HIV/AIDS Skepticism

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

Posts Tagged ‘John P. Moore’

Other things being equal . . . .

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2009/11/21

“Hundreds of private e-mail messages and documents hacked from a computer server at a British university are causing a stir among global warming skeptics, who say they show that climate scientists conspired to overstate the case for a human influence on climate change” (New York Times, 20 November 2009; “Hacked e-mail is new fodder for climate dispute”, by Andrew C. Revkin).

Mutatis mutandis, the same story could be written about HIV/AIDS:

“The e-mail messages, attributed to prominent American and British climate HIV/AIDS researchers, include discussions of scientific data and whether it should be released, exchanges about how best to combat the arguments of skeptics, and casual comments — in some cases derisive — about specific people known for their skeptical views. . . . In one e-mail exchange, a scientist writes of using a statistical ‘trick’ (and a computer model) in a chart illustrating a recent sharp warming trend increase in HIV/AIDS. In another, a scientist refers to climate HIV/AIDS skeptics as “idiots.” . . .
Some of the correspondence portrays the scientists as feeling under siege by the skeptics’ camp and worried that any stray comment or data glitch could be turned against them. The evidence pointing to a growing human contribution to global warming HIV as cause of AIDS is so widely accepted that the hacked material is unlikely to erode the overall argument. However, the documents will undoubtedly raise questions about the quality of research on some specific questions and the actions of some scientists. In several e-mail exchanges, Kevin Trenberth, a climatologist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, (any of Fauci, Gallo, etc.) and other scientists discuss gaps in understanding of recent variations in temperature failures of vaccine trails, increasing death rate from side effects of HAART, and no sign of heterosexual HIV/AIDS epidemics outside Africa. Skeptic Web sites pointed out one line in particular: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming findings that viral load, CD4 counts, and clinical progression are not correlated with one another . . . and it is a travesty that we can’t,”  . . . . The revelations are bound to inflame the public debate . . . .
Dr. Trenberth (you choose) said Friday that he was appalled at the release of the e-mail messages. But he added that he thought the revelations might backfire against climate HIV/AIDS skeptics. He said that he thought that the messages showed “the integrity of scientists.” Still, some of the comments might lend themselves to being interpreted as sinister. In a 1999 e-mail exchange about charts showing climate HIV/AIDS patterns over the last two millenniums, Phil Jones (you choose), a longtime climate HIV/AIDS researcher . . . said he had used a ‘trick’ . . . to ‘hide the decline’ in temperatures HIV and AIDS numbers. . . . Dr. Mann (you choose) . . . said the choice of words by his colleague was poor but noted that scientists often used the word ‘trick’ to refer to a good way to solve a problem, ‘and not something secret.’ . . . .
But several scientists whose names appear in the e-mail messages said they merely revealed that scientists were human, and did nothing to undercut the body of HIV/AIDS research on global warming.”
[Yes, it does. Since humans can make mistakes, and since scientists are now acknowledged to be human, therefore scientists can make mistakes and claims made by scientists may be wrong — especially when they have conspired for a decade or two or three to suppress data that contradicts the theory they have been peddling.]

“At first, said Dr. Michaels, the climatologist who has faulted some of the science of the global warming consensus, his instinct was to ignore the correspondence as ‘just the way scientists talk.’
But . . . after reading more deeply, he felt that some exchanges reflected an effort to block the release of data for independent review. He said some messages mused about discrediting him by challenging the veracity of his doctoral dissertation at the University of Wisconsin by claiming he knew his research was wrong. ‘This shows these are people (John P. Moore, Mark Wainberg, et al.) willing to bend rules and go after other people’s reputations in very serious ways,’ he said.”

“Spencer R. Weart, a physicist and historian who is charting the course of research on global warming, said the hacked material would serve as ‘great material for historians.’”
So will the files of Peter Duesberg, John Lauritsen, Neville Hodgkinson, Joan Shenton, Gordon Stewart, and the many other courageous fighters for the integrity of HIV/AIDS research.

Posted in experts, HIV does not cause AIDS, HIV skepticism, HIV/AIDS numbers, Legal aspects, prejudice, uncritical media | Tagged: , , , , , | 25 Comments »

“Newton” ghost-writes Kalichman’s book — Chapter 4 of Jekyll-Kalichman-Hyde-Newton

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2009/04/23

At the end of Chapter 3, we left “Joe Newton” shedding crocodile tears over the report that Rebecca Culshaw had lost her job. On a later occasion, he was perhaps hoping that her fate and similar experiences of others  might cause me to worry about my own position:
10 October 2008, Newton to Bauer:
“It is true what you say about Dr. Duesberg and his being treated badly.
How about you Dr. Bauer? How have your colleagues treated you? I mean with your interests in scientific explorations and all. Do they call you a pseudoscientist and other such names? I know you have been a Dean, do your colleagues respect you? I figure you must have a back like a duck to repel all that water.”

I enjoyed needling a little:
“Very decently. There aren’t any Wainbergs or Moores around here. I’ve given talks at the local medical school, to student groups, at departmental seminars, about my scholarly interests in Loch Ness, anomalies in general, HIV/AIDS, never a hint of trouble.
Maybe it’s partly owing to what I noticed when I moved from Michigan to Kentucky, and perhaps even more so in Virginia: there’s a tradition of courtesy that is not so generally found in the north and northeastern US.”

“Newton” was relieved: “I am glad to hear that. Really.”
[“Really” was another of “Newton’s” trademarks. For obviously good reason, he knew or suspected that people were unlikely to believe what he said.]

**********************

The more “Newton” lied, the more lying became habitual also to his creator, Kalichman. So when it came to writing a book, Kalichman-Newton attributed, to those he was writing about, things they had never said. Many parts of “Denying AIDS” are plagiarized from the  e-mails “Newton” exchanged with “denialists”; or rather, from the e-mails that “Newton” sent to “denialists”, for the book attributes to us things that we didn’t say but “he” did. For example, Kalichman-Newton espied a connection between views on cancer, AIDS, and the environment:
“Newton” to Crowe:
“I noticed you are founding memebr of the Green Party…. That is so  cool. I see the connection between your views on the cancer, AIDS and  the environment. You are a naturalist, yes?
It seems true for Dr. Duesberg as well…. environemental causes of  AIDS and Cancer.
So neat to make these connections.”

But Crowe made no such connection:
“I’m a founding member of the Green Party … in the province of  Alberta only. . . .  I’m not really a naturalist, although I’m very interested in the  natural world. . . .”

Nevertheless, the point appears in “Denying AIDS” (e.g., p. 30 ff.), where Duesberg’s views on aneuploidy as cause of cancer and HIV as not the cause of AIDS are somehow traced to an overarching belief in environmental causes (!!!, Kalichman-Newton would doubtless add).

“Newton” tried desperately to get someone to agree with his discovery that AIDS dissidence could be traced to German roots:
The book that just came off press [Engelbrecht & Köhnlein, “Virus Mania”] looks interesting…but I have  never heard of the author. A German journalist? I note some time back  that most dissidents are German…even D. Bauer was born in Austria!  I am wondering what the German connection is?? Is Dr. Duesberg that  influential?” (to Crowe)

and later, when Christian Fiala published a comment about inflated HIV/AIDS numbers from WHO:
“At 9:05 PM -0400 7/8/08, Joseph Newton wrote:
Mr. Crowe
Did you see this?
Why is the first letter that is supportive from Austria?? What is  this Gernan – Austrian thing and Dissidence?
Best to you
JCN”

Crowe didn’t take the bait, yet “Newton’s” wacky “dissidence is German-associated” idea found its way into Kalichman’s “Denying AIDS” (pp. 54, 145;  see “The German Connection: Kalichman’s not-so-Komical Kaper #3”, 21 March 2009 ).

Again, my eyebrows shot toward the roof when I read (p. 74):
“Bauer had hoped that his book would land him an interview on the Today Show and change the course of AIDS research and treatments.”
Anyone who knows me even slightly would not recognize me as the fellow Kalichman writes about. If I were to dream about interviews on TV, it would be in terms of Bill Moyer, Gwen Ifill, maybe Tavis Smiley — a conversation, in other words, with intelligent people, not pseudo-substantive “entertainment” get-togethers interrupted every 5 minutes by commercial breaks (I was frankly shocked that President Obama was willing to sit through a couple of commercial breaks when talking with Jay Leno). At any rate, something like the Today Show would be a nightmare for me, not a hope or a dream; and if I were ever persuaded to do it, it would be a grit-teeth-and-endure-it experience. I don’t even recall whether I’ve ever watched the Today Show, Good Morning America, or others of that ilk; and if I did, it was because someone like Obama was on. So where did Kalichman get that from? Why, from “Newton’s” suggestions to Bauer:
14 October 2007, Newton to Bauer:
“Dr. Bauer, …
Why has there not been BIG media on your book? I would think there should be.
Has Peter Duesberg had contact with you? . . . . He could probably get you on the Today Show and Fox News!
If I knew of a way to help I surely would.”

and 3 February 2008:
“…I have been watching for you on the Today Show…but I guess they have not zeroed in on you yet!…”

15 October:
“I have been wondering what your goals are? I mean what would you like to see happen as a result of your book? I suspect you do not expect the orthodoxy to reverse course and refute the idea that HIV causes AIDS? It also does not sound like you expect your book to vindicate Peter Deusberg and salvage his image.
What would you like to see happen??”

****************

After a while, having learned that Crowe had traced Newton to Kalichman, I grew tired of the cat-and-mouse and hinted as much by making my responses shorter and curter, and by giving Newton-Hyde-Kalichman the opportunity to realize his ineptness. He had (10 October 2008, 12:40:03 PM) shed his crocodile tears for Culshaw:
“I just learned that Rebecca Culshaw has lost her job. I saw a web posting saying something about how she has terminated.”

Naturally I asked (10:30:48 PM): “I hadn’t seen this, do you have a URL?”

OOPS! Of course he didn’t, as I well knew, for I have Google Alerts that would pick up anything like that. All Kalichman knew was that J P Moore had been harassing high-level administrators to fire Rebecca Culshaw, Andy Maniotis, and perhaps others as well (“Questioning HIV/AIDS: Morally Reprehensible or Scientifically Warranted?”, J. Amer. Physicians & Surgeons, 12 [#4, Winter 2007] 116- 120). So, “Newton” replied lamely (11:04:47 PM):
“I cannot find the URL now. But it was pretty clear that she did not get her tenure and was asked to depart.”

Likely story. Graduate student “Newton” finds something on the Web but can’t find it again a few hours later.

*****************

Chapter 5 will  describe how Kalichman actually became “Newton” in physical reality, not merely as a pseudonym.

Posted in experts, HIV skepticism, Legal aspects, prejudice | Tagged: , , , , , , | 4 Comments »

Defenders of the HIV/AIDS Faith: Why Anonymous?

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2008/11/06

I’ve used the Internet pretty much from its inception, at first chiefly for e-mail, of course. I tried a few on-line lists, groups, discussions on various topics pertinent to my academic interests — for example, fraud in science — or on my hobbies — Loch Ness monsters, say. These were open to all who wanted to participate, and participants were open about their identity; electronic communication was just adding some speed and convenience to exchanges that we’d been engaged in via letters, conferences, phone calls.

Some of the discussion groups touched on fairly controversial matters, like political correctness and associated sensitive topics like race, IQ, affirmative action. Still, we knew who everyone was, where they worked, what their professional credentials were; and — possibly for that reason — lack of civility was rare, even as disagreements could be stark and forcefully expressed; ad hominem innuendo or direct attacks didn’t feature. I didn’t stay long with any list or discussion, though, because I so rarely learned anything new.

I came late to the ranks of HIV/AIDS Rethinkers and Skeptics. It was around 1995 that I first discovered, through reading Ellison & Duesberg, “Why we will NEVER win the war on AIDS”, that some people question whether HIV is the cause of AIDS — people with impressive and relevant credentials. I was sufficiently intrigued to read more. Bialy’s scientific biography of Duesberg caused me to consult primary sources about HIV tests, and thereby to discover that “HIV” is not infectious and doesn’t correlate with “AIDS”. Astonished, bemused, I looked for people with whom I could discuss the matter, and that caused me to visit, and sometimes to send comments and questions to, a number of web-sites and blogs. In too many cases, I was appalled at the level of “flaming” as well as the lack of substantive discussion, indeed the prevalence of violently asserted claims on factual matters without the benefit of supporting citations to reliable publications.

Those experiences informed my decisions when I set up this present blog as a means of furthering substantive discussion:

“All comments are moderated, and may be edited.
I have a  great preference for comments that are concise, substantive, and not ad hominem.
Giving a fake e-mail address makes it less likely that your comment will be accepted.
. . .  please understand that I can only respond if the e-mail address you give is a valid one. For example, e-mails cannot be delivered to ‘anonymous@anonymous.com’.”

Because of the blog, I’ve learned a great deal from commentators and correspondents, and I’ve been stimulated to look into an increasing range of HIV/AIDS-related matters. Tony Lance provided to the salient question, “So what did cause AIDS?”, a highly plausible suggestion supported by a large variety of published evidence [“What really caused AIDS: Slicing through the Gordian Knot”, 20 February 2008]. Invitations to comment on various “news” items led me to look, for the first time, into statistics about deaths from “HIV disease”, and to discover another clear disproof, or set of disproofs, of HIV/AIDS theory [“’HIV Disease’ is not an illness”, 19 March 2008;  “HAART saves lives — but doesn’t prolong them!?”, 17 September 2008]. I’ve heard from a number of individuals who have experienced at first hand the psychological and physical damages wrought on healthy people by diagnoses of “HIV-positive” followed by antiretroviral “therapy”; and those interactions in particular keep me constantly aware of how important it is that HIV/AIDS theory be publicly discarded.

But I’ve also learned quite a lot about the deplorable behavior of fanatical HIV/AIDS true-believers, groupies, and vigilantes [“Dissenting from HIV/AIDS theory”, 8 December 2007]. It’s not only the disgustingly ad hominem nature and sadly lacking-in-intellectual-substance content of so many of the “mainstream” HIV/AIDS blogs, I’ve also been taken aback at underhanded approaches, via comments sent to my blog as well as e-mails to me direct, from individuals (I suppose individuals, but of course it could be groups) whose purpose is not to discuss substantive issues but to find ways to discredit and undermine AIDS Rethinking. For example, a graduate student evidently took the trouble to read my memoir about academic deaning and at least some  issues of a newsletter that I had edited for a number of years in order to mis-interpret as homophobic and racist a few out-of-context quotes in a “review” of my book on amazon.com (that review is no longer there, at one time there was a note that it had been withdrawn by the author, but even that note is no longer there). Another vigilante posed as a graduate student in personal e-mails to me, fishing for information about Rethinker doings. Several comments have been submitted anonymously to my blog — for example by “Fulano de Tal” [“John Doe and his ilk: pitfalls of pseudonymity”, 28 August 2008], alleging mistakes in factual matters, yet when I requested citation of sources for those facts, I never heard more.

Those communications led me to ponder the apparently common practice of participating anonymously in Internet discussions. Why would one do that? (I would be interested to learn of any scholarly discussions of Internet anonymity, how the practice started, what justifications there might be for it, and so on.)

I can’t bring myself to engage in discussion with people who are unwilling to tell me who they are. It throws immediate doubt on their bona fides. Signing one’s name to one’s opinions seems to me the natural as well as proper thing to do, and I’m one of those who always signed manuscript reviews even when the journal policy did not require it. I think it’s a useful form of self-discipline, to ensure that one is being as honest and unbiased as humanly possible.

I can understand why whistle blowers must practice anonymity — except with the appropriate investigating authority to whom they bring grievance; and I understand why HIV/AIDS Skeptics are sometimes forced to remain anonymous in view of the career-threatening activities boasted of by people of the ilk of Wainberg and Moore (“AIDS and the dangers of denial”, Globe and Mail, 4 July 4 2007). But why would AIDStruth groupies and other supporters of mainstream views be unwilling to communicate openly and honestly? What are they afraid of? Do they sense subconsciously that they have no substantive grounds to stand on and that they must fight by innuendo and attempted character assassination? Why are they ashamed to let others know who they are?

Posted in HIV skepticism, Legal aspects | Tagged: , , , | 14 Comments »