HIV/AIDS Skepticism

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

The final transformation: Kalichman has become Newton (Chapter 5 of Jekyll-Kalichman-Hyde-Newton)

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2009/04/27

When Dr. Jekyll first sampled his transformative potion, it caused his behavior to change, increasingly toward lack of civility and disdain of others. In time, these behavioral changes left their physical mark in a progressively increasing grossness of his fleshly features. At first these were seen only “under the influence”, whenever Jekyll deliberately, willfully assumed the persona of Hyde. But in the end, the process became irreversible, and Jekyll became Hyde physically as well as behaviorally.

A similar sad fate eventually overtook Kalichman. Having e-mailed as “Newton” for well over a year and with half-a-dozen dissidents, Kalichman became “Newton” in bodily reality as, in 2008, he registered for the Aneuploidy Conference organized in Berkeley by Peter Duesberg:


Having registered, Newton also attended. On p. 27 of “Denying AIDS”, he is seen with Peter Duesberg himself:


A closer examination of this picture shows that the identification on the name-tag of the person with Duesberg has been washed or blurred out. However, since Newton had registered and Kalichman didn’t, the inference is plain enough, this is Duesberg with Joseph C Newton. As Sadun Kal pointed out, Kalichman’s photo gallery atpicasa has another photo of the same person with Duesberg at the same meeting, but there the name tag does not have the name blurred out:


From the same meeting, yet another picture in this photo collection shows the same person with David Rasnick, with the name again clearly visible in the middle line of the name tag (though not readable at this resolution):


Once again, it seems, Kalichman/Newton are/is ignorant of how they/he leave(s) trails on the Internet ; in this case, a trail that demonstrates what appears to be a deliberate attempt, by blurring out the identifying name, to deceive readers of “Denying AIDS” about who Duesberg thought he was with in the photograph published in the book.

I was curious about how “cordial and inquisitive” (“Denying AIDS”, p. xiv) Kalichman/Newton had been with Duesberg:

10 March 2009, Bauer to Duesberg:
“Kalichman’s book has a photo with you, dated February 2008. When he talked with you, did he reveal that he was researching for a book criticizing ‘AIDS denialism’?”

18 March 2009, Duesberg to Bauer:
“…. I really overlooked your note about the Newton alias Kalichman case. So, certainly he didn’t say a word about/against ‘denialists’ at the Oakland cancer conference.
From the little I remember about him, he seemed rather obsequious re. the topic and proceedings of the aneuploidy-cancer meeting.”

So there’s another little confirmation of the transformation of Professor Kalichman into the Uriah-Heep-like persona of Newton: Duesberg recalled in the actual physical person of Newton the same obsequiousness that I’ve pointed to in so many of his e-mails, not to speak of his perpetual prevarication about his interests and intentions. It may be, of course, that the impression of obsequiousness was based in part on earlier e-mails by Newton to Duesberg, for example:

“Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 22:44:54 -0400
From: “Joseph Newton” <>
Subject: Asking for help
Hello Dr. Deusberg
I know you must be very busy and you must receive thousands of messages. I am hoping you can very quickly answer a question for me. I am a great admirer of your courage and scholarship on AIDS. I have become aware of some new thinking on alternative theories on AIDS set forth by Professor Henry Bauer at Virgina Tech. Are you familiar with his work and would see him as in line with your views? I want to know before taking too much in.
Thank you again.
Joe Newton, CT, USA”


“Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2007 23:33:35 -0400
From: “Joseph Newton” <>
Subject: Note from an Admirer

Hello Dr. Duesberg
I hope this note finds you well.

Mr. Crowe suggested that you may respond to my email. I am a student of Public Health following the developments in AIDS. It would appear to me that with recent events such as the publication of the Rodriguez paper in JAMA and the continued failings of tratments as well as the pile of failed vaccines, the HIV tower may be ready to fall. I am curious if this is how you see it and whether you are working on any new papers or books? Also, will you be speaking publicly anytime soon? My dream is to see you talk on AIDS.
My best to you and thank you for your time!!
Joseph C. Newton”

“Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2007 14:03:28 -0500
From: “Joseph Newton” <>
To: “peter duesberg” <>
Subject: Re: Note from an Admirer

Thank you so much for writing me back Dr. Duesberg. I know you must be very busy and I did not really espect you to have time.
I am in Connecticut and I would travel if I had the chance to see you.
I have so many questions. I would love the chance to talk with you – anytime any place.
One question that I am just burning to ask you is about whether there is a connection between your views on AIDS resulting from toxins (such as poppers, AZT, and unclean water) and cancer – where Aneuploidy also results from environmental hazards. Is there a connection there or I am just reading too much into your writings and your biography that Dr. Bialy wrote?
Again, thank you Dr. Duesberg, and anything that you can think of that someone like me can do to help shift the course of AIDS to the truth, please tell me.
All the best to you.

Not only obsequious, not only replete with fake typos, not only pretending to support “denialism”, but also looking for confirmation of Kalichman-Newton’s wacky attempt to see an “environment-causal” connection between Duesberg’s work on cancer and his views on AIDS.

“Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 11:01:09 -0500
From: “Joseph Newton” <>
To: “peter duesberg” <>
Subject: Re: Note from an Admirer

Hello again Dr. Duesberg. I am following up.
I have a cousin who lives in San Francisco and I may come out a visit. If I came to Berkely, can we have coffee? . . . .
Best to you Dr. Duesberg,

After the Aneuploidy conference in Berkeley, February 2008, Newton resumed his e-mail correspondence with Duesberg:

“Date: Mon, 5 May 2008 13:16:13 -0400
From: “Joseph Newton” <>
To: “peter duesberg” <>
Subject: Re: SCCR Conference – best way to reach us
Hello Dr. Duesberg
I hope you are doing well.
You may remember me from your Aneuploidy Conference.
I just saw this blub online, and I cannot tell if it is authentic. Will you really be in Washington on May 13?
See blub below. Thank you! Joseph 04252008/ gossip/pagesix/ hands_not_ so_bloody_ 108001.htm

April 25, 2008 – CELIA Farber, the maverick journalist vilified by the AIDS establishment for her controversial reporting, will be honored by the Semmelweis Society on May 13 in Washington, DC, with its Clean Hands Award — ‘which is an amazing irony, considering I am always accused of having blood on my hands,’ she laughed. Farber — whose story in Harper’s, ‘Out of Control: AIDS and the Corruption of Science,’ caused an uproar two years ago — will address Congress along with Berkeley professor Peter Duesberg, who claims the HIV virus doesn’t cause AIDS. They’ll sign books after a screening of ‘The Constant Gardener,’ about a pharmaceutical company making a killing off AIDS drugs in Africa.”

“Date: Fri, 16 May 2008 08:28:45 -0400
From: “Joseph Newton” <>
To: “Peter DUESBERG” <>
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Semmelweis Society Revised Mtn agenda for CME credit 5-5-08]

Hello Dr. Duesberg
I was hoping to go to DC to see you and Ms. Farber recv the awards. I had heard that in fact the tribunal was cancelled and that you and Ms. Farber experienced some negative responses. I suspect that is to be expected in such a forum. So I did not go.
I did read the article in Discover about you. That was simply wonderful.
Are you currently trying to get NIH funding again? I am so curious about that process. I have read Dr. Lang’s commentaries of your previous biased reviews.
I am surprised you havenot posted that grant proposal and the reviews on your website.
Are they available to learn from?
Thank you again and I hope to see you again soon.

Those e-mails would seem to provide the ultimate confirmation that it is indeed Joseph Newton who is pictured in Kalichman’s book with Duesberg at the Aneuploidy Conference.

Yet the photo of Kalichman in his  profile on bears an uncanny likeness to the Newton pictured with Duesberg. Evidently, by the beginning of 2008 the physical transformation of Kalichman into Newton was complete and irrevocable, warts and all.


Not only was Kalichman-Newton deceitful with the people about whom he was seeking information, he continues the deceitfulness with readers of “Denying AIDS”  by not letting them know that he never talked openly with any of his subjects. More than that, by publishing a photo of himself with Duesberg, he implies that author Kalichman spoke with Duesberg even though he didn’t, it was Joseph Newton with whom Duesberg was interacting.

I’ve pointed out that the Code of Ethics of the psychological profession bars deceit in research, unless it has been approved by an Institutional Review Board; in which case the deceived subjects are to debriefed as soon as the research is finished, and given the opportunity to withdraw any information gleaned from them. None of that happened.

It’s also rather troubling that Joseph Newton’s registration for the Aneuploidy Conference gives his contact information (street address and phone number) as Kalichman’s Social Psychology Department at the University of Connecticut. That suggests there were people in that Department who were aware of the continuing deception and colluded in it.

It’s perhaps even more troubling that Kalichman mentors graduate students, at least one of whom appears to have been aware of the deception he was practicing, since she attempted to become my “friend” on Facebook.


So much for Kalichman-Newton and Kalichman’s failures as to professional ethics. It remains, however, to point out how many plain errors of fact there are in the Kalichman book ghosted by Newton, how many wacky interpretations, and how badly written it is, to the extent that one is often baffled when trying to surmise what the author could mean.

15 Responses to “The final transformation: Kalichman has become Newton (Chapter 5 of Jekyll-Kalichman-Hyde-Newton)”

  1. Darin said

    I suspect Kalichman’s response to your charges would be very similar to the response the US government, intelligence community, and Establishment pundits have given to the claim that high-level officials should be held accountable for acts of torture — but, it’s okay when we do it… after all, we’re the “good” guys, we have good “intentions”…, etc., etc.

    Classic American exceptionalism. We’re above the law, immune from accountability, beyond critique, because we’re doing good deeds. Same justification given by the AIDS establishment for all their crimes.

    • Henry Bauer said


      Sure, that’s how Kalichman, J P Moore, Wainberg, et alia self-justify despicable, unethical behavior. What such self-justification ignores is that ends don’t justify means; they cannot, because the means one employs actually determine the ends that are reached. That’s also why Constitutions and laws are so important: they specify procedures that are intended to be GENERAL, not determined by the particularities of specific cases where vested interests and conflicts of interest get in the way of proper fairness and objectivity. To the HIV/AIDS vigilantes, moderation in the pursuit of their objective is no virtue, to paraphrase an infamous political statement. As Jacob Bronowski observed, it’s fanaticism that kills people.

  2. joe stokely said

    Dr. Bauer,
    Very good detective work! That is definately Seth. Here is his link with his picture on the UConn website.

    He went to that extreme just to get a picture for his book that nobody will bother reading????


    • Henry Bauer said


      Thanks! But I’m not much of a detective for overlooking the most direct photographic proof at U Conn!

      Siggi Duesberg had kept the registration material from that conference, and had sent me that and the e-mails from “Newton” to Duesberg. You can imagine how Siggi and Peter reacted to discovering that Kalichman had attended the conference as “Newton”.

  3. Allen said

    Wow. Not even in a novel have I read such a twisted and and treacherous character. What makes Seth’s actions so bad, in my opinion, is that many of the people he smears would probably have spoken to him even if he had approached them as he was–even if he had said he was writing book about “denialism”. In other words, he disguised himself for no good reason other than his own fancy. Now what does that say about our dear psychologist?

    • Henry Bauer said


      Exactly. Kalichman’s view of us had been formed before he ever started his “research” about us. He didn’t even know that we have been asking for dialogue with HIV/AIDS proponents for many years and that we would have been delighted to talk with him. As it happens, nothing in his book reveals anything new or that isn’t obvious from the open records and our writings. Apparently his chief discovery was that the “denialists” who talked with “Newton” aren’t really evil! Only those he didn’t contact are evil. (I’m away from home, can’t give the page reference for those statements of his, I think they’re in his Preface).

    • Joe Stokely said

      It not like we dissidents have anything to hide. Did he think he was going to see an evil side of Peter that he could alert the world to? LOL Looks like he is wasting his money and time too. Maybe he figured he would sell more books if he had pictures of Duesberg and Rasnick.

  4. MacDonald said

    Just for the record, since it’s hardly going to surprise anyone here, there are no traces left of Newton’s obsequiousness when he is in the comfort zone of Kalichman’s blog, although he is just as juvenile in his communication.

    It might be worthy of note, though, that he holds two competing theories concerning Duesberg’s interest in Aneuploidy. There’s the Environmental Causation theory, and then there’s of course the German Connection theory.

    Note also that according to Lisa Eaton’s definition of serious psychopathology (suspecting that opposing scientists might have a personal and professional or financial stake in the research and theories they cling to), Kalichman is a serious psychopath:

    There is more money in Cancer than AIDS. Maybe that is why Rasnick and Duesberg are now on Aneuploidy? You should have been at their Aneuploidy Conference. What hoot! A bunch of old German men talking up a home country theory that failed over 100 years ago. (Kalichman)

    Kalichman also seems to have changed his mind about denialists not being evil. In this remarkable passage, he tell us that he has been “groomed” by Prof. Bauer, among others. What makes the passage remarkable is that he starts by speaking hypothetically and figuratively about how it must feel for a child to be groomed by a paedophile, but in the very next sentence he himself turns into that child and assures us that he is not speaking sarcastically, or figuratively, the feeling was exactly the same. I am not going to ask how he knows:

    I can tell you first handed that Crowe and Bauer will take a young mind in and groom for this. Grooming is the right word Snout. It is what it must be like to be a child groomed by a pedophile. I am not being sarcastic, that is how it felt. I write a little about it in Denying AIDS. It should have been a larger section. Maybe a chapter. Some of my draft readers suggested I get more into the dark behavior I saw in researching the Denialists. It is a story to tell that is for sure. (Kalichman)

    Kalichman’s whole purpose with this book was to expose denialists for the monsters they are, and now he says he left the best bits out?! Is there no end to the ways he has been cheating his readership in Denying AIDS?

    Perhaps once Kalichman has managed to process his many traumatic experiences with denialists, such as being surrounded by old German men at Duesberg’s Aneuploidy Conference, he will get around to writing that Gothic horror novel he’s got lurking deep inside, next to Newton’s repressed childhod memories.

    • Henry Bauer said


      (And my thanks also to other correspondents who monitor various blogs and share tidbits with me, and who keep me informed about reviews and sales rankings at — apparently my book, already out for nearly two years, is still selling as well as Kalichman’s new one).
      I’ve never before felt so powerful, and my self-esteem threatens to grow out of control.
      Starting as a child groomed to feel like a despicable non-human, through the rigors of experiencing (and greatly benefiting from) an Australian education where students were actually expected to study and to do well on highly demanding exams, through a career of university teaching where my influence on the students often seemed minimal, I now find myself so powerful that I can groom and mold people I’ve never even met, and to stimulate the founding of no less than 3 blogs whose sole raison d’être is to attack my person and misquote my writings.
      If this continues, my family members will have to re-double their efforts to help me avoid smugness and self-satisfaction.

  5. sadunkal said

    I believe he was referring to young minds like mine when he was talking about “a young mind” being “groomed”. And when he says “that is how it felt” I think he’s talking about his feelings as an observer, not as a victim of groom. What he says is nevertheless extremely ridiculous of course. He often makes far more ridiculous claims about the “psychology of denialists” when he writes in his blog, in comparison to his book.

  6. MacDonald said


    You have been hanging out too much on blogs run by people with reading and writing disabilities. Kalichman’s comments were related to your sad case of being groomed by the Perth Group, but he cannot possibly have “first handed” experience of that, or any other grooming, unless he has direct access to Prof Bauer’s and Val Turner’s mail to you. Well, does he?

    Neither could he have considered putting it in his book, unless you and he have been pen-pals for quite some time. Well, have you?

    No, Kalichman is hinting at babe-in-the-woods Newton’s traumatic experiences with Crowe and Bauer, as chronicled on this very blog.

  7. Sabine Kalitzkus said

    Hello Dr Bauer !!

    I really hope you feeling very well.Pls apologize me approaching you this way – I know youre very busy !

    I’m an advansed student of mentall disorders of the highranking emplojees of hard and soft sciences. I just glued to your Kalichman-saga !!! Just tryin to understand all this !!

    But please prof. Bauer – I would never allow miself to critizise you – bcause I know its not your fault and you must be verry busy , but how is it possible that renowned Prof. Dr. Joseph C Newton introduces himself to Deusberg on 2 Nov 2007 23:33:35 as “a student of Public Health following the developments in AIDS” and you show a picture of somebody whos at least 20 years older than any andvanced student, with Deusberg at a conference just some months later, telling us this is prof. Dr Joseph C Newtn?!!

    I Don’t really mean to critique you but yuo surely wanted to show us another pictore of Mr. Joe and you just confused it with this foto of an elderly man?!? Dont you ?!!

    Pleas again apologize for disturbing you like this , I know you are vry busy wiht the today Sho and all this. But I’m just tryin to understand all this!!

    Sincerey Yours!!

    Anabelle F. Curie

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: