You have written hither and yon on the Internet, and most recently in the pages of that once excellent and independent newspaper, The New York Times, how critics of the HIV/AIDS hypothesis are not to be taken seriously. The points you raise (if such they can be called) fall within the categories of "scientific-sounding" but unverifiable "facts", slanderous assaults, and outright fabrications.
And you have the nerve to take a salary from a reputable university.
Since you purport to know so much, I propose a simple debate at the AIDS WIKI on the etiology of AIDS. I further propose it take the following form:
I will present one fully referenced (with PDF files that the moderator can hyperlink) challenge to your favorite and livelihood-sustaining hypothesis, and you can demolish my feeble arguments in the same fashion. We will continue this for one additional round, and then move on to the next challenge. I have maybe seven such challenges.
At the end, we will have produced the first fully documented, real scientific debate on the cause of AIDS. Interesting that after 25 years none has ever been held before, Bob Gallo's promise in the PNAS in 1989 not withstanding.
Surely this is not too much for someone possessing even a fraction of the neurons and cojones that you pretend to have. Or is it that you are only capable of boldly proclaiming your unsubstantiated "beliefs" when protected by editorial armaments as mighty as The NY Times that you know would never publish any factual contradiction of your filthy and girlish prose masquerading as an academic Op. Ed.
Yours most sincerely,
P.S. You might try reading my biography of Professor Duesberg. If you can understand the technical parts, you will actually learn something.
The above offer was sent in an email by me to Dr. John Moore, a leading AIDS researcher at Cornell Medical Center, prefaced by the following:
To be clear, this is a sincere offer from Dr. Bialy...as you can see from the link at the TOP of the page at the AIDS WIKI. There is no funny business...this would be a standard, moderated debate; there will be no undue time constraints, you can consult with as many colleagues as you please, use as many appropriate references as you please, etc., etc. This is a serious offer. Should you choose to accept the offer, you can write me back at this email address.
Thanks for your time.
- Darin Brown
- Mathematics Department
- Eastern New Mexico University
- Darin Brown
Within less than an hour, I received the following response from Dr. Moore:
Participating in any public forum with the likes of Bialy would give him a credibility that he does not merit. The science community does not "debate" with the AIDS denialists, it treats them with the utter contempt that they deserve and exposes them for the charlatans that they are. Kindly do not send me any further communications on this or any related matter. John Moore
Thus, we see that orthodox AIDS protagonists feel license to slander and impugn the credibility of respected scholars and scientists, indeed to hold them in the "contempt that they deserve" as "charlatans", yet at the same time, they find any legitimate, moderated debate with those whom they slander to be "giving him a credibility that he does not merit".
One wonders, if Dr. Moore is so eager to "expose [dissidents] for the charlatans that they are", why he would not take up the opportunity to do so, when given such an obliging offer? The answer is simple: Dr. Moore can only "expose charlatans" when he is protected from having to support his viewpoint, and when he can hide behind the imprimatur of some publication that he knows will not challenge or question his slanderous prose.
I might remind those reading that this is a serious offer from a respected scientist. Dr. Bialy has more than 30 years experience in molecular biology, has published several ground-breaking papers, and was the founding and scientific editor of the world's leading biotechnology journal for 14 years. His book has gathered praise from scientific luminaries such as George Miklos, Kary Mullis (Nobel Prize Chemistry), Gerald Pollack, Donald Miller, Walter Gilbert (Nobel Prize Chemistry), Charles Cantor, Gunther Stent, Sir. Henry Harris and Lynn Margulis.
It is doubly ironic that Dr. Moore should decline such an offer, when according to a recent release sent to embassies, apparently no less than the US government itself gives a great deal more credence to Dr. Bialy's viewpoint than Dr. Moore himself does. Perhaps the US government is also comprised of "charlatans" who deserve to be "exposed" with "contempt"?
9 June 2006
Although Dr. Moore lost by technical knockout, this is not the end of the story.
16 June 2006
NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER NOTICE ON THIS PAGE, the material on this page is NOT available under the GNU Free Documentation License; in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, it is posted in the manner of bulletin boards in schools and workplaces, to encourage public education and citizen awareness, without profit or payment, for persons and entities engaging in non-profit research and educational activities and purposes only.