denialists who interacted with me did not seem evil”, it shows clearly enough that he set out with the idea that we ARE evil. He’s not engaged in a scientific controversy but in what he regards as a moral crusade.

  10. Andy said

    I agree with both of you. On the one hand it would be a good thing if Dr. Kalichman showed at least SOME decency by apologizing for this nasty allegation. Celia Farber’s use of the term “demonology” does not seem inappropriate in the context to me at all. By the way, Celia, thank you for sharing that incredible story of your visit at the Holocaust Museum. I still remember I could not stop crying at my first visit at the Dachau concentration camp memorial.

    On the other hand, Dr. Kalichman’s “Nazi connection”, especially taking Henry’s Jewish background into account, seemingly is, excuse me, a typical demonstation of his inability or unwillingness to do proper research. Accusing a US-citizen of Austrian ancestry to be near Nazism without considering the “Anschluss”, without checking whether his family left Austria, seems typical for HIV-AIDS-orthodoxy to me. They seem to take each piece of mud they are able to grasp and throw it at the “denialists”, no matter how uninvestigated, how unreflected, how blatant and obviously incorrect and therefore easy to refute the criticism may be.

  11. MacDonald said

    I have stated a couple of times that Seth Kalichman himself does not interest me as much as the people and institutions that endorse him. But certain things about the man are so extraordinary that they merit attention for their own sake. For example, during my slow and parsimonious tour de blogs this morning, I came across the following comment from Kalichman:

    Not sure if you were able to see the review of Denying AIDS that someone I never heard of posted; Claus, or Klaus, or Heinz, not sure.

    http://denyingaids.blogspot.com/2009/02/denying-aids-conspiracy-theories.html#comments

    In the course of this unusually clumsy version of the good old “Who? Don’t know him, he can’t be important”, Kalichman changes a name from the English Claus (Nicholas) to the more German-sounding Klaus (Nikolaus) and Heinz, for no other reason I can detect than that those names are… well, more German-sounding. A more revealing look into how Kalichman fabricates the Nazi-Germany connections of his foes is hardly possible.

    Then there’s the following:

    MacDonald Said,

    Hey Newton

    keep doubling up on ‘em ??s That’s like u know reely gonnu fool da stoopid denialists, heheh!!

    April 5, 2009 3:20 PM

    Some here may recognize this out-of-context quote. It is the last part of a Comment I submitted here a couple of days ago. The only change is Newton for Prof Kalichman. I can only assume Kalichman or his friend, Snout, has “borrowed” it in order to pretend I am a member of his AIDS Denialist Fan Club and can be bothered posting on his blog as such.

    That’s what I call a desperate dude!

    I invite other readers here to have a look; maybe there are more people being counted among Kalichman’s fans without knowing it.

    http://denyingaids.blogspot.com/2009/03/my-aids-denialisst-fan-club.html

    (Yes, denialisst as in SS. Another Freudian typo I guess)

    • Henry Bauer said

      MacDonald:

      It’s also good to know that Kalichman, Snout et al. monitor religiously even the Comments from crypto-Germans on this crypto-German blog, which has never felt the need to generate its own faked comments.

      Kalichman seems to command an endless range of actions able to surprise, for example, posting at amazon.com the first review of his own book.

  12. Travis said

    Dr. Bauer
    I am new to all of this and I must say it is horrible what Kalichman is up to. I have visited his website . . . and see what he is saying bout you. What a narrow minded ass. . . . He says that you have never published anything scientific in a peer reviewed journal and that you have never mentored a graduate student to complete a PhD. What is wrong with that guy?
    . . . You should tell us all how wrong he is right now, right here!
    Thanks Dr. Bauer! Stay on him!

    • Henry Bauer said

      Travis:

      I don’t read Kalichman’s blog, so I didn’t know he said that about publishing in peer-reviewed scientific journals (where I have about 85 articles in electrochemistry) or never mentoring a PhD student — actually the number I mentored is 4, two of whom are tenured full professors, one of them having been Department Chair and later a Dean, and the other is author of a monograph published by Springer that’s now in its 4th edition.

      I’ve got a blog post about this, it’s presently in the queue as #11 in Kalichman’s Komical Kapers; others are taking priority for a while.

      I don’t know what’s wrong with Kalichman.

  13. Travis said

    Dr. Bauer, I am glad that you cleared that up! You are smart for not even bothering with his blog.
    Kalichman claimed that you did not publish in peer reviewed journals because he said that a search of science and medical publishers or ‘pubmed’ found nothing of yours.
    I would love to rub this in his face. Can you post a few of the most important or most recent ones here? I know this might be a hassle, but the more mud on his lying face the better!

    • Henry Bauer said

      Travis:

      I don’t have time at the moment, I’m about to go away for two weeks. You can wade through my CV, on my personal website, to get to the chemistry stuff toward the end.

      Kalichman’s “search” seems to have been as well done as his reading of my book, where I mention in the Preface two decades of research in electrochemistry. Perhaps his library doesn’t contain the Science Citation Index? Plenty of entries for me from the 1950s on.

      I’ll also be citing in other Kalichman Komical Kapers his misquotations and the like. Please be patient.

  14. Tony Lance said

    “Travis”,

    Your writing seems awfully familiar. I can’t possibly imagine why that would be the case. Care to help me out?

  15. Sadun Kal said

    Why get suspicious, Tony? Isn’t it extremely important and relevant to this blog post that Henry Bauer proves to the whole world that he has indeed published in peer-reviewed journals? Isn’t that the whole point of this blog?

    Surely it’s purely a coincidence that Travis demonstrates in his comments all the characteristics of those who try to clumsily deceive, as described in the “KKK” series in this blog. I ask for more tolerance towards newcomers.

  16. MacDonald said

    I second Sadun on that!! It’s just crazy to be suspicious of such an excellent straight man! Tony, you seem to be displaying the suspicious nature of AIDS denialists… haha just kidding.

    Hey Prof Bauer! would it be too much of hassle to circulate signed hard copies of your peer-reviewed papers, so that we can physically rub that Dumbee Kalichman’s Snout in it??!!!

  17. Tony Lance said

    Sadun Kal, MacDonald,

    Perhaps you’re both right that I’m being overly suspicious and failing to extend to “Travis” the courtesy he’s due. After all, if his posts are insincere and authored by someone who’s been the subject of discussion on this blog, that would mean he’s so confident of his own assertion that Dr. Henry Bauer has “never published anything scientific in a peer reviewed journal” that he’s willing to go to enemy territory and risk making a fool of himself should he be shown to be wrong. (And if proven wrong that would also constitute considerable evidence that neither his editor nor his fact-checker performed their job and prevented such a potentially libelous statement from making it into print.) That would be an incredibly stupid gambit, and university professors simply aren’t that imbecilic, right? I mean, all that’s required to disprove this allegation is a simple Google Scholar search using the terms “HH Bauer” and “electrochemistry” to get nearly 200 hits either for papers Bauer has written or pieces which refer back to his work.

    Please forgive my momentary lapse in civility toward “Travis.” What was I thinking?😉

  18. MacDonald said

    Our friend, Travis, has confronted Kalichman with the result of his inquiry here, calling him a liar. Kalichman’s reply:

    Travis, can you please post a few of those esteemed research articles Bauer claims to have? I cannot find a single one. Why not?

    This cheerful confession of ignorance, intellectual laziness and lack of integrity (remember Kalichman is supposed to have researched Bauer in a professional capacity) caused toe-cringing even in the shoes of the usually unflinching veteran HIV/AIDS propagandist, Chris Noble, who took it upon himself to enlighten Kalichman publicly.

    Noble: Seth, PubMed doesn’t index electrochemistry journals. If you search in other databases and go back to the 1970s then you’ll [find] his electrochemical papers.

    Kalichman: Thanks Chris for the publication information. (followed by a has-to-be-read-to-be-believed string of sandbox-level ageist taunts.)

    I repeat once more, it is impossible to embarrass someone like Seth Kalichman, but others around him clearly are.

    http://denyingaids.blogspot.com/2009/04/major-aids-denialist-protest-at-village_07.html#comments

    • Henry Bauer said

      MacDonald:

      Thanks, good to know that Kalichman is discrediting himself so obviously that even his buddies among HIV/AIDS vigilantes and groupies are becoming uncomfortable. Another benefit of Kalichman’s actions, as I’ve mentioned before, is a great increase in hits on my blog and a surge in sales of my book.

  19. Laura said

    I see that Mr Kalichman is still trying to play this card … in his “review” of House of Numbers, he says that he “was sure that it would show at beer and Weiner Schnitzle parties on UC Berkeley and Virginia Tech campuses.”

    Dr Bauer, you sly old fox! You never mentioned the beer and schnitzel parties! 😉

  20. MacDonald said

    The kind and constructive criticism Kalichman has received here and elsewhere is beginning to result in serious concessions. For instance, he has now heeded the advice of “Anonymous” on his blog and changed whacky to wacky to avoid more denialist attacks on his spelling, according to himself. I guess that’s as good a reason as any to strive for accuracy.

    But, Prof, Kalichman, although it’s a laudable first step, you’ve still got some way to go. Here, let me help you work a little on those German punchlines:

    First, there is no such thing as a Weiner Schnitzle, but pork lovers would all know what a Wiener Schnitzel is. Secondly, since this is supposed to be a German joke, why not change beer to Bier? And how about and to und? Most of your readers are probably sophisticated enough to understand the sentence anyway.

    I don’t want to get too technical, Prof. Kalichman, but you’re undoubtedly aware that Germans are rumoured to be sort of heavy and ponderous; try Sein und Zeit by Martin Heidegger and you’ll know what I mean. That being so, you’re really chewing your own behind if your German punchlines appear clumsy, as well as contrived. They should be light and skipping to create a subtle contrast between your own splendid wit and those plodding Germans. That means you should omit words that are unnecessary or disturb the speech rhythm (as a rule, written punchlines should work just as well when spoken out loud).

    So, Weiner has to go I’m afraid (this has the added advantage of presenting one less target for those sneaky denialist spelling attacks). UC and campuses can also be omitted, since Tech shows you’re talking about institutes of learning rather than geographical locations, and the word order should be rearranged. Thus, you predict that House of Cards

    would show at Berkeley and Virginia Tech Bier und Schnitzel parties

    The joke is still contrived, but next time we can focus on how to properly set up such a punchline.

    In other news, it has sparked considerable moral outrage in the Comments section on Kalichman’s blog that Brent Leung, director of House of Cards, apparently hid his denialist agenda when interviewing HIV scientists for his movie. Newt… I mean Kalichman hopes that Leung’s deceitful and biased hit job will be a career ender.

    In a perfect world, Prof. Kalichman, in a perfect world…

  21. “In other news, it has sparked considerable moral outrage in the Comments section on Kalichman’s blog that Brent Leung, director of House of Cards, apparently hid his denialist agenda when interviewing HIV scientists for his movie.”

    Isn’t there a clear difference between withholding an agenda and creating a fake identity?

  22. MacDonald said

    There is not only a clear difference between merely withholding intent and creating a fake identity in order to trap people, Leung also has a perfectly valid justification (assuming he is guilty as charged), which is absent in Kalichman’s case. I’ll let Kalichman explain:

    It is not that scientists (and I mean real scientists, not wannabes and frauds) would change what they say depending the intent of the questioner. Rather, real scientists would refuse to say anything for a denialist film. Scientists know that AIDS Denialists twist and corrupt what they say.

    When faced with such hostility against anyone who is suspected of being willing to entertain the possiblity of dissenting opinions, it is normal journalistic practice to withhold one’s opinions, or even attempt to appear sympathetic.

    Scientists are paid by the taxpayer when they are not paid by special interests who count on them for propaganda. HIVists, especially of the AIDStruth breed, who double as politicians, lawmakers, lobbyists and activists, should be regarded as such and made to answer questions, just like we expect of our politicians, although it rarely happens.

    Charges of distortion, manipulation, secret backers with plenty of money and sinister agendas (no, not George Soros🙂 ) were out before anyone had seen Leung’s movie. I have yet to read of a single concrete example of the alleged distortion. This goes to show the extreme levels of vulnerability felt in certain corners.
    As usual, Kalichman himself represents the pinnacle of paranoia:

    The film’s trailer presents itself as an evenhanded view of AIDS science. What you are not told is that the legitimate AIDS scientists interviewed were not informed of the film’s intent. Some of the scientists said to be interviewed have no recollection of the experience.

    As seen above, this means that Kalichman feels the “legitimate scientists” were robbed of their Fifth Amendment rights. But what about those having no recollection of the experience? They were “said to be interviewed”. Does that mean Leung is lying about having interviewed them? If so, who are the people in the movie, David Crowe in various disguises?

    If it were true that some scientists are said to have been interviewed, but weren’t, it’s of little consequence one would imagine, since they are not featured in the movie anyway (that is, if we discount the David-Crowe-in-disguise hypothesis). So what is supposed to have happened, Candid Camera, date-rape drugs? How exactly can you film an interview, including questions about the existence of HIV, without the interviewee even registering that he is being interviewed?

    One is tempted to think that some HIV scientists really do suffer from AIDS dementia, but, assuming Kalichman is not merely fabulating, a far more likely explanation is that many scientists per reflex deny all knowledge of, or association with, suspected denialists when interrogated by the AIDStruth Inquisition.

    PS. I called the film House of Cards. I guess it’s House of Numbers.

  23. Darin said

    “House of Cards” is, I believe, the name of both a CNBC piece on the housing bubble/MBS/CDS scam (Kind of like Project Inform producing a documentary on HIV after its fall), as well as a book on Bear Stearn’s collapse. Given the similar human follies of the economy and HIV, it’s easy to see how one could confuse the two titles.

    I find it curious that scientists and doctors somehow feel they should be immune from so-called “independent journalism” (*), or (god forbid) journalists who may actually have a bias to challenge power. And why does the public share this sentiment?

    Imagine this attitude applied to other common issues of the day:

    “It is not that politicians and military leaders (and I mean real politicians and military leaders, not wannabes and frauds) would change what they say depending the intent of the questioner. Rather, real politicians and military leaders would refuse to say anything for an anti-American film. God-fearing patriots know that anti-Americans twist and corrupt what they say, aiding the terrorists… The film’s trailer presents itself as an evenhanded view of the Iraqi occupation. What you are not told is that the legitimate Bush administration officials interviewed were not informed of the film’s anti-American intent.”

    “It is not that lawyers (and I mean lawyers, not wannabes and frauds) would change what they say depending the intent of the questioner. Rather, real lawyers would refuse to say anything for a film that would endanger national security. Intelligence officials know that civil libertarians twist and corrupt what they say… The film’s trailer presents itself as an evenhanded view of enhanced interrogation techniques. What you are not told is that legitimate Dept. of Justice lawyers interviewed were not informed of the film’s intent to promote future investigations or prosecutions.”

    “”It is not that bankers and financial elites (and I mean real bankers and financial professionals, not wannabes and frauds) would change what they say depending the intent of the questioner. Rather, real bankers would refuse to say anything for an anti-capitalist film. Financial professionals know that socialists twist and corrupt what they say… The film’s trailer presents itself as an evenhanded view of the economic collapse. What you are not told is that legitimate bankers and financial professionals interviewed were not informed of the film’s intent to provoke populist furor.”

    WHO IN THEIR RIGHT MIND WOULD JUSTIFY THE ABOVE?

    So, why does the public accept this attitude from scientists and doctors?

    darin

    (*) Glenn Greenwald recently pointed out at the Izzy Awards that the term “journalism” implies independence, so the modifier is in fact redundant.

    • Henry Bauer said

      Darin:

      Very neat and to the point. Hits home much more powerfully than abstract argument alone.

  24. sadunkal said

    Nice…

  25. MacDonald said

    The Inquisition Strikes Back LOL!

    http://www.aidstruth.org/new/news/2009/scientists-distance-themselves-aids-denialist-film

    Some might not agree with Kalichman’s axiom that all

    Scientists are by their nature and training systematic and objective

    But it cannot be denied that HIV scientists are by their nature and training systematically righteous and always, always sooo dignified in that morally outraged sort of way.

    But haven’t they shot themselves in the foot this time? By signing the letter claiming they were hoodwinked into participating in a movie they still haven’t seen, they are implicitly admitting that they remember being interviewed for it.

    That’s a slippery slope fellas.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s