I'm sorry Dean, was that a yes
|I'm sorry Dean, was that a yes to both questions?|
Dean Esmay asks how many Nobel Prize winners and National Academy members we have here at Moment of Science. Well let me see here...
and Roy, we got...
well, I guess that makes zero.
This is just another example of Dean's refusal to apply either logic or reason to his thiniking on HIV/AIDS. How many Nobel Prize winners or National Academy members are there at Dean's World? And how many National Academy members think Duesberg's HIV/AIDS denial makes him a crackpot? Somewhere around 1000 I would guess.
"Yet these folks at the "A Moment Of Science" weblog think I'm either a liar or an idiot. Well okay. I'm no liar, but I may be an idiot. If so, I've got some well-credentialed idiots who are also on my side."
Well, in fairness, you do have some well-credentialed people on your side, yes better than any of us in some cases. But most of the well-credentialed ones aren't idiots, they're just wrong. None of them are dishonest enough to lie about the Lancet study the way that Hank did. An none of them are big enough idiots to repeat that lie without reading the paper, and then refuse to correct their statements after reading the paper.
So Dean, other than noting that there are no Nobel laureates, nor any idiots here at Moment of Science, I guess the only question I have in response is how many people at Dean's World have read the Lancet paper by now? Aziz? So, maybe 1?
Well, two of us have read it, and as you've failed to amend here, I'll assume that you still haven't. Otherwise you've answered yes to both parts of my question.
Oh, and Dean, your continued use of Walter Gilbert as an example of a well-credentialed AIDS denialist damns your credibility even further.
In addition to refusing to appy logic and reason, Dean ignores simple facts like Walter Gilbert is no longer a skeptic on HIV.
Dear Dr. Jeffreys---I am afraid that those comments go back to the late 80's. At that time I was a skeptic--the argument based on Koch's postulates to try to distinguish between cause and association. However, even during that time we had several AIDS projects going within Biogen--one to try to stimulate T-independent B-cell activation (a pet approach of mine), another to develop soluble CD4--to use as an antiviral agent. That second project got to clinical trials (and failed because the virus in patients didn't have the high affinity for CD4 that
If anyone would like a copy of the Lancet paper in question, to see what a simple error of fact Dean refuses to correct for his readers, please shoot me an email at my profile, and I'll send it to you. We certainly didn't ask Dean to give up HIV/AIDS denial completely, just read a paper and accurately note what was being measured there (mortality during the first year of treatment, not lifespan), but I suppose if he lets the light of reason in, even a tiny bit, the whole edifice of denial will disintegrate and fall in on his head.
No wonder he's afraid to acknowledge the truth.
UPDATE: Dale points out in comments that I have said several times that the increase in CD4 cells was observed to improve over calendar years in this paper, but that the average CD4 increase of about 100 is fairly constant over calendar years. The increase in CD4 cells in 1995-96 is 90, in 2003 it was 103. It doesn't really affect my main point, but since I was criticizing others for their interpretation of the paper, I add table 2 showing the average increase in CD4 cells for each calendar year so that readers can see what the data show.
The only blog inspired by a Bumper Sticker.