HIV/AIDS Skepticism

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

Posts Tagged ‘Kalichman “Denying AIDS”’

HIV/AIDS refuted, according to Kalichman! — Kalichman’s very-Komical Kaper #8

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2009/05/07

Among the many surprising — not to say startling — features of Kalichman’s book, “Denying AIDS”, is his acknowledgment in so many places that “denialists” have refuted HIV/AIDS theory:

“Merely raising these questions refutes AIDS science” (p. 22).
Yes indeed.

“In 2007, more than 20 years since she first refuted AIDS science, Papadopulos-Eleopulos . . . .” (180).
What’s going on here? I thought Kalichman believed HIV to be the cause of AIDS and that he says we’re wrong in denying it. Now here he is, saying it was refuted more than two decades ago!

“John Lauritsen is among the earliest critics of how CDC reported HIV/AIDS statistics. He refutes sexual transmission of HIV . . . .” (184).
And rightly so, of course; as also set out in my book, HIV/AIDS statistics from the CDC do refute the notion that HIV is sexually transmitted.

“most current denialists refute HIV as the cause of AIDS” (12).
Well, of course we continue to  do it, since Papadopulos did it so long ago.

“Denialists refute new facts” (8).
Well, I have to agree; we often refute “facts” claimed by defenders of HIV/AIDS theory. But why is Kalichman giving us credit for it, when he seems to be claiming that we’re wrong?

“Crowe is a signing author on numerous letters and documents refuting HIV/AIDS science” (185).
Yes indeed, there are numerous documents that refute HIV/AIDS “science”.

And so it goes, time after time:
P. 21 — “There are support groups for people who have tested HIV positive and refute their medical diagnosis”. They know they’re not infected, in other words.
P. 38 — “denialism refutes science conducted by thousands of researchers”. Well, not quite, we refute much of the BAD science conducted in HIV/AIDS research.
P. 50 — “this  same  research  finding  refutes  the  effectiveness  of  HIV  treatments”. Yes, undoubtedly, I have to agree.
P. 100 — “The following example refutes the known disease causing pathways of HIV”. Well, I wouldn’t put it quite like that, I’d rather point out that HIV/AIDS researchers have never agreed on exactly how HIV is able to destroy the immune system. But Kalichman’s statement will be understood well enough by most readers: the supposed disease-causing pathways by HIV have been shown not to be disease-causing. No disagreement from us.
P. 128 — “Mbeki refutes the idea that HIV/AIDS is the major killer in Africa”. Absolutely, and he’s not the only one.
P. 140 — “a fringe group emerged that refuted the established views of AIDS, including rejecting that HIV causes AIDS”. Isn’t it inappropriate to call it a fringe group since it was able to refute HIV/AIDS orthodoxy?

But what about “Denialism actively propagates myths, misconceptions, and misinformation to distort and refute reality” (8). Refute reality?! What a nice trick. “Denialism” is powerful indeed.

Or could it be that I’ve been mistaken about the meaning of “refute”?

No, the dictionaries on my shelves (1991 Random House Dictionary; 1992 [3rd ed.] American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language) give the same meaning as I’m familiar with: to prove that something is false, or to prove someone is in error. What’s more, in quite a few other places, Kalichman properly uses “refute” in that sense:
P. 28 — “He [Duesberg] refuted his own work on retroviruses and rejected the concept of oncogenes being sufficient to cause cancer”.
Yes, Duesberg showed that his previous notion had been wrong and modified his view to accommodate the evidence, just as scientists are supposed to do.

P. 32 — “he refutes the idea that oncogenes cause cancer”.
Exactly, the evidence points elsewhere.
P. 48 — “Duesberg would refute the evidence”.
Yes indeed, not only would but did.
P. 49 — “researchers refute this misinterpretation”
P. 76 — “The AIDS pseudosciences reviewed thus far are easily refuted by the medical facts of the disease”.
Huh? What about the refutations by AIDS “denialists” cited above from pp. 8, 12, 21, 22, 38, 50, 100, 128, 140?
P. 85 — “The results flat out refuted Gisselquist”;
and also pp. 136 (“a brief statement designed to refute the claims of Duesberg and the other denialists”), 146, 150.

The Oxford English Dictionary [2nd ed., 1989-97] offers a possible resolution of this conundrum of very different meanings of “refute”:
“    5. trans. Sometimes used erroneously to mean ‘deny, repudiate’.” [Note erroneously]
Something like that erroneous usage was apparently not uncommon 500 years ago:
“    †1. trans. To refuse, reject (a thing or person). Obs[olete]. rare
1513 BRADSHAW St. Werburge I. 1535 Her royall dyademe and shynynge coronall Was fyrst refuted for loue of our sauyoure.”

But it’s really confusing to see the same word used correctly and incorrectly, in about equal proportions, throughout this book.

I suppose Kalichman, and his editors at Copernicus/Springer, might seek support once more from that Urban Dictionary:
“    refute
To disagree, or assert the opposite.
(The original meaning was to DISPROVE something: ‘He refuted their claims by referring to widely accepted experimental results’. But these days journalists who are unwilling or unable to assess the strength of an argument, or to check facts, just write ‘refute’.)
‘The Prime Minister refuted the suggestion that he was a fool, by saying that he wasn’t.’”

Aha! The Urban “Dictionary” collects and seeks to enshrine usages that stem from lazy journalists. Just as reliable and trustworthy as Wikipedia, as I’ve said before.

Posted in HIV skepticism | Tagged: , , , , , | 15 Comments »

Caveat lector! — Kalichman’s less-than-Komical Kaper #7

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2009/05/03

Let the reader beware! What’s inside Kalichman’s quotation marks may not be there in the original source.

A book from a leading publisher like Springer, with laudatory blurbs from prominent scientists, and that claims to demonstrate how mistaken are people and works under discussion, by implication asserts that the material in it can be relied upon to be at least factually accurate. But “Denying AIDS”, by a tenured full professor at the University of Connecticut and published by Copernicus/Springer, cannot be relied upon to be factually accurate.

Perhaps the first glitch that left me openmouthed was an alleged quote (p. 70) from the website for my book, The Origin, Persistence and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory :

“In his [Bauer’s] own words:
HIV is neither sexually transmitted nor increasingly prevalent. HIV and AIDS are not correlated geographically. HIV and AIDS are not correlated chronologically. HIV and AIDS are not correlated in their relative impact on women and men. Nor are HIV and AIDS correlated in their relative impact on white and black people. HIV is necessary but insufficient to cause AIDS. 17” [emphasis added]

Obviously I never spoke or wrote that last, high-lighted, sentence. The preceding sentences make plain that I am denying any connection between HIV and AIDS. Where am I supposed to have added that last part which contradicts what goes before it?

Note 17 in Kalichman’s book  is “H. Bauer referring to his 2007 book The Origin, Persistence and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory, published by MacFarland [sic] on [sic] his website http://hivnotaids.homestead.com/.”
As a matter of syntax, “MacFarland” didn’t publish this book on that website. As a matter of fact, “MacFarland” didn’t publish my book at all, nor to my knowledge any other books. My publisher is McFarland. As another matter of fact, that website was set up before my book was ever written, and contains material about 3 articles that I had published. Nowhere on that website is there to be found, or was there ever to be found, what is attributed to me in the “quotation” above.
However, the first 5 sentences do appear on the website established for my book. The last sentence, though, as I’ve already pointed out, is not anything I’ve ever asserted, and it isn’t on that website and never was nor could have been — I never said that HIV is necessary to cause AIDS, I’ve been saying the very opposite; which is, after all, why Kalichman is so angry with me, why he is so — in Kalichman’s own words (p. xiii) — “seemingly [sic] irrational”.

Put yourself in the place of an innocent reader who feels able to rely on the factual accuracy of this Kalichman/Springer production. Throughout the book, Bauer is castigated for denying that HIV causes AIDS. Yet here, Bauer is quoted as saying that HIV is necessary to cause AIDS! What is this Kalichman doing, attacking a person for denying something that he isn’t denying?

The puzzled reader rushes to his computer and goes to the cited website to check the quotation. Nothing even approaching it is to be found there!

Fortunately for the poor reader, that website does have the heading,
“These web pages and the mentioned articles have now been superseded by this book:
The Origin, Persistence and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory
McFarland,  April 2007, ISBN 978-0-7864-3048-2”
and by following the link in the book’s title, one is directed to the book’s website, where, sure enough, the first 5 sentences of the above “quotation” can be found. But there’s no help for the reader who seeks resolution of the conundrum of that concluding sentence. Was it once there? But how could it have been since it contradicts directly the other 5 statements?

Oh my gosh! Could Kalichman have inserted so ridiculous a mis-statement? How could such a thing happen? Was not this manuscript copy-edited? Was it not read by the prominent AIDS scientists who wrote gushing blurbs for it?

As I said in my first installment comment on Kalichman’s opus, it is the veritable answer to Job’s prayer. If any single book could discredit the AIDStruthers and their hangers-on, this is demonstrably it.

———————-

Of course, one swallow doesn’t make a summer. But the book is like a whole swarm of such swallows [Kalichman and Copernicus/Springer would say “swam”, not “swarm”, see p. 149].
Here’s another such instance, with places highlighted where Kalichman altered or omitted without ellipses what I actually wrote:

In Kalichman’s book:
“In his own words Bauer states:
Humans evolved in Africa with dark skin for the optimum degree of sunshine filtering. As humans migrated out of Africa into northern and temperate regions, more  of  the  incident  sunshine  was  needed in  order  to  manufacture  sufficient vitamin D, and so skin tones became lighter. As well as much sunshine, tropical regions  also harbor  a  great  variety  of  bacterial,  microbial,  parasitic,  and  viral diseases.  It  would  therefore  be  curious  if  humans,  evolving  in  Africa,  had  not acquired strong immune responses against a wide range of those challenges to health.  As  humans  migrated  to  other,  non tropical  parts  of  the  world  where challenges to the immune system were less frequent, it seems reasonable that the responses  generated  by  the  immune  system  might have  become  somewhat weakened. 9”

The original source, note 9, is an article of mine that actually states
“Humans evolved in Africa with (presumably) the optimum degree of sunshine-filtering by the skin. As humans migrated out of Africa into northern and temperate regions, it became necessary to absorb more of the incident sunshine in order to manufacture sufficient vitamin D, and the average skin color lightened. As a corollary, dark-skinned people who now live in temperate regions may be at risk for vitamin D deficiency: ‘‘black race had a strong association with vitamin D deficiency . . . black women are at higher risk than are white women’’ [61]. An analogous albeit speculative chain of reasoning can be constructed relating to immune function. Tropical regions harbor a great variety of endemic bacterial, fungal, parasitic, and viral diseases—great enough to warrant special Departments of Tropical Medicine in many places, as well as a Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene. It would therefore be curious if humans, evolving in Africa, had not acquired very strong immune responses against that wide range of challenges to health. As humans migrated to other, nontropical parts of the world where the immune system is less fiercely challenged, it seems reasonable that the responses generated by the immune system would have become modified, less wide-ranging or somewhat weaker.”

Kalichman’s version is not a bad paraphrase, but it’s certainly not “in his [Bauer’s] own words”. His omission of “(presumably)” makes me seem more dogmatic, as even more seriously does his omission of “An analogous albeit speculative chain of reasoning”. His insertion of “also” after “as well as” does not do justice to my writing style as aided by an excellent editor at McFarland. His omissions, not indicated by ellipsis marks, drop out an important piece of evidence pertaining to the evolutionary function of dark skin. His changing of “fungal” to “microbial” is substantively important, both because fungal diseases are pertinent in “AIDS” as well as in Africa and because readers might think that I regard “bacterial” and “microbial” as worth mentioning separately.

I really don’t know what to make of Kalichman’s “quotations”. They are sufficiently like the original as not to be outright paraphrases, yet they’ve been copied with the most cavalier disregard for accuracy. Did someone read the originals out to him too carelessly, or vice versa?

No matter how it happened, what’s blatantly obvious is that the quality of fact-checking in this book is abysmally low, stunningly low from so prominent a publisher as Springer. I don’t claim to have found every mis-stated fact or mis-quoted statement (let alone misinterpretation) in Kalichman’s book, but here are a few more that hit me in the eye:

Reference 18 on p. 71 should cite p. 56 of Culshaw’s book, not p. 25.

On the same p. 71, the article of mine from which he quoted is in the wildlife magazine Snowy Egret, not the Journal of Scientific Exploration. This time his quote is accurate, and I’m delighted that he saw fit to include it, since it speaks to the fact that my opinion that Nessies exist grew out of an examination of the evidence.

On p. 74, what is presented as my words is once again distorted to a remarkable degree — highlighting indicates the differences. Kalichman cites me as writing (on p. 238 of my book):
“Poor Ryan White had indeed been born in very ill health for a long time on account of his severe hemophilia. Testing for HIV just introduced in 1984  perhaps he might have been HIV positive at birth? It is possible that his death was hastened by HIV medications?
but what actually appears in my book is:
“Poor Ryan White had indeed been in very poor health for a long time on account of his severe hemophilia. Testing for HIV had just been introduced in 1984; perhaps he might have tested HIV-positive from birth? Recognizing from Part I that HIV-positive is often a marker for ill health, it is no surprise that Ryan White tested positive. It is also possible that his death was hastened rather than delayed by antiretroviral medications.”
I do hope I would never have written — or have allowed to remain written in proof — “born in very ill health for a long time”; “born . . . for a long time” is truly baffling.

Enough already, this post is getting too long as well as wearisome. As electrochemist David Grahame remarked long ago, looking for mistakes in someone else’s work is not a rewarding way to spend one’s time.

Posted in experts, HIV skepticism, Legal aspects, uncritical media | Tagged: , , , , | 6 Comments »

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:

joe-newton-registration

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

kalichmanduesbergp27

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:

36g2

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):

img_8218

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” <joecnewton@gmail.com>
To: duesberg@berkeley.edu
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”

or

“Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2007 23:33:35 -0400
From: “Joseph Newton” <joecnewton@gmail.com>
To: duesberg@berkeley.edu
Subject: Note from an Admirer
Cc: david.crowe@aras.ab.ca

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” <joecnewton@gmail.com>
To: “peter duesberg” <duesberg@berkeley.edu>
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.
Joesph”

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” <joecnewton@gmail.com>
To: “peter duesberg” <duesberg@berkeley.edu>
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,
JCN”

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” <joecnewton@gmail.com>
To: “peter duesberg” <duesberg@berkeley.edu>
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

http://www.nypost.com/seven/ 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” <joecnewton@gmail.com>
To: “Peter DUESBERG” <duesberg@berkeley.edu>
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.
Joseph”

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 amazon.com 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.

Posted in HIV absurdities, Legal aspects, prejudice | Tagged: , , , , | 15 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 »

Pots and kettles: Is ignorance an excuse? — Kalichman’s Komical Kaper #6

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2009/04/20

A favorite tactic of AIDStruthers, including Kalichman (e.g., p. 71 in “Denying AIDS”), is to dismiss without further ado anything said by AIDS Rethinkers and HIV Skeptics on the grounds that they have never done any AIDS research themselves. As I pointed out in “Science Studies 101: Why is HIV/AIDS ‘science’ so unreliable?” [18 July 2008]:

“HIV/AIDS vigilantes like to denigrate rethinkers for not having had their hands dirtied by direct research on the matters they discuss. Historians and sociologists of science, however, know that some of the most acclaimed breakthroughs were made by disciplinary outsiders, who were not blinkered and blinded by the contemporary paradigm (24, 25). . . .
24. Ernest B. Hook (ed.), Prematurity in Scientific Discovery: On Resistance and Neglect, University of California Press, 2002.
25. Henry H. Bauer, The progress of science and implications for science studies and for science policy, Perspectives on Science 11 (#2, 2003) 236-78.”

At the same time as the Guardians of the HIV/AIDS Faith insist that it’s worth attending only to people who have themselves worked in a given specialty, those same Guardians of the Faith apparently feel themselves perfectly qualified to hold forth on matters of science in general and of pseudo-science in particular without having themselves done any scholarly research into those matters, indeed without displaying knowledge of even the rudiments of those subjects. They are ignorant even about aspects of Science Studies where they might be thought to have some insight, as when a clinical/social psychologist makes the stunningly ludicrous assertion that “Scientists are by their nature and training systematic and objective” (“Kalichman’s Komical Kaper #2: The Social Psychology of Scientists”, 14 March 2009).

Kalichman further ventures the astonishing and equally ludicrous assertion that one can discuss pseudo-science without first identifying criteria by which to distinguish science from what isn’t science: “Fortunately, we do not have to define science to understand pseudoscience” (p. 57).
The most cursory consideration reveals that statement as utter nonsense. If you offer me a pseudo-apple, the only way I can know it’s pseudo is if I could  recognize a real apple. “Pseudo-science” surely means something that masquerades as science but isn’t the real article; if one cannot recognize real science, then one cannot recognize pseudo-science. Generations of philosophers and other specialists have tried every which way, unsuccessfully*, to find a definitive set of criteria by which to distinguish science from non-science, pseudo-science, pathological science**, “cargo-cult” science, and all the other pejorative terms that Guardians of The Only True Faiths like to toss around:

“Self-styled ‘skeptics’ (26) like to denigrate heterodox views as ‘pseudo-science’ just because those views are heterodox, ignorant of the fact that there are no general criteria available by which to judge whether something is ‘scientific’; and they tend to be also ignorant of the fact that ‘scientific’ cannot be translated as ‘true’ (2, 27, 28). . . .
2. Henry H. Bauer, Scientific Literacy and the Myth of the Scientific Method, University of Illinois Press, 1992. . . .
26. The mother of all “skeptical” groups is CSICOP, publisher of Skeptical Inquirer; see George P. Hansen, “CSICOP and the Skeptics: an overview”, Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, 86 (#1, 1992) 19-63.
27. Chapters 1-3, 6, 7 in reference 9.
28. Henry H. Bauer, Science or Pseudoscience: Magnetic Healing, Psychic Phenomena, and Other Heterodoxies, University of Illinois Press, 2001.”

Kalichman claims to rely on “standard definitions of pseudoscience” (p. xv) — of which none exist, if “standard” has its usual meaning of accepted throughout the pertinent intellectual community. He lists a number of purported attributes of pseudo-science (p. 57 ff.) — all of them easily deconstructed as invalid — yet doesn’t even pretend to show how any of those are supposed to be exemplified by AIDS Rethinkers or HIV Skeptics. According to Kalichman, moreover, “Pseudoscience, which is not science at all, differs from bad science and junk science, which are science but utilize faulty methodologies to draw incorrect conclusions” —
What on earth does he mean? Is he implying that pseudo-science doesn’t utilize faulty methodologies to draw incorrect conclusions?! What distinction is he trying to draw between his notion of pseudo-science and his notions of bad science or junk science — neither of which he defines beyond the just cited sentence?

This colossal and cavalier ignorance about what science is and how it works leads Kalichman even to adduce, as examples to support his case, instances that actually point exactly in the opposite direction:

“Scientists who hold views outside of the mainstream play an important role in truth seeking. Dissident scientists do not agree with the prevailing theory or do not accept the body of accumulated observations as fact. The importance of dissidence in science is unquestionable, with many celebrated examples throughout history. Revolutions in how we think about our world come from those who move science in new directions. We remember the dissident scientists who changed the way we think. Galileo Galilei changed how we view our universe. Albert Einstein changed how we contemplate space and time. Alfred Wegener changed how we think about the formation of our planet. Charles Darwin changed our view of life. Sigmund Freud changed how we view ourselves. Dissident scientists turn into revolutionaries when their thinking causes science to shift course. Science surely values diverse thinkers, dissent, disagreement, and vigorous debate. How those of us outside of a respective field of science distinguish between genuine dissidence and destructive attempts to undermine the science is a far more complicated matter” (p. 6).

No, my dear Kalichman, it’s not at all a complicated matter to understand how people outside  a field — or inside a field, for that matter — “distinguish between genuine dissidence and destructive attempts to undermine the science”: the long-demonstrated fact is that they don’t so distinguish because they cannot; no one can. As history tells us, devotees of a mainstream consensus regard all dissidence as destructive, just as you and the other AIDStruthers regard AIDS Rethinkers and HIV Skeptics as destructive just because we question the orthodox dogma. Objectively speaking, however, making the distinction is not so much a complicated matter as literally impossible. How can contemporaries distinguish the crank from the genius? As Albert Einstein acknowledged, “There is no objective test” ***.

In point of fact, every one of these former dissidents cited by Kalichman to illustrate how we revere revolutionaries actually illustrates the very opposite. All of them were anything but revered by their contemporaries, ranging from being ignored to being attacked viciously. Galileo’s troubles are well known, and his name has even become the standard example in the conventional wisdom about people who were right even when the authoritative experts pronounced them wrong and wanted them to recant. Darwin and Freud were persistently opposed both by scientists and by non-scientists. Alfred Wegener is one of Gunther Stent’s textbook examples of “premature discovery”, so far ahead of his contemporaries that it was the best part of half a century before his claims were vindicated — posthumously by about 35 years. One of the reasons Wegener’s ideas were ignored or dismissed by earth scientists was, of course, that Wegener was an outsider, not an earth scientist. As to Albert Einstein, the Nobel Committee was careful to note that he was being awarded the Nobel Prize “in particular” for studies relating to quantum theory , not for the then-still-controversial theory of relativity; that disclaimer is somewhat reminiscent of the manner on which Scientific American (May 2007, 53-59) recently prefaced Duesberg’s invited presentation of his views on aneuploidy and cancer:
“Editors’ note: The author, Peter Duesberg, a pioneering virologist, may be well known to readers for his assertion that HIV is not the cause of AIDS. The biomedical community has roundly rebutted that claim many times. Duesberg’s ideas about chromosomal abnormality as a root cause for cancer, in contrast, are controversial but are being actively investigated by mainstream science. We have therefore asked Duesberg to explain that work here. This article is in no sense an endorsement by SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN of his AIDS theories.”

Yes indeed, my dear Kalichman, “Revolutions in how we think about our world come from those who move science in new directions”. But if it were up to people like you, it would never happen, because according to you, only the specialists have a right to an opinion. Except, of course, when it comes to history of science or philosophy of science or sociology of science or science & technology studies, where outsiders like yourself think themselves somehow qualified to speak even though they lack the most elementary familiarity with the matters they address.

—————————
* Larry Laudan, “The demise of the demarcation problem”, pp. 111-27 in Physics, Philosophy and Psychoanalysis, ed. R. S. Cohen & L. Laudan, Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 1983
** Henry H. Bauer, “‘Pathological Science’ is not Scientific Misconduct (nor is it pathological)”, HYLE (International Journal for Philosophy of Chemistry), 8 (#1, April 2002) 5-20
*** I. Bernard Cohen, “An interview with Einstein”, Scientific American, July 1955, 69-73

Posted in experts, HIV skepticism, prejudice | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments »