Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

An alternative theory on cancer (How Darwinism hinders the "War on Cancer")
Physorg.com ^ | June 27, 2007

Posted on 06/27/2007 10:57:15 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts

Thirty-six years into the war on cancer, scientists have not only failed to come up with a cure, but most of the newer drugs suffer from the same problems as those available in the pre-war days: serious toxicity, limited effectiveness and eventual resistance.

This is no surprise to University of California, Berkeley, genetics researcher Peter Duesberg, professor of molecular and cell biology. According to his novel yet controversial "chromosomal" theory of cancer, which is receiving increased attention among cancer researchers, each cancer is unique, and there is no magic bullet.

"The mutation theory of cancer says that a limited number of genes causes cancer, so cancers should all be more or less the same," Duesberg said. The chromosomal theory, which he laid out in an article in the May 2007 issue of Scientific American, implies instead that, "even if cancers are from the same tissue, and are generated with the same carcinogen, they are never the same. There is always a cytogenetic and a biochemical individuality in every cancer."

The most that can be expected from a drug, he said, is that it is less toxic to normal cells than cancer cells, and that as a result a cancer detected early can be knocked back by chemotherapy. His chromosomal theory offers hope of early detection, however, since it ascribes cancer to chromosomal disruption, called aneuploidy, that can be seen easily through a microscope...

(Excerpt) Read more at physorg.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: cancer; carolinavaginaman; cutnpaste; darwinism; duesbergdidit; fsmdidit; healthcare; textdump; therapy
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-125 next last

1 posted on 06/27/2007 10:57:18 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger; Tailgunner Joe; SirLinksalot; Tolerance Sucks Rocks; betty boop; metmom; ...

ping


2 posted on 06/27/2007 11:04:09 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus

ping


3 posted on 06/27/2007 11:08:42 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
According to his novel yet controversial "chromosomal" theory of cancer, which is receiving increased attention among cancer researchers, each cancer is unique, and there is no magic bullet.

Like hell he invented that concept, or that it's remotely controversial.

4 posted on 06/27/2007 11:08:54 PM PDT by SteveMcKing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
I know it's fun and tempting to turn every article into an anti-evolutionary screed, but what the heck does this have to do with disproving Darwin? Certainly there's nothing to that effect in the text of the article...

I think you guys can do better.

5 posted on 06/27/2007 11:09:17 PM PDT by Alter Kaker (Gravitation is a theory, not a fact. It should be approached with an open mind...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

In this latest post at PhysOrg, it seems that Darwinism hasn’t helped, but instead hindered the fight against cancer.

Dr. Peter Duesberg, a molecular biologist at Berkeley,

“proposed in 2000 that the assumption underlying most cancer research today is wrong. That assumption, that cancer results from a handful of genetic mutations that drive a cell into uncontrolled growth, has failed to explain many aspects of cancer, he said, and has led researchers down the wrong path.”

And, in words that support Behe’s main thesis in “The Edge of Evolution”, Deusberg also adds:

“In this new study and in one published in 2005, we have proved that only chromosomal rearrangements, rather than mutations, can explain the high rates and wide ranges of drug resistance in cancer cells.”

Think of the number of people who die each year of cancer as compared to the number who die from bacterial infection, and one can easily see that all the chest-slapping by the Darwinists about how RM+NS has given us anti-bacterial drugs can know pound their breasts in remorse at the “wrong path” mutational theory has led cancer researchers. This isn’t just a battle between the God-denying and the God-affirming segments of our global society, it’s about good science versus bad science, about reason versus myth.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/


6 posted on 06/27/2007 11:11:18 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker

see post #6


7 posted on 06/27/2007 11:12:10 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Maybe Jesus miracled the cancer cells there, right?

Let’s have an exorcism!


8 posted on 06/27/2007 11:13:31 PM PDT by CalGOPTom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SteveMcKing

There is a differenct between “novel” and “invented”. Consult your dictionary.


9 posted on 06/27/2007 11:14:29 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SteveMcKing; CalGOPTom

http://biz.yahoo.com/pz/070416/117436.html


10 posted on 06/27/2007 11:16:54 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

bump for later


11 posted on 06/27/2007 11:20:02 PM PDT by Cacique (quos Deus vult perdere, prius dementat ( Islamia Delenda Est ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

The dispute is Darwinism-neutral from all appearances. Mutations according to traditional models and aneuploidy non-mutation “mutations” would result in the same consequences. Cancers generate so doggone many new cells that either way they are likely to “discover” ways around the drug being used.


12 posted on 06/27/2007 11:24:50 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

This is the same scientist who has claimed for years that
HIV is not the cause of AIDS but the consequence of a drug life style that weakens the immune system.


13 posted on 06/27/2007 11:29:37 PM PDT by CaptainK (...please make it stop. Shake a can of pennies at it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: CaptainK

Yes it is.


14 posted on 06/27/2007 11:36:46 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: CaptainK

PS Among other things, depending on risk factors associated with a specific country or region.


15 posted on 06/27/2007 11:41:58 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

I don’t see anything in what Duesberg is saying that stands in contradiction to Darwinism. In fact, it’s entirely consistent with it. He’s just saying, basically, that large scale chromosomal abnormalities (aneuploidy), rather than a collection of smaller-scale mutations in particular genes, are what allow tumor cells to grow at abnormal rates and under adverse conditions, such as under chemotherapy treatment. He’s also saying that not only does aneuploidy allow tumor cells to become malignant and resistant to treatment, it actually speeds up the process because aneuploidy itself leads to more aneuploidy, ie, more genetic diversity, from which new, more robust tumor cell populations can be selected. Basic evolutionary theory.


16 posted on 06/27/2007 11:42:54 PM PDT by ruination
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: CaptainK
And let’s not forget he said that the early treatments for AIDS were actually one of the causes what we call AIDS (such as AZT, ddI, ddC, d4T, etc). That is, the treatment was one of the causes for disease.
17 posted on 06/27/2007 11:45:34 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
There is a differenct between “novel” and “invented”. Consult your dictionary.
 

Roget's New Millennium™ Thesaurus lists "original" as a primary synonym for novel.

"Invented" can mean fabricated, or it can mean to produce something as an original idea.

Obviously I meant the latter in my post. Although toward the other usage, it is fair to say that "he invented a novel idea" -- in that the invention is a fabrication of his imagination.

So in this case there is no differenct at all, you see.

18 posted on 06/27/2007 11:48:08 PM PDT by SteveMcKing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: CaptainK

http://www.duesberg.com/presentations/$bnAIDSQuiz.pdf


19 posted on 06/28/2007 12:00:37 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

Wasn’t sure if I pinged you or not—GGG


20 posted on 06/28/2007 12:21:10 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Coffee enemas cure AIDS placemark.


21 posted on 06/28/2007 12:26:28 AM PDT by dread78645 (Evolution. A doomed theory since 1859.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: dread78645
==Coffee enemas cure AIDS placemark.

You’re on the wrong discussion board. You’re looking for WeGotTheCauseOfAIDSWrong.com: moderator Robert Gallo.

22 posted on 06/28/2007 12:34:32 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

I don’t give a crap about anyone’s theories. Cancer and watching a loved one die because nothing works is a living hell.


23 posted on 06/28/2007 12:40:47 AM PDT by Coldwater Creek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coldwater Creek

==I don’t give a crap about anyone’s theories. Cancer and watching a loved one die because nothing works is a living hell.

Hopefully, someday the theories will turn into genuine treatments, or even a cure. Until then, the more competition the better.


24 posted on 06/28/2007 12:44:58 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts; SteveMcKing
From a 2005 story on radiation regulation by Steven Milloy:

The regulations limiting human exposure to low-level radiation are not known to have prevented a single health effect in anyone despite decades of use. But they have cost more than $1 trillion in the U.S. alone, according to Radiation, Science and Health, an international non-profit group run by radiation experts who “advocate for the objective review of low-level radiation science policies.”

Guesswork about the alleged risk posed by low-level radiation is only part of the problem with the National Academy of Sciences report.

Over the last 30 years or so, the scientific establishment has become heavily invested in the notion that cancers are caused by genetic, or DNA mutations. The idea is that something — say a single molecule of a “cancer-causing” chemical, the smallest radiation exposure or even chance alone — can cause a change or mutation in a cell’s DNA, thereby turning a normal cell into a cancer cell.

In addition to regulation of radiation exposures, this supposition is the basic rationale that government regulators have relied on for decades to regulate exposures to chemicals allegedly linked with cancer risk — even though there is virtually no real-world evidence to support it.

But a new idea spotlighted by Tom Bethell in the July/August issue of the American Spectator should cause regulators to begin to re-think their decades-old-but-still-unproven assumption of gene mutation.

It was first noticed about a century ago that cancer cells exhibit “aneuploidy” — they don’t have the correct number of chromosomes. Aneuploidy occurs when cells divide improperly and a daughter cell winds up with an extra chromosome. An aneuploid cell may die, but it may also survive and repeat the error, perhaps eventually leading to cancer.

The problem with this idea is not so much scientific as political. Bethell points out that the man who “rediscovered” the old work on aneuploidy is controversial University of California-Berkeley researcher and National Academy of Sciences member Peter Duesberg, who famously had his grants from the National Institutes of Health cut off for being critical of the direction of AIDS research in the late 1980s.

Duesberg still isn’t getting any NIH money even though his aneuploidy idea has survived early challenges, according to Bethell’s article, and the older notions of cancer development are going nowhere fast.

It seems that before regulators spend another $1 trillion of the public’s money on radiation protection that may be based on faulty assumptions, someone ought to throw some research money Duesberg’s way.

Steven Milloy publishes JunkScience.com and CSRwatch.com, is adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute, and is the author of Junk Science Judo: Self-defense Against Health Scares and Scams (Cato Institute, 2001).

Link: Trillion-Dollar Radiation Mistake?

25 posted on 06/28/2007 1:14:37 AM PDT by TheMole
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

Comment #26 Removed by Moderator

To: TheMole

Great find!


27 posted on 06/28/2007 1:29:04 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: HillaryChavez

Great post...it’s always nice to meet yet a new person who dares to challenge the Church of Darwin!


28 posted on 06/28/2007 1:32:42 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
This is an incredibly weak argument against evolutionary theory that seems to be based on the word "mutation". Does anyone honestly think that a researcher who disputes the importance of mutation of cancer cells is attacking evolution?

Wow, that's weak, embarrassingly weak

29 posted on 06/28/2007 2:08:39 AM PDT by muir_redwoods (Free Sirhan Sirhan, after all, the bastard who killed Mary Jo Kopechne is walking around free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CaptainK
There is "reasonable doubt" to consider HIV the only cause of AIDS because it does not follow Koch's Postulates which state the following:

1. The infectious organism must be found in all cases of the disease.
2. It must be isolated from the infected person and grown in pure culture.
3. The disease must be reproduced in a laboratory animal from the pure culture.
4. The organism must then be isolated from the laboratory animal.

HIV does not follow these famous postulates in at least two ways:

1. Everyone who develops AIDS is not HIV positive.
2. Everyone who is HIV positive does not develop AIDS.

There just seems to be something else operating here. HIV plays a role, as does lifestyle, possibly genetics, etc. The problem is that the disease was treated as a political football rather than a typical infectious disease from the time it was discovered and was actually allowed to spread by the US Government and the CDC because of its connection to the homosexual lifestyle. All of our testing is based on the fact that HIV and HIV alone causes AIDS. No one wants to seriously entertain the notion that it may not be the only cause of AIDS.

The most important thing a young (or old) person can do to avoid HIV/AIDS is to avoid sexual contact with two groups of people: (1) IV drug users and (2) anyone who has had sexual contact with a homosexual or bisexual male. The great "heterosexual outbreak" of AIDS can be attributed mainly to contact with one of these two groups, along with a promiscuous lifestyle. The practice of monogamous, heterosexual sex is still the best way to protect yourself and those you love from this terrible disease.
30 posted on 06/28/2007 2:28:47 AM PDT by srmorton (Choose Life!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: muir_redwoods
It’s only “weak” because it’s narrow. A 155mm Howitzer is weak compared to a nuclear device, but it is incredibly powerful in terms of what it is designed to do. And in this case, Duesberg, without meaning to stray into the debate over Darwin, has struck an unintentional blow against the neo-Darwinist fixation on gene mutation.p>
31 posted on 06/28/2007 2:45:56 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Very interesting - too bad my wife died from cancer four years ago, too early to benefit from this discovery (if it eventually proves correct).


32 posted on 06/28/2007 2:47:10 AM PDT by Edward Watson (Fanatics with guns beat liberals with ideas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Edward Watson

Very sorry for your loss. The way I see it, especially in so far as cancer is concerned, the more competition amongst scientists the better.


33 posted on 06/28/2007 2:49:57 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Chromosomes are a basic part of biology and all serious study of biology is based on Darwin’s Theory. When you goofballs get around to curing cancer with prayers to mythological sky gods, let us know.
34 posted on 06/28/2007 3:43:10 AM PDT by shuckmaster (The only purpose of the news is to fill the space around the advertisements.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shuckmaster
Chromosomes are a basic part of biology and all serious study of biology is based on Darwin’s Theory. When you goofballs get around to curing cancer with prayers to mythological sky gods, let us know.

Your comments would be very funny if they weren’t so tragic. When you goofballs get around to curing cancer with prayers to your pagan natural selection god, LET US KNOW!

35 posted on 06/28/2007 3:54:45 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts; muir_redwoods
And in this case, Duesberg, without meaning to stray into the debate over Darwin, has struck an unintentional blow against the neo-Darwinist fixation on gene mutation.

No he hasn't, because the "neo-Darwinist fixation on gene mutation" you're babbling about does not exist. The modern synthesis of evolutionary biology has for many decades included far more mechanisms of genetic variation than just "gene mutation", including gene duplication, chromosome duplication, indels, transposable elements, and on and on.

Please, take the time to actually learn something about evolutionary biology before you attempt to critique it. You keep making ridiculously elementary mistakes in your various claims on these threads, borne of your almost complete ignorance of the topic you're so lamely struggling to attack.

The article does nothing to support "ID", nor support your goofy claim that "Darwinism hinders the War on Cancer". But hey, don't let reality get in the way of your wild-eyed rants...

If you actually knew anything about evolutionoary biology, beyond the twaddle that the creationist websites have been spewing as propaganda, you'd have been able to realize that a) the study of cancer development is already critically grounded in evolutionary biology, because pre-cancerous cells literally evolve into cancer via the mechanisms of Darwinian evolution (thus making your claim that "Darwinism hinders the war on cancer" not only false, but 180 degrees divorced from the true situation),and b) the article itself both reiterates what was *already* known about cancer (i.e., that it often involves chromosomal abnormalities), *and* overstates the case (because many oncogenes -- individual genes which when directly mutated in isolation are involved in many kinds of cancer -- have already been identified and studied, contradicting your source's overblown claim that cancer is "always" due to chromosomal abnormalities and not just gene mutation).

Care to try again when you actually have a clue what in the hell you're talking about?

Here, try to get the barest beginnings of an education on the topic -- the following are from Chapter 23 of Molecular Biology of the Cell, 4th ed., by Alberts et al, published in 2002 (and already discuss the kinds of chromosomal abnormalities Duesberg is trying to make sound like a "new" idea):

Cancer
Cancer as a Microevolutionary Process
The Preventable Causes of Cancer
Finding the Cancer-Critical Genes
The Molecular Basis of Cancer-Cell Behavior
Cancer Treatment: Present and Future
References

Read that chapter, and you'll begin to understand that not only does "Darwinism" not "hinder" an understanding of cancer and its treatment, it is *critical* to that understanding. From the chapter's summary:

Cancer cells, by definition, proliferate in defiance of normal controls (that is, they are neoplastic) and are able to invade and colonize surrounding tissues (that is, they are malignant). By giving rise to secondary tumors, or metastases, they become difficult to eradicate surgically. Most cancers are thought to originate from a single cell that has experienced an initial mutation, but the progeny of this cell must undergo further changes, requiring numerous additional mutations, to become cancerous. This phenomenon of tumor progression, which usually takes many years, reflects the unfortunate operation of evolution by mutation and natural selection among somatic cells.

The rational treatment of cancer requires an understanding of the special properties that cancer cells acquire as they evolve, multiply, and spread. These special properties include alterations in cell signaling pathways, enabling the cells in a tumor to ignore the signals from their environment that normally keep cell proliferation under tight control. In this way, the cells are first able to proliferate abnormally in their original tissue and then to metastasize, surviving and proliferating in foreign tissues. As part of the evolutionary process of tumor progression, cancer cells also acquire an abnormal aversion to suicide, and they avoid or break free of programmed limitations to proliferation -- including replicative senescence and the normal pathways of differentiation that would otherwise hamper their ability to grow and divide.


36 posted on 06/28/2007 4:11:41 AM PDT by Ichneumon (Ignorance is curable, but the afflicted has to want to be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts; shuckmaster
When you goofballs get around to curing cancer with prayers to your pagan natural selection god, LET US KNOW!

Look, if you can't do any better than that, don't even bother. Leave the science discussions for someone who actually knows the topic, and isn't so whacked-out that they think evolutionary biology is about "prayers to a pagan natural selection god".

You're *way* out of your depth in science discussions, you don't even understand what it's about.

37 posted on 06/28/2007 4:14:18 AM PDT by Ichneumon (Ignorance is curable, but the afflicted has to want to be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

1. Chromosomal rearrangements are a form of mutation. A common one is for a segment of a chromosome to “flip,” the result being called an inversion.

2. Use of the word “Darwinism” is an attempt to use understanding of evolutionary science as a perjorative and does not further the discussion.

3. Assuming that understanding evolutionary science preludes believing in God is insulting and superficial. It is more accurate to say that a small mumber of Biblical Literalists who worship the current translations of a Book rather than God and who don’t have much grounding in evolutionary science don’t understand those of us who are both religious and scientifically literate in this area.


38 posted on 06/28/2007 4:16:40 AM PDT by From many - one.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

“...it ascribes cancer to chromosomal disruption, called aneuploidy, that can be seen easily through a microscope...”

The same kind of testing now being done for a wide variety of illnesses that never used to be regarded as helpful. I also wait for the day when scientists understand how bacteria and viruses affect us at the cellular level.


39 posted on 06/28/2007 4:49:47 AM PDT by txzman (Jer 23:29)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: srmorton

HIV is a retrovirus. It effectively clones itself into the host DNA in a cell.
It is possible to be infected yet have no antibodies for it.


40 posted on 06/28/2007 4:54:50 AM PDT by djf (Bush's legacy: Way more worried about Iraqs borders than our own!!! A once great nation... sad...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
All this back and fourth makes me want to eat two double cheddar cheeseburgers, large home made fries( extra salt ) down it with a whole milk frap and then go run up and down sand dunes. That would be my cure for cancer.
41 posted on 06/28/2007 5:03:41 AM PDT by Leisler (Just be glad your not getting all the Government you pay for.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Something similar is discussed in Tom Bethell’s “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science.” I don’t have time to look it up now. If I recall though, cancer cells often have double the chromosomes - two sets of blueprints.
42 posted on 06/28/2007 5:20:56 AM PDT by ChessExpert (MSM: Always ready to take side)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Where’s the part about evolution, Darwinism, or anything resembling it?

I see a researcher wanting more funding and trying to get it by attacking some established genetic research with a theory.

The BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes immediately come to mind.


43 posted on 06/28/2007 5:21:11 AM PDT by ElectricStrawberry (1/27 Wolfhounds...cut in half during the Clinton years.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: djf
I know that HIV is a retrovirus. That has nothing to do with the host's ability to make antibodies against the virus. It IS possible to be infected and have no antibodies, but that is usually early in the course of a disease when the host has not had time to form the antibodies or the amount of antibody is so low that it is undetectable.

BTW, retroviruses do not "clone" themselves into the host DNA. They have a unique enzyme called reverse transcriptase that is able to make DNA from RNA. The viral DNA then causes the host cell to use it's metabolic machinery to make new viral particles.
44 posted on 06/28/2007 5:34:53 AM PDT by srmorton (Choose Life!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: srmorton

“HIV positive” means you have HIV antibodies.

Just because somebody isn’t “HIV positive” DOES NOT MEAN they were never exposed to or pathogenically carry the HIV virus.


45 posted on 06/28/2007 5:40:10 AM PDT by djf (Bush's legacy: Way more worried about Iraqs borders than our own!!! A once great nation... sad...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: sistergoldenhair

Old quacks never die, they just find a new soapbox.


46 posted on 06/28/2007 5:46:25 AM PDT by facedown (Armed in the Heartland)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SteveMcKing
Like hell he invented that concept, or that it's remotely controversial.

Yes and No.

Duesberg should be credited with "rediscovering" the 100 year old concept that had been abandoned by the mainstream medical community. So no, he is not the inventor.

But yes, I believe his ideas are controversial for two reasons: 1) The chromosomal theory goes against 60 or 70 years of cancer theory and is not accepted by a large percentage of cancer researchers and 2) Duesberg is persona non grata in the medical community for his (correct IMHO) views on the non-relationship between HIV and AIDS.

My view: Duesberg is probably correct about this. He was right about AIDS and he is a scientist in the old tradition - the evidence is in the data and politics be damned.

47 posted on 06/28/2007 5:47:34 AM PDT by InterceptPoint
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
When you goofballs get around to curing cancer with prayers to your pagan natural selection god, LET US KNOW!

Let me guess. You're a hard left liberal infiltrator trolling around here trying to make conservatives appear grossly ignorant?

48 posted on 06/28/2007 6:05:31 AM PDT by shuckmaster (The only purpose of the news is to fill the space around the advertisements.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Thanks for the ping!


49 posted on 06/28/2007 6:22:06 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

I’m sorry, I still don’t get it. What does evolution have to do with this? How would a chromosomal rearrangement refute evolution?


50 posted on 06/28/2007 7:11:00 AM PDT by Alter Kaker (Gravitation is a theory, not a fact. It should be approached with an open mind...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-125 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson