HIV/AIDS Skepticism

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

Kalichman disrespects Bauer; Bauer blows his own trumpet — Kalichman’s Komical Kaper #11

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2009/05/31

Perhaps the most jaw-dropping statement Kalichman makes about me, because it’s so easily shown to be utterly false, is that “Bauer has never done any scientific research” (p. 71, similar on pp. 72 and 182-3).

I had initially presumed — incorrectly, apparently — that Kalichman had read my book before criticizing what he claims to find in it. As it turns out, he places in quotation marks things I never said or wrote, and attributes to my book a “single-study fallacy” in making a comparison between HIV and AIDS that I never made (Kalichman re-writes Bauer’s book — Kalichman’s disgracefully un-Komical Kaper #10).  As to my record of scientific research see p. 7, in my Preface:

“After two decades of teaching chemistry, carrying out research specifically in electrochemistry, I joined the fledgling field of ‘science studies,’ or ‘science and technology studies,’ which was emerging in the 1970s as an interdisciplinary venture among engineers, scientists, historians of science, sociologists of science, philosophers of science, political scientists, and others” [emphasis added].

Not only is it stated plainly there; had Kalichman wanted to know about my professional doings, nothing prevented him from getting a copy of my vita. It’s not a confidential document, I’ve often sent out various versions of it when acting as consultant or dissertation evaluator or reviewer of credentials or when invited to give a talk somewhere. Kalichman describes having visited with Duesberg, so why would he not make direct contact with me and get accurate information? For some reason, while he was writing the book, Kalichman was trying to keep his identity and doings hidden from me, presenting himself as “Joe Newton” (Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll-Kalichman and Mr. Hyde-Newton — Chapter 1, 4 April 2009; How not to create a persona: Kalichman’s Komical Kaper #4, 29 March 2009; Introducing Seth Kalichman (Kalichman’s Komical Kaper #1), 8 March 2009); but he could have had “Joe”, or Kalichman’s actual graduate student Lisa Eaton, ask for my c.v.;  say, on the pretense that they wanted to arrange a talk for me under the auspices of a graduate-student group.

At any rate, I remain frankly and utterly without a good explanation for this blatantly false assertion by Kalichman; although, I confess, I’ve come to think that Kalichman is wont to just make up stuff, or perhaps to rely on a very faulty memory, or to “see” what he wishes to see rather than what’s actually there. At the end of this post, I’ll list a few details of my scientific research. I won’t count my scholarly work in Science Studies as scientific research, despite the fact that some of it is original and that I’ve published a respectable amount in that genre (half-a-dozen books, a few book chapters, a dozen or more articles). However, like most people, I think Science Studies is a social science and not a “hard” science. But surely no one would deny that research in electrochemistry is scientific research; or would they?

In an earlier post (“Kalichman’s Komical Kaper #2: The Social Psychology of Scientists”, 14 March 2009), I noted that Kalichman, a social psychologist, does regard himself generically as a scientist. Could it be, I wonder, that he overlooked my electrochemical research in a sort of Freudian slip prompted by subconscious jealousy? There is, after all, the well-recognized phenomenon of “physics envy” on the part of some social scientists who are jealous of the status that “hard” sciences like physics and chemistry have and that the “soft” social sciences don’t. The latter are “multi-paradigmatic”, a euphemism for the fact that there is no discipline-wide paradigm subscribed to by all; rather, there are differing schools of thought about fundamental issues. In psychology, for example, there is the inescapable problem of mind-body, or mind-brain interactions, where some take a materialistic view and others don’t. There is no universally-agreed-to governing paradigm on which to base explanations, and there are sometimes even differences over methods and over the validity of “facts” within any given field in social science. By contrast, chemistry, physics, and the other “hard” sciences are able to call on a structure of fundamental theory with associated explanatory powers that is shared among all researchers (in between the occasional scientific revolutions, that is). Since the social sciences cannot erect or sustain for any length of time a firm body of theory to which all practitioners pay obeisance, “physics envy” even has substantive grounds — sort of.  For discussion of differences between “hard” and “social” sciences, and for pointing out how wrong-headed it is to try to model the social sciences on the hard sciences, see for example Jock Abra, Should Psychology be a Science? (1998); Stanislav Andreski, Social Sciences as Sorcery (1972); Ernest Gellner, “The scientific status of the social sciences”, International Social Science Journal, XXXVI (1984): 567 586; Alexander Rosenberg, Philosophy of Social Science (1988; revised 2nd. ed., 1995).


This may be flippancy plus a bit of sarcasm at Kalichman’s expense, but it’s also more than that. The psychology of intellectual activity is an integral part of science studies. One cannot understand what happens in scientific or scholarly activity without recognizing roles played by biases, conflicts of interest, and the like, which do express themselves in phenomena like physics envy.

On a personal note, I’ve also had a long interest in matters psychological. I grew up in an environment where Freudian ideas were common parlance, in part perhaps because my paternal grandmother had once been governess to Sigmund Freud’s children — my father was named after one of Freud’s sons, the family stayed in intermittent touch with Anna Freud, and I even got to shake the old man’s hand in London when we were on our way to Australia. I still find enlightening much of what Freud wrote about slips of the tongue and the interpretation of dreams, and I think his views about early childhood influences made it seem reasonable to me that homosexuality might be a psychologically determined or fostered condition — a view that Kalichman calls “homophobia”, though he acknowledges (p. 183) that I’ve claimed to be recovering from it.

At any rate, “physics envy” is a phenomenon that can be discerned in those schools of thought in the social sciences that  believe they can only be “scientific” by being mathematical, reproducible, as much like physics as possible; which to my mind is an aberration, since every field of study has to develop methods and general approaches suited to the particular subject matter being investigated.

Back to the matter of Kalichman’s assertion that I’ve never done scientific research. My full c.v. is available here. While I was still teaching (to the end of 1999) I had to keep it up-to-date, and I still add articles and books as they are published. Some of the highlights as to scientific research are these:
I published or co-published in electrochemistry 85 research articles, 12 reviews of specific research topics, and a research monograph. I was research mentor to 15 graduate students, 4 of them doctoral. Two of the latter are full professors with distinguished research records of their own. I received research grants from a number of sources including the National Science Foundation. In 1969 I was the principal investigator on a Themis Project grant that ran for 6 years and was worth $200,000 in the first year alone, which 40 years ago was notable. I was listed in American Men & Women of Science as of 1971; was Visiting Professor, Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, 1974; received University of Kentucky Research Foundation Award, 1974; invited Sydney S. Negus Memorial Lecturer, Virginia Academy of Science, 1984.
And so on; I participated in the usual array of workshops, conferences, invited seminars, etc.

I remain astounded, uncomprehending, why Kalichman would make the plain statement that I’ve never done scientific research, and I can’t find a good excuse for his statement. As Tony Lance pointed out, you just have to Google my name and “electrochemistry” to find a couple of hundred citations of my research.


🙂  At several places in Appendix B of “Denying AIDS”, Kalichman’s potted bios of “denialists”, he seems to make positive statements about some of us, no doubt to underscore the evenhandedness and objectivity that is “by nature and training” an attribute of scientists, of whom he is one. Thus he cites one of my colleagues (not named, of course) to the effect that I was “an able administrator and dean”. But was that intended as a compliment or as another snide disparagement? Researchers in the hard sciences typically grant little respect to administrators. There’s the saying, after all, “Those who can, do; those who can’t, teach; and the rest go into administration”. Indeed, when I asked people to serve as references in my applications for administrative jobs, one of my most revered mentors expressed horror and the hope that, for my own good, I would remain a researcher.  🙂

21 Responses to “Kalichman disrespects Bauer; Bauer blows his own trumpet — Kalichman’s Komical Kaper #11”

  1. MacDonald said

    Prof. Bauer,

    Your inability to explain Kalichman’s actions indicates you have still not come to terms with the man’s monumental ignorance and stupidity.

    As can be gleaned from Comment 18 in the German Connection thread (reposted below), Kalichman truly believed that you had not published scientific research because you are not listed on PubMed.

    In other words, he doesn’t know what PubMed is, or it had not occurred to him that there exist several independent scientific fields:

    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.


    The one-study fallacy argument concerning your alleged extrapolation from army recruits does not originate with Kalichman but with Chris Noble. Kalichman likely lifted it uncritically from Aetiology or one of the other groupie blogs Noble frequents.

    It is an early, incomplete form of the argument presented by Snout in his review of your book, that different single studies done at different times on different demographics and with different study parameters cannot be lumped together as a substitute for one coherent longitudinal study.

    Snout’s point is, I believe valid, but he fails to show the relevance of it.

  2. Sadun Kal said

    “I’ve come to think that Kalichman is wont to just make up stuff”

    Is that sentence correct? I couldn’t be sure, never seen something like that. He wants to just make stuff up maybe?

    I had never heard of “physics envy”. I guess I have that too. 🙂 But I also have pilot-envy, skydiver-envy, scuba diver-envy, astronaut-envy, mentalist-envy and many things like that… 🙂

    • Henry Bauer said

      Sadun Kal:

      Sorry, somewhat uncommon word:
      “wont (wônt, wont, wùnt) adjective
      1. Accustomed or used: “The poor man is wont to complain that this is a cold world” (Henry David Thoreau).
      2. Likely: chaotic as holidays are wont to be.

      “Physics envy” is a fairly well-known term among philosophers of science and other students of science. There is a very long history of discussions about the “scientific status” of different disciplines, what it means to be “scientific”, and especially the yearning by some students of human behavior to have their studies awarded the “scientific” seal of approval whose “gold standard” has been (incorrectly, in my view) thought to be physics.

  3. Allen said

    “I still find enlightening much of what Freud wrote about slips of the tongue and the interpretation of dreams, and I think his views about early childhood influences made it seem reasonable to me that homosexuality might be a psychologically determined or fostered condition — a view that Kalichman calls “homophobia”, though he acknowledges (p. 183) that I’ve claimed to be recovering from it.”

    Where homosexuality “comes from” is as yet an unanswered question. I haven’t been able to find a lot of solid science to support the popular notion that being gay results strictly from inherited genes. However, there is also not a lot of evidence that being gay can be changed.

    For me, being gay is a very deep and primal “instinct/trait” that at times in my youth I sought to alter. Why on earth would I “choose” to be gay and not “normal” right? But I also know that, if I really had to or had sufficient motive to, I could have lived a “normal” life, married, had children etc. Some of my friends, whom I know harbor “gay instincts/traits” ARE married and have children precisely because they, unlike me, decided that being gay was a worse life than suppressing their “instincts.”

    But I also think there is more to my own “decision” to live gay. I did not have a father while growing up. My mother was less than perfect, and I can see how my own youth did in fact condition my “instincts” toward becoming, or rather, accepting gay life. My brother, on the other hand, while a bit younger, shared very similar experiences as me, “decided” to live a straight life, despite going through a “gay phase.”

    So, Dr. Bauer, I can appreciate your interest in Freud’s notions about the origins of homosexuality. I too wonder what makes some people take the path of “gay life” and others to merely dabble with it. I also wonder why homosexuality is a nearly universal trait existing in almost all human societies all through time. It seems to me, no matter the cause, be it conditioning or genes, we ought to accept the fact that it exists and belongs to human nature as a powerful and enduring “instinct/trait.”

    • Henry Bauer said


      Yes, where homosexuality “comes from” remains an unanswered question. I don’t know even what the most popular notion might be nowadays, as between genetic or conditioned, or about whether “being gay can be changed”.

      I think an important clue that you mention is the universality across human cultures and history. That points either to a genetic determinant or a general predisposition that can be favored by factors common to all human societies.

      I want to distinguish as far as possible between intellectual curiosity about it and questions of social policy. On the latter, I think it’s a question of civil rights, and I find compelling Andrew Sullivan’s argument in “Virtually Normal”: Since many gay people experience it as something that is not a choice, society ought to accept that view as valid.

      I think that religious and social factors have largely prevented serious scholarship and study of the substantive issues. Even that the phenomenon is universal in human cultures is not, I think, part of the general conventional wisdom. I speculate that the social pressures to hide being gay have led to equating that characteristic with such stereotypes of “difference” as emotional demonstrativeness and the like, because most people never had the opportunity to observe anyone whom they knew to be gay and who didn’t fit the stereotype. I suspect that might also have influenced young people who feel themselves gay and know only those stereotypes, and to whom those stereotypes might even have acted as a sort of “role model”, thereby generating something akin to self-fulfilling prophecy. I personally have found very instructive some of the documentaries on the LOGO TV Channel that show gay men and women exhibiting the same wide range of behavioral characteristics as other people.

      One issue of some importance and relevant here is this: If indeed there’s a strong genetic predisposition to being gay, might that be linked to a tendency to react positive on the “HIV” tests? After all, there is a race-linked genetic predisposition to test “HIV-positive”. It remains a pressing question, why testing “HIV-positive” seems so much more common among gay men who have none of the risk factors of drug abuse or irresponsible promiscuity and who have remained “HIV-positive” and healthy for two decades and more.

      • Martin said

        Scientific research into the causes of homosexuality in a devoutly heterosexual society is as absurd as researching the causes of why a Jew brought up in a devoutly Kosher home would develope a taste for pork. Jews reject pork because pork is ritualy unclean not because it doesn’t taste good. If pork didn’t taste good no one would eat it. Devout heterosexuals (and some self hating homosexuals) reject engaging in homosexual sex because it is ritually unclean not because it isn’t satisfying. If it wasn’t satisfying no one would would do it.

      • mykoolaidtastesfunny said

        There is a lot of homosexual behavior among animals too.

        It mentions morality issues as separate which I disagree with since consensual sex is never immoral but I guess that’s just my opinion.

        There are other articles I’ve read too that discuss the success rates of raising chicks compared between gay and lesbian goose couples. The gay geese nicked eggs from other nests and had a higher percentage of chicks survive to adulthood than the lesbian geese who laid more eggs but had a lower percentage make it.

        Overall though I don’t think sex is strictly about procreation especially in more complex animals. There are lots of social, emotional and political needs that are served by sex too.

        I AM devoutly heterosexual by the way. I know I am because I tried the lesbian thing years ago and found it wildly unappealing. I tried because I had been attracted to certain females but afterwards realized those attractions weren’t really sexual in nature. It really was just a phase in my case. I was exploring my relationships to people and still trying to unravel my own emotions and motivations in life. You don’t know until you try. More straight guys would give it a try too if there was the same openness for them to experiment. People get so wound up about other peoples’ business.

  4. Sabine Kalitzkus said


    Don’t take this KKK too serious. He isn’t worth a second of thought.

    You asked: “Could it be, I wonder, that he overlooked my electrochemical research in a sort of Freudian slip prompted by subconscious jealousy?”

    I don’t think so. As an obedient, submissive slave of His Masters, the Pharmaceutical Authorities, he simply isn’t allowed to notice facts. To avoid any conflict of his financial interests with truth he has to ignore them.

    His website gives us the following information:

    “# New Book: Denying AIDS: Conspiracy Theories, Pseudoscience & Human Tragedy
    (royalties are donated to buy HIV medications in Africa), see interview here and visit website here for more information.
    # Current grants: Alcohol-Related Risks for HIV/AIDS among African Women (NIAAA R01 AA018074); HIV Treatment Adherence Intervention for People with Poor Literacy Skills (NIMH R01 MH071164); Multilevel Alcohol-HIV/AIDS Prevention in South Africa (NIAAA R01AA017399); Brief HIV Risk Reduction Counseling in South Africa (NIMH R01 MH074371); HIV Treatment Adherence/Risk Reduction Integrated Intervention (NIMH R01 MH071164).” (Emphases mine.)

    I suspect the grant-suppliers to be the ones who manufacture the so-called medications for Africa. – Nice business concept though.

  5. Dave said

    This has gone way beyond “beating a dead horse.” This is like mugging a homeless person.

    Professor K is a Professor of psycho-babble. He does not know what reverse transcriptase; he does not know the history of RNA tumor viruses; he probably has neverlooked into a microscope.

    The man is swimming in a shallow gene pool, hanging on by a thread to get some NIH dollars thrown his way for whatever trivial and pointless papers he publishes on AIDS. AIDS research dollars are so voluminous that even a few crumbs can be spread to third rate academics (like Kalichman) to promote the party line. Spreading the ignorance far and wide is not just a tactic, it’s a religion for these clowns.

    Please no more Kalichman. He’s done.

  6. Michael said

    Seth Kalichman was interviewed on Little Atom.

    To me, it was a rather amazing interview. He actually did such a fantastic job describing aids dissident points of view, that he undoubtedly convinced many listeners that the dissidents are correct! Even the interviewer by this point found himself agreeing with the dissidents, and said directly to Kalichman: “So why should we believe YOU (that hiv is the cause of aids)?

    Yes, of course Seth than ignorantly blathered the party line that “ever since 1996 the new aids drugs are so wonderful that hospital aids wings have closed down…”, all without mentioning that Toxic AZT monotherapy also closed down by 1996. He also blathered how angry he is that denialism is killing thousands and how Christine Maggiore died of aids and much other nonsense, but overall, he really did do an amazingly good job of somewhat clearly laying out dissident positions, and all the while conveniently ignoring that the dissident positions made much more sense than the hiv viral theory. A rather astounding display of severe cognitive dissonance in action. This wretched man must have nightmares about dissidents being correct and clearly is severely tortured by this.

    Though the entire hiv aids belief theory issue and all its brainwashed followers can be sickening and maddening, Kalichman himself stands proudly front and center as seriously comedic relief.

  7. I just left this at the MarkH blog. Can anyone here point me to the information?

    I don’t deny AIDS. A very good friend had it and died.

    Do you know the stats on tuberculosis deaths in South Africa since say 1950? Wolfram Alpha couldn’t tell me but I think it may be important to know that.

    • Martin said

      Richard Karpinski said: “I don’t deny AIDS. A very good friend had it and died.”

      AIDS (whatever that is) is defined by having any one of 29 indicator diseases and testing positive for HIV (using unvalidated tests whose accuracy can not be verified). If any one (or a combination) of the 29 indicator diseases is present and the patient did not test “positive”, the patient has ICL (idiopathic-CD4+-lymphocytopenia). That is the way the AIDS establishment views AIDS.
      I am sorry to hear about your good friend, but what diseases did your friend actually die of? Kaposi’s Sarcoma? Pneumocystis Carinii Pneumonia? Candidiasis Albicans? Tuberculosis? Etc. That is the more interesting question.

      When you say, “I don’t deny AIDS.”, what do you mean by that? Does that mean that you agree with the AIDS establishment party line that AIDS is a syndrome caused by a contagious retrovirus called HIV? Or does that mean you don’t deny people die of diseases under the AIDS umbrella?

      • It was long ago, maybe 1989, and I think he had all three of KS, PCP, and CA. But what I meant is just that he was a gay guy in San Francisco who became immune deficient, got very sick, and died. I don’t recall any discussion of HIV since that was not important to either of us at the time.

        My wife and I had been among the friends he had asked to visit him when he was quite ill and lonely too. He was surprised that every one of his friends who was asked, agreed to visit him once a week for a few hours. That comforted him in his last months of a reasonably happy and productive life.

        I particularly recall a story I told on a communication equipment news group about how my brother in law’s answering machine had called me up by having a long answering machine greeting accidentally invoke a quick dial(?) touch tone sequence for my phone number. My friend responded to the story without noticing that I had written it. That amused both of us.

  8. MacDonald said

    I agree with Michael that the Little Atoms interview was rather remarkable, once you get over the idiotic interviewer/host.

    Kalichman sounded surprisingly balanced and fairly well informed about 3/4 of the time, although it is always a toe-cringer when he gets into what is supposed to be his area of expertise and starts talking about different types and degrees of denialism. Not since HIV was invented has more been made of less.

    In view of this interview, I think there can be no doubt that Kalicman has a split personality, and in this case the Joe Newton alter ego was almost completely absent.- Almost I say, because, strangely, the well-primed host, who did an impeccable job of handing Kalichman the pre-prepared cues right on cue, did inquire about the special persona Kalichman had to assume when researching his book.

    This is quite extraordinary because such a “persona” is not mentioned in the book; in fact the only place the Newton persona has been discussed is right here.

    This means that, as a reaction to the discussions on this blog, Kalichman has now created a complete fiction around his Newton persona and its critical importance for the book – and is attempting to turn it into a selling point. He even goes so far as to carefully plant the story with interviewers. Given his cue, he then recounts how it became necessary to assume a racist and/or homophobic persona in order to test his theories about rethinkers being racists and homophobes.

    That is of course undiluted ad hoc drivel, which would have offended any interviewer with a double-digit IQ, but it is interesting to note that Kalichman now explicitly states that his study subjects “didn’t bite”, and that he therefore had to conclude rethinkers generally are not homophobes or racists. This is
    remarkable because anybody who has spent a few minutes reading his blog will know that homophobia and racism are ever present themes.

    Prof. Bauer and I have also produced many quotes from Kaichman’s book saying, for example, that homophobia is an intrinsic part of the denialist’s Suspicious Personality Disorder. Kalichman likewise tells of the sinister political motives of some denialists, whose agendas involve stirring Black-White race hatred. But all that is gone now; denialists are back to being mislead or “seriously pathological”, but no longer the Antichrist.

    All this begs another question, however: Is Kalichman still conducting undercover scientific research via his blog? Are Snout, Chris Noble and Deshong unwitting guinea pigs in a psychological experiment to test their reactions to outrageous statements coming from a trusted authority figure?

    It is indeed an intriguing possibility, but my personal theory is that it is the irrepressible Newton who creeps out from his subterranean hideout when Kalichman sleeps and writes stuff like this:

    The truth is I never visit Bauer’s blog. That would be a huge waste of my time. I did read some of it when he started ranting about me. My favorites were his KKK allusions and his weepy tear jerker story about not being German but rather Austrian. That is like saying he is a scientific explorer and not a pseudo-scientist. Can someone please explain the difference? So Henry Bauer and Adolf Hitler were both Austrian and not German. Talk about Denial!

    For those not well-versed in Newtonian logic allow me to summarise: The obvious KKK allusion was the three K’s in Kalichman Komical Kapers, a source of endless fascination and over-interpretation for the distinguished Psychologist and Debunker of all conspiracy theories, except the ones invented by himself.

    The lucid reasoning in the last part is as follows:

    1. Prof. Bauer is Austrian

    2. Hitler was Austrian

    Therefore Prof. Bauer is in denial about being German.

    Or if we make explicit the implicit premise:

    1. Prof Bauer is Austrian

    2. Hitler was Austrian

    Therefore Prof. Bauer is in denial about being a German Nazi.

    In the Comments to the German Connection post, Pat wondered what would happen if Kalichman ever learned that Hitler was Austrian. Well, Pat, thanks to you it seems, Kalichman has finally found out, and your question has been duly answered.

  9. Dave said

    So, Kalichman’s new and improved ad hoc explanation is that he “had” to go undercover to Duesberg’s aneuploidy seminar to minimize risk to his own personal safety in order to courageously ferret out all this violent denialist treachery?!!?

    This man is clueless.

    • Henry Bauer said


      And Kalichman learned nothing that he didn’t already MIS-know. Had he approached us openly and honestly, he would have learned more, and much more accurately, what we are about and who we are.

  10. MacDonald said

    I have tracked on this blog (see my Comment above for instance) how Kalichman has been creating and rehearsing a fiction around the historic importance of Joe Newton (Both Newton and his story are almost completely absent in Kalichman’s book), probably in anticipation of a lawsuit or disciplinary action of some kind.

    I cannot tell you all how pleased I am to announce that in Kalichman’s latest interview (New Scientist), Joe Newton has taken over completely. We are no longer being treated to pseudoscientific fluff about Supicious Personality Disorder, German Genes, or even the plight of South African children under Thabo Mbeki –– it is now all about Joe.

    • Henry Bauer said

      Your comments are always interesting, and I find it hard to resist following links you give; but this one just about takes the cake. The stunning ignorance of Steinberg and the way he blithely pulls wrong “facts” out of the air just leave me feeling very sad about the state of all sorts of things. Worst, of course, is what he says about Maggiore, creating a story out of his own imagination unblemished by actual facts of the matter.
      As for me:
      I was never a “life sciences” professor. Virginia State University in Petersburg has nothing to do with Viriginia Tech in Blacksburg, where I worked. I stopped editing the Journal of Scientific Exploration at the end of 2007. I’ve never dabbled in virology. All that’s pretty evident already from the first page of my website, let alone the CV posted there.
      And it’s certainy not true that I “was a leading authority on the existence of the Loch Ness monster . . . a former expert on the Loch Ness monster” — I am (touch wood) live and kicking, and so long as that holds I continue to be a leading authority on all matters to do with Loch Ness monsters.

      • MacDonald said

        Prof. Bauer,

        Sorry to have to put you through these things, but it has to go on the record.

        This peculiar doubling up on certainly not essential points,

        Before dabbling in virology, Bauer was a leading authority on the existence of the Loch Ness monster.

        Leading AIDS denialist Henry Bauer is a former expert on the Loch Ness monster

        is also found in the online original from New Scientist. The latter sentence appears in grey font, and there are a couple of similar instances irregularly spaced throughout the article. Their function is somewhat of a mystery to me as they do not resemble headlines, accompany illustrations or anything of that kind.
        They are toned down rather than high-lighted, most of them are paraphrases, but one is a respetition of something written immediately above.

        I respectfully have to disagree with you about Steinberg pulling facts out pf the air or his own imagination. To the contrary, it is pretty obvious that his facts are pulled directly from the twin oracular crevices geographically located in the immediate vicinity of Joe Newton’s and John Moore’s rear ends.

        As Anthony Liversidge once joked in another context, Steinberg’s journalistic research seems based entirely on the Ask John (and Joe) principle.

      • Henry Bauer said

        Those grey areas are just the “key phrases” that some magazines insert into articles, I suppose for the benefit of readers who are satisfied with such sound bites in lieu of reading the whole article

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 )

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: