This article provides details about many of the questions that have arisen here, about Peter Duesberg’s efforts to obtain funding to test his AIDS causation models, etc.
The Passion of Peter Duesberg–original (PDF form)
It was commissioned in 2004 by Harper’s, and slated for publication in 2005, but was later truncated and folded into a longer article published in 2006.
*Update by Dean*: Coda added by secondary author removed from PDF by original author’s request and approval. No further edits, above link is the original document.
{ 1 trackback }
{ 48 comments }
Author’s approved version ends prior to Coda and Notes, which were added for online publication in 2006.
Who is the author ?
McKiernan, if your attention to fine detail has returned, might you address whether you still consider me to have committed a moral error for asking the questions I asked of “Judy?”
Bialy’s instinct as an editor was to update the Duesberg article with recent developments. Normally an editor would not have the knowledge to update an article, but Bialy, being Duesberg’s scientific biographer, did. I can’t seem to break into the PDF to clarify this, nor so I recall how it was left between myself and editor Bialy at the time. It doesn’t matter, since I have clarified it in the post.
Now, what about the apology you owe me?
McKiernan, if your attention to fine detail has returned, might you address whether you still consider me to have committed a moral error for asking the questions I asked of “Judy?”
“Now, what about the apology you owe me?”
No one owes you an apology.
quote:
Celia Farber July 24, 2010 at 8:49 pm
“That’s true, ‘Judy’ is free to ignore my request, and even my ‘particular hoops of credibility. ‘
We’re always free, and when people ask other people to provide details after an Internet Accusation (whatever that means) of some sort, the person being asked is not compelled to answer. ”
quote:
Celia Farber July 26, 2010 at 1:48 pm
“I rest my case.”
The issue has never been one of any presumed moral error. The issue is one of privacy with respect to others medical history. I said privacy is the person’s option.
Journalists and others in my opinion ought to be included in the laws of HIPAA as in:
Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_health_information
McKiernan,
I did not ask for medical details.
I was trying to authenticate Judy as being what she said she was–a brand new arrival who never posted before on the subject. I am not going over this again. You said I was being outrageous and insensitive. I think that charge dissolves because I was correct.
Judy was not Judy, was not new, and in my estimate, if you arrive windmilling about another person’s supposed distortions (Duesberg) the least you had better be is truthful in your first sentence, about yourself. She was not. Credibility ends there.
Never mind. I don’t want an apology. I have posted carefully researched history on Duesberg for those who are interested. I don’t have time to argue red herring matters. I have deadlines, now. Work to do.
I understand that if you share the orthodox view on HIV/AIDS then you also consider that there is no such thing as ever standing corrected. That doesn’t bother me. The truth is plain for all to see. I deal with imposters, phonies, trolls, moles, ALL the time. They underestimate my ear. I always hear it, before I can prove it.
I consider arriving in a dishonest guise to be shattering of credibility as well as integrity. Peter Duesberg, let me assure you, would never pretend to be somebody else, and neither would anybody who is sound of mind, spirit and intent.
Aziz, and others–I hope the article, though somewhat dated, answers some of your questions. I won’t be able to partake in a longer discussion, due to work due in the coming days. I am not arguing anything. I am just putting something on the porch.
I think personally that American tax payers, who have contributed to the $400 billion HIV research oil spill, have every right to be livid at those who were entrusted to SOLVE both Cancer and AIDS, and who instead devoted 24 years to making damn sure Peter Duesberg was punished and blocked at every turn. He had to seek PRIVATE funding for his cancer experiments on aneuploidy, and was constantly chased out of his labs and moved to smaller, more remote ones. It’s obscene. It’s pure spite.
Read the story, if you care to know the true history. Thank you.
(I will be posting updates on the Duesberg saga, between 2006 and 2010, because the story gets even MORE obscene in that period.)
http://www.omsj.org/corruption/fauci-directs-62-grants-to-himself
http://www.omsj.org/corruption/the-duesberg-inquisition
Thank you,
“I consider arriving in a dishonest guise to be shattering of credibility as well as integrity.”
Yes, and you might check out several others one and their multiple internet aliases that continue to this day. I have serious reservations to their credibility as well.
And last but not least:
http://www.omsj.org/corruption/uc-berkeley-ends-inquisition
May I make a suggestion?
Let’s stop blaming the victim. Let’s start talking less about Peter Duesberg and MORE about Anthony Fauci and the NIH.
Did YOU agree to let your tax dollars be spent on scientific persecutions of those holding dissenting views? I didn’t.
> Did YOU agree to let your tax dollars be spent on scientific persecutions of those holding dissenting views? I didn’t.
I don’t want my tax dollars spent on lots of things, like – Amtrak.
Yours,
Wince
Celia, if you send it all to me as a Word document, I’ll get it into PDF for you.
For anyone interested, here was part of the AIDS establishment’s answer to Celia’s article. Nice, eh? They got a nice cheap shot in there at Claus Koehnlein too.
That’s prominent members of the AIDS establishment talking–specifically, written by some of these guys and endorsed by them all by prominently linking it from their site.
Compare the Harper’s article to the response I linked above. Or to other accusations from them, such as “Really she [Celia] is nothing more than a person who gets paid for spreading HIV denialist propaganda.”
Really, Celia? Who pays you to do this “propaganda?”
To quote Professor John P. Moore, a prominent member of said establishment:
“This IS a war, there ARE no rules, and we WILL crush you, one at a time, completely and utterly”
I once again suggest, just read Celia’s article and ask yourself about the response to it by prominent AIDS researchers.
Come to your own conclusions, but I have to say I find “well both sides have been mean” to be pretty weak.
Thanks for the link to my picture of Celia with blood on her face. I would like to correct you on a number of points:
1) I am not part of the AIDS establishment.
2) The nice people at AIDStruth added my picture as a link without any communication with me before the link was made.
3) This and all the other bloody denialist pictures exist as a direct response to a dear friend of mine dying of untreated HIV infection because he swallowed the lie that HIV does not cause AIDS. I am sure Celia would know exactly how that feels, if she were not so deeply in denial.
4.) I have used my own blood in all of the pictures. I have done this because I am HIV+ and am not in denial about the virus that exists in my body.
5.) I have used blood because it echo’s the reprehensible behaviour of the denialists at the Vancouver International AIDS Conference in 1996.
This is, and will be, the only time that I post on this site.
Best wishes,
BSE
Dean,
That picture of me with blood splashed on my face is nothing but a sign of the deep mental illness of the people you are calling somewhat charitably “the AIDS establishent.”
AIDSTruth.org is hosted in South Africa, where they fight much dirtier than we do here.
(South African) TAC leader Zackie Achmat is, according to this document, an arsonist, committed communist, and self-declared scientific illiterate.
http://www.omsj.org/blogs/the-truth-about-aids-truth
I would be extremely worried if I were liked by this ilk. They operate like terrorists, share the mentality.
Dean,
I’m confused by this sentence:
> Really, Celia? Who pays you to do this “propaganda?”
I think you meant something like this:
Really? Someone pays Celia to do propaganda? First I’ve heard of it. Celia, are you being paid to do propaganda?
Yours,
Wince
Celia,
I admire and respect you. Your Harper’s article was magnificent. You do a fantastic job of chrinicling the social and moral dimension of the establishment.
However, as far as the actual science goes, you have a couple of blind spots – I noted in your harpers article and also here in this PDF. I will confess I have not had time to read this 33-page document in its entirety, so if there is a part of it which contradicts my impressions, please correct me.
bottom line: Dr Duesberg is not victim of establishment ostracization. He published his original 1987 paper in Cancer Research. He published “Why HIV does not cause AIDS” in Science in 1988. He then demanded, and was granted, the right to publish *without peer review* in PNAS in 1989 as is the right of all members of the NAS. (see update below)
And far from an active scientific conspiracy to suppress Duesberg’s notion, The skeptics were also well represented in the literature – Bernstein in 1990, the paper in Nature Biotech in 1993 (Bialy was editor at teh time), the letter in Science in 1995.
Then HAART was introduced in 1996, and AZt was no longer the sole treatment – and the journals filled with peer-reviewed examples of the treatment’s efficiacy. Its no coincidence, and in fact evidence that the scientific establishment was operating correctly, that the skeptics views (based mainly on AZT toxicity arguments alone) were no longer relevant.
The timeline youu lay out in yoru writing implies an active campaign of suppression against Duesberg from teh outset. But the actual publication timeline of skeptic arguments shows that they were given AMPLE room to express their views. And then the situation changed, HAART came along, and they were left behind.
You argue that Duesberg was persona non grata at teh NIH, with “numerous” research grants submitted by refused funding. What were these research grants? what were the proposals? Did duesberg ever make them available? Today you can always self publish on arXiv or PLoS One, and let the “grassroots review” process take place in an open way. If these grant submissions had scientific merit, why not let them out? especially now, since Duesberg has moved on from AIDS to aneuploidy and no longer rpesumably cares about being pre-empted.
Nothing in what you have supplied here addresses my main, overriding concern. Wheres teh science to TEST Duesberg’s ALTERNATIVE hypothesis? I was glad to read that he has submitted grants. Lets see them. That seems to be PRECISELY what I was asking for!
again, youre a journlaist, not a scientist, so its unfair to ask you to produce that. But you shoudl, at least as a journalist, wonder why these research proposals Duesberg has been ostracized for are so secret. You shoudl have more skepticism than that, especially since you ARE a skeptic and are comitted to finding the objective truth here.
UPDATE: in your article you imply that Duesberg’s 1991 PNAS paper was blocked from publication. this is false. It is even available on teh PNAS website. Incidentally Duesberg has been published in PNAS (not always as first author) alone hundreds of times over the past 40 years. Its mystifying to me that anyone can claim that he is somehow being ostracized from the evil scientific boys club.
I have been paid over the years strictly by whichever journalistic outlet commissioned the work. I have never been paid to say anything on behalf of anybody but myself in writing. I am not sure I understand the question.
In terms of my subjectivity: Traditions of lamenting journalism are not well understood, to say the least. I get slammed by people who are themselves literally paid operatives and propagandists and who are frustrated that journalism remains rogue and can’t be totally under their control, as it does in a truly fascist state.
None of them know what “journalism,” is or where it came from. Journalism is carried out by individuals, one mind pursuing one story. Mass Media is another thing entirely.
A “journalist” is a construct, to an extent, whereas a “writer” is something organic.
I trust you will allow me to give examples without assuming I am “comparing myself” to these individuals, only stating that a long tradition exists, which AIDS activists and “denialist” fighters always ignore/obviate. A tradition of subjective “journalism,” that relies on subjectivity for the very heart-beat of the work.
1. George Orwell: Was he a journalist? For the BBC? Did he come to despise Colonialism, then fascism, then Soviet communism? Was he an anti-Communist propagandist?
2. Malcolm Muggeridge: Was he not a journalist? Was he not central and almost alone in exposing one of the crimes of the last century? Muggeridge became a Christian late in life, and attributed his denunciation of Stalin and his expose work on the Holomodor (famine in Ukraine) TO his Christian faith. He said that it helped him see, finally, the horrors–through his heart.
3. If you want an example on the far left, how about Jessica Mitford?
4. Hunter S. Thompson (not a journalist? A propagandist against Richard Nixon, or one of the most formidable journalists this country ever produced?)
5. More examples of writers, who wrote non fiction, addressing contemporary issues, ie “journalists,” and whose work succeeded because of, not in spite of, its subjectivity: Arthur Koestler, Albert Camus, Rachel Carson, William F. Buckley, Henry David Thoreau, Mark Twain…or to cite a wild card example from today…what about Stieg Larsson? Or Anna Funder. I know that’s a motley collection. Deliberately so.
Writers take the world into their heart and write what they perceive/feel, about the world and what is transpiring during their time.
A propagandist simplifies and bludgeons, and reality is not of interest. A propagandist works for state or corporation, cult or church. Their texts are replicable, same.
Remember: Objectivity is not the same thing as clarity.
celia, were you replying to me? I specifically said I consider you a journalist, and i didnt say you were being subjective. I said that as a skeptic, you are comitted to finding objective truth, “things as they are” to borrow your phrase from the article.
Describing things as they are is good, but sometimes theerare things that are conspicuous for their absence. I see a huge absence here – of any research ideas by Duesberg to test his own hypotheses. I think thats something you should investigate with equal attention.
Also, as I show above its quite false to imply that Duesberg has been ostracized.
I don’t know a hell of a lot about AIDS. Except that I had a cousin, who was a practicing, active and smug southern California faggot who died of AIDS back in the 1980s, in what some people probably called the Great Epidemic.
That being the case, I never have taken the time to delve into questions about which disease was the one that actually terminated your life, if you had spent about 20 years sticking your dick up some other man’s ass or let them do it to you maybe one time too many.
He didn’t die very pleasantly, according to my late sister, who flew out to California to visit him in the hospital while the medical staff waited out the inevitable.
So tell me once again: What about this AIDS problem is so important that it has to demand the time and attention of a world that does not do these things, and, as a consequence rarely become exposed to the disease? Otherwise, I have to assume that ridiculous personal conduct sometimes leads to ridiculous and deadly outcomes. And I think the truth is, that while some of you liberals bewail incessantly the AIDS business, mostly what happens to the victims is that they die, and whatever they did or did not do to become infected, is quickly forgotten by a world caught up in six billion sets of personal concerns that are a lot more urgent.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
Slightly OT:
The difference between True Science and Cargo Cult Science:
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-difference-between-true-science-and-cargo-cult-science/?singlepage=true
Aziz, No I wasn’t replying to you! I was replying to what Dean posted–the blood-splashed picture and link to feverish screeds about how I am a propagandist. I will reply to you when I have caught up on some work. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
Aziz,
From Peter Duesberg’s pen, “To advance this important experience to science, we propose to test anti-HIV drugs in animals, rather than humans, with and without AIDS-defining diseases.”
He also proposed to test long term use of poppers on mice. The grant application was even supported by the former editor of Science, Dan Koshland.
Do any other scientists that you know of make their grant proposals publicly available?
why are you linking to a flickr photo by some random dude (who even commented here) and labeling that “the AIDS establishment” ?
thats pretty egregious Dean. Its on par with calling skeptics “denialists”. dont tar with such wide brushes.
Frankly I am probably a part of teh AIDS establishment since I value and trust the scientific process and am requiring Duesberg adhere to those standards for him to persuade me of his case for an alternate AIDS theory.
There are angry people out there, but they arent part of the “establishment” I am. Its offensive.
Celia,
I just got through reading much of your 2006 article in Harper’s. I intend to make time to read the rest.
I don’t recall ever writing anything laudatory or even kind about you on Dean’s World. But based on my own long-ago experiences as a working news reporter, I think you did a superb job in researching what happened to Ms Hafford after she began taking the anti-HIV drugs.
It’s becoming increasingly obvious to me that the hospital, their physicians and perhaps our entire sytem of pushing certain drugs, all conspired to murder that woman. Certainly not willfully, but out of simple refusal even to consider that instead of treating that unfortunate woman, they were in fact poisoning and shutting down her vital organs.
Keep up the fight. Too many of us live our lives in ignorance that some elements of scientific pursuit may in fact harm us or even kill us, rather than cure what we think are our diseases.
If anything I have written here contradicts anything else I ever have written or publicly espoused, that’s too damned bad. I would rather acknowledge being wrong than to wrap myself in the lies and self-deceptions of willfull ignorance.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
Thank you, Arnold.
Joyce’s story is “about” so many things. Nevirapine is in a way incidental. It is, as you say, the entire system.
A meme takes hold and becomes too rigid and medicine can become “abnormal” or even psychotic.
There is a line Tarkovsky wrote asking what evil is. The reply (from one of the characters) is: “Everything that is not necessary.”
I feel queasy talking about this. But this much you should know: The insanity, the racism, and the cynicism continued, post 2006, through the past few years of a protracted lawsuit, which as you might imagine, put huge pharmaceutical companies in a stronger position in the fight than a struggling African American family in Memphis. They (the pharmaceutical companies, hospitals, etc) papered them and papered them. Exhausted them. Exhausted their attorney. One attorney defending the family and Joyce’s orphaned sons, against dozens on the other side.
Does anybody have time to look it up?
Circuit Court of Tennessee For the Thirtieth Judicial District at Memphis,
Sterling Crayton and Jermal Hafford, surviving minor children of Joyce Hafford, Deceased, by their next friend custodial aunt Rubbie King; and Rubbie Malone
Plaintiffs,
vs.
UT Medical Group, Inc; Edwin M. Thorpe, M.D.; St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Inc.; Patricia M. Flynn, M.D. : Nina K. Sublette, R.N.; Mary E. Dillard, R.N., Jill Utech; Micki Roy; Shelby County Healthcare Corporation d/b/a The Regional Medical Center at Memphis, aka, The Med; Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, inc; and Smithkline Beecham Corporation d/b/a GlaxoSmithKline;
Defendants,
Amended complaint for wrongful death, filed Feb 15, 2005.
No CT-007219-04
Celia,
There probably are times you must feel like Emile Zola, after he learned that the bordereau which had been used to convict Captain Alfred Dreyfus and send him to penal servitude on Devil’s Island in French Guiana, had been faked and the real criminal was one Count Ferdinand Esterhazy.
I am quite certain that I never shall be able to forget what was done to Joyce Hafford and her unfortunate family. Even if there is not one damned constructive thing that an ordinary citizen like me can do about it.
Except for the act of rememberance.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
Arnorld,
Please, please, please tell me you saw Keith Oblermann’s rant trying to connect what occurred to Captain Dreyfus and what he deemed the right did to Shirley Sharrod!
Here’s Glenn Beck mercilessly mocking Keith for the… reach:
Not the right place.
Still working on it.
Kevin,
I am exposed to no television, other than what I see on the small Samsung monitors that stand in front of each of the treadmills and other cardio machines at the big Princeton Club fitness center on the far west side of Madison, Wisconsin, where my wife and I work out every morning. There, I am far more likely to be watching the History Channel, Turner Movie Classics, or listening to classic rock, than I am to witnessing what talking heads have to say.
My knowledge of the Dreyfus persecution by the French army general staff, and the role that the great French novelist Emile Zola had in exposing that whole business, comes from a book written by Nicholas Halasz, titled “Captain Dreyfus: The Story of a Mass Hysteria”, which was published about 60 years ago and which I read as a young man. The story had also been the focus of a noteworthy late 1930s film of the later life of Emile Zola, starring the great Paul Muni in the title role.
I certainly hope that Zola’s brave action in exposing the lies of the members of the French Army General Staff has been used as an examply by many other writers and journalists right up to the present day. And I also hope his example, his name, and his memory are not lightly used by television personalities for less than worthy purposes.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
Aziz: you obviously didn’t bother reading the link at all. The disgusted photo was atop a lengthy “fisking” rant written and signed by Jeanne Bergman and John P. Moore. Said hate-site is linked prominently off the “AIDS Truth” slander page, and here are the members of the establishment that run that site and either wrote or endorsed that grotesquery.
These people aren’t scientists, Aziz. They may have PhDs but they aren’t scientists, they’re vicious thugs. You aren’t part of them.
Aziz: A couple years ago you and I asked Peter to give us one of his grant applications; you wanted to post it arXiv or PLoS One, and you got a copy of it, but so far as I know you never did.
This issue runs to funding, and the so-called “peer review” process that determines not who get published but who gets funded. And Celia’s timeline coincides perfectly with what multiple sources have told me, vindicating Celia’s reporting.
As for the story that HAART is what left them behind: okay, whatever, as I said, I’m convinced I have no power to convince people there’s a problem with the party line.
Also, as I show above its quite false to imply that Duesberg has been ostracized.
But you didn’t show any such thing, Aziz. At all.
Read her paper. It’s good. It matches what numerous others have reported. Even though most of his work was on cancer, all his cancer funding dried up because of it. Even guys like Bert Vogelstein have come forward to practically beg NIH to stop rejecting Peter’s research grant applications on cancer, every one of which has been turned down even though that’s been the bulk of his research efforts all this time. NIH doesn’t like him, and they ostracized him; that and the Berkeley establishment itself.
I wish you wouldn’t use the word “faggot” Arnold. I know it was common language when you were young in the 1940s and 1950s, but it really tends to upset days these days, much like the “n” word for blacks, which was common in my own youth.
Just a point of etiquette, old friend.
Celia, Aziz clearly didn’t read what was below the blood-spattered hate-propaganda, i.e. the rage-filled screed by AIDS-establishmentarians John P. Moore and Jeanne Bergman, both prominent members of the “AIDS Truth” site I also linked that Aziz also obviously didn’t read because it’s them who prominently linked it off their own page.
This loathsome thing shows that the AIDS establishment isn’t run by scientists at all. It’s run by hate-mongering propagandists with rubber-stamped paper-PHDs.
Well of course you’re anonymous, so we have no reason to believe anything you say here, but I do believe you’re the ball-less little coward who came up with that crude, kintergarten-style fingerpaint death-threat of Celia–which the AIDS “research” establishment was so eager to proudly endorse.
You aren’t an artist, you’re a hack. And you probably do, in fact, work for the pseudo-scientist thugs at “AIDS Truth,” who tend to read this site and others like it rather obsessively, desperately running their little war of slander against anyone who dares question them, even as their funding continues to dry up and they increasingly become a laughingstock with a scientific community that recognizes them to be increasingly marginalized and irrelevant.
They obviously dispatched you within hours, so if I had a guess, you’re one of their paid little stooges, probably one of their junior “researchers” and aren’t even really diagnosed HIV+. Even if you are, you obviously aren’t a man, because you haven’t got any balls and won’t sign your work. You may technically be male, but no man, gay or otherwise. Just a dishonorable, cowardly little troll who gets his jollies making death threats against women. Why should anyone believe otherwise, since you won’t answer any questions about your claims or your fingerpaints?
You know what, though? I’m gonna post my own photo on my own page, and I hope you’ll do me the honor of making one of your kindergarten “art” works on me. I’d consider it a high honor to be slimed with Celia by a psychotic little anonymous death-threatening rat who gets his jollies making death threats against women.
I’m also going to hold a competition to see if anyone can outdo you. It won’t be hard, methinks. Your average first-grader with crayons could do better.
i stopped after the photo. The defacement of any person’s photo like that is offensive; that its such a great glamour shot originally makes it doubly so.
But is picking out two intemperate people who happen to be scientists also fair when characterizing an entire community?
Was our friend ASadEnemy representative of teh entire commentariat here at DW? is OBL representative of muslims? The same principle applies, albeit to different scales of assholery.
there must be some mistake. i dont reemember getting that. will check my email archives but have already searched them for emails from duesberg.. let me recheck.
Yeah Arnold, and I’d really rather not turn this into a thread on political talk show hosts anyway. Kev, start a new thread or something.
most other scierntists dont claim to be persecuted when their grant proposals are denied – most of them prefer to try again, and reuse elements of the proposals in better applications. Making them public would therefore undercut their own research efforts.
Since Duesberg makes the claim of persecution, and has disavowed AIDS anyway in favor of cancwer where his work is repsected and acknowledged as truly innovative (itself a fact that refutes any vendetta against him by the NIH), making these old grant proposals public would help his cause and do no damage to his research ambitions.
Dean,
I found it! dunno how i missed it last time. i read it but its a cancer-related paper,
In response to the NIH program “High-impact Pilot Studies in Cancer Biology” (PA-03-041) I submit a grant application for research on the “Mechanism of drug resistance of cancer cells”. The object of this application is to study the hypothesis that certain new chromosome combinations, which are rapidly generated in chromosomally unstable cancer cells, generate drug resistance.
The point of the exercise was to ask Dr Duesberg for proposals which specifically tested his hypothesis of AIDS, which he alleged are being suppressed.
I think its best to withdraw again, since we arent getting anywhere. I can easily imagine Bialy popping up again to lambast me about how I am part of the establishment, Im contrinuting to the slander of Duesberg, and how I am moving the goalposts about what I am asking he do (already someone downthrread who Ive never seen below is insinuating Duesberg is being held to a different standard. I regret replying to him and providing more fodder for the nonsense.)
I dont feel liek resummarizing and re-framing and rearguing my point, ive said enough, and euither you understand what i am after or you dont and we have to agree or disagree. If I am seen as an establishment lackey, so be it.
> This loathsome thing shows that the AIDS establishment isn’t run by scientists at all. It’s run by hate-mongering propagandists with rubber-stamped paper-PHDs.
It does not. It shows that it’s supported by hate-mongering propagandists with rubber-stamped paper-PHDs. I think it’s rather too big to be run by them.
Yours,
wince
Geez, that’s odd. Those words sound like my two proposals.
Yours,
Wince
Not really something I think is worth it’s own thread, and it relates directly to something Arnold said. That sort of thing, to my knowledge, has always been permitted to date. But whatever.
Dean,
What finger painted death threat are you going on about? All of my pictures about Celia are online and visible to see, and at no point have I ever made any threat against anyone (death or otherwise). As for your other assertions, whatever, you are free to think what you like.
I do think she should be in prison for promoting her death rhetoric though, but that is a whole other subject!
I look forward to your reply!
BSE
BSE is a slanderer.
Yours,
Wince
I’m still getting the hang of this new “reply to comment” thing, but Aziz, if you’re still reading, I don’t think you’re anyone’s lackey or stooge or whatever. Highly orthodox in your thinking, but as I even said to Celia recently, orthodoxy has its place, without orthodoxy in the world the wheels would come off of everything. It’s orthodoxy out of control that’s dangerous, just like reform is dangerous if it gets out of control. That’s the world for you: constantly trying to figure out what needs to change and what doesn’t, what’s really wrong and what really isn’t. Ah, it sucks to be human sometimes. :-)
Oh, er, but, on Peter’s proposal: If I remember properly, that discussion had been to the assertion that, since his AIDS heretodoxy, he was routinely denied funding on cancer grants; the challenge was made that perhaps his cancer applications are worthless. So we asked him for one of those; as I think I’ve mentioned, he applied to do AIDS research years ago, got turned down, and went back to cancer loooong ago, and all his stuff on AIDS since then have been invited papers and/or invitations to speak. So, again, just setting the record straight.
I also don’t think it’s wrong at all to ask for original research from AIDS heretics. I just believe it’s been made impossible, for reasons we’ve already discussed. We can agree to disagree. :-)
Comments on this entry are closed.