Skip to comments.The World’s Most Reviled Genius (buck politically correct "science", have your career ruined)
Posted on 10/09/2009 1:36:22 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Can the scientist who denied the cause of AIDS be trusted to cure cancer?
...In the past three decades, Duesberg has been described as a genius, a martyr, and a genocidal lunaticoften by the same person, usually amid the fierce debates and international headlines that come with major scientific breakthroughs. In 1971, at the age of 33, he became the first scientist to identify a cancer-causing genea biological holy grail that secured his place among an elite group of the country's top researchers. Tenure at Berkeley and a coveted spot in the National Academy of Sciences followed. So did rumors of a Nobel and millions in grant money from the National Cancer Institute.
Then in 1988, Duesberg broke ranks with his colleagues and postulated that the newly discovered human immuno-deficiency virus (HIV) was not the cause of AIDS. Rather, he declared, it was a harmless passenger virus, found by coincidence in patients whose illnesses stemmed from a constellation of other factors including malnutrition and substance abuse. For this, he was summarily cast out of Eden: Grant money evaporated. Graduate students disappeared. Nobel laureates stopped inviting him to dinner. Of course, he might have been forgivenor at least forgottenwere it not for...
(Excerpt) Read more at newsweek.com ...
The problem is who would trust anything Time Magazine wrote?
Very sad. All Duesberg’s risk-AIDS hypothesis predictions were confirmed by science, and virtually all the AIDS establishments predictions turned out to be false, and how does the biomedical research establishment show its appreciation?...by destroying Duesberg’s brilliant career. The global warming fanatics have nothing on these guys. What a shame.
It’s not Time, it’s Newsweek...and like all the other leftist, politically correct, anti-science maniacs over there, Newsweek was all for ruining Duesberg’s career for daring to uncover the AIDS scandal. It seems now the AIDS establishment is trying to encourage Duesberg to go in a new direction, as he is still a thorn in their side even after they took away all his grants, censored his papers, and otherwise ruined what was a brilliant career in science.
His problem was that he couldn't show why keeping the AIDS virus out of the blood supply prevented any new AIDS clinical diagnoses. This is still true 20 years later. No virus, no disease.
As a result he was helping convince future AIDS victims (mainly homosexuals and other sodomists) that they didn't need to worry about contracting the disease in the face of evidence to the contrary. And he still has no evidence for this view.
But his views on cancer are much closer to those of the researchers who work in the field. We'll see.
==His problem was that he couldn’t show why keeping the AIDS virus out of the blood supply prevented any new AIDS clinical diagnoses. This is still true 20 years later. No virus, no disease.
Not true at all. In this one study alone Duesberg found 4521 HIV-free AIDS cases:
If you look at the underlying problem in the story is that bureaucracy controls science and personalities control science. Not facts.
If you aren’t popular then you won’t get toys and money. So go with the popular theories if you want funding.
There’s an Issac Asimov short story, “The Dead Past” which eerily predicted this state of affairs from the trend of bureaucratic controlled science in the 1950s. Google the term “intellectual anarchy” to find the story.
Wrong again. Look closely. Not only did the number of AIDS cases continue to rise when they began screening HIV out of the blood supply, but the number of AIDS cases continued to rise even though the number of HIV infections were in steep decline. Duesberg predicted this, whereas the AIDS establishment predicted the exact opposite. But because the implications of Duesberg's risk-AIDS hypothesis were not politically correct, Duesberg had his career ruined by the AIDS establishment:
You are 100% correct. This is one of the many things that the liberals have done that needs to be reversed when the opportunity presents itself. But you have to be ready for said opportunity when it comes, or said opportunity passes you by.
Another point I remember......he opposed the use of AZT as a frontline drug for treating AIDS because it was taken off the market as a chemotherapy agent. It was proven to ravage the immune system. Makes you go hmmmmmmm.....
Life expectancy is going up, but it has nothing to do with the AIDS drugs. For Modern Conservative reports that:
Ronald B Reisler M.D., M.P.H. did a five-year review (1996-2001) of about 3000 HIV/AIDS patients who took the anti-retroviral cocktails. He found that:
1.332 patients suffered an “AIDS” event, meaning some purported manifestation of the underlying disease, however;
2. 675 patients suffered a “Grade 4” event, meaning a life-threatening illness was attributed to the drugs, not the virus. The most common of these side-effects were:
a. Liver damage
b. Neutropenia (white blood cell loss)
c. Anemia (red blood cell loss)
d. Cardiovascular, including heart attacks
f. Psychiatric disorders
g. Kidney problems
In sum, twice as many AIDS patients fell ill from the drugs than from AIDS which is exactly what Dr. Duesberg predicted would happen in the late 1980s.
You have to ask yourself who sets those life expectancies? How did Magic Johnson become "cured" of HIV after refusing those protocols?
My cousin has had HIV for 20 years......and is still kicking. He refused the treatments... but allows himself to be tested yearly.
I remember reading....and I think it was Duesberg...that said there was typically a 2 year prognosis AFTER starting the treatment protocol... It really perked up my ears....and made me look at the disease in a totally different way.
Even if it were discovered that Duesberg had been right all along, don't expect anyone to acknowledge him. Once the scientific establishment declared him a persona non grata, his work disappeared down the memory hole.
The problems with Duesberg and his methods were well documented.
If you have access, you can check out volume 266, No. 5191, of Science which is the 12/9/1994 issue, where several of his claims are addressed.
If Duesberg’s claims were true, HIV screening of the blood supply wouldn’t have reduced the rate that recipients of blood, and blood products, get AIDS.
The CDC has plenty of data to show the dramatic decline in AIDS cases in the US since HIV screening was implemented.
Few people understand that federal funding has virtually destroyed science as an evidence-based process, at least in heavily-funded areas. And so-called peer review, which Republicans often equate with “good science”, is one of the primary means used to impose the political control.
You are incorrect. It's well known that AIDS takes years to develop from HIV infection.
And both your graphs show AIDS cases declining starting in the 90's as you'd expect.
You know the CDC has this data through 2006. I'm wondering why you don't post it in the place of the older graphs? Because of the precipitous decline in AIDS cases?
Duesberg ruined his own career by gambling with people's lives.
The motto in academia used to be Publish or Perish. Since the advent of government funding of research, this has become Get Funded or Get Out.
Research universities tell newly-hired assistant professors in the sciences and engineering that they must bring in a certain level of federal funding (say, $500,000 per year) or they can expect to be looking for work elsewhere. (Heaven help you if you prefer to teach rather than do researchthey can hire part-timers to teach.)
Note that I wrote federal funding. For some reason, a dollar from the National Institutes for Health (NIH) or the National Science Foundation (NSF) counts more than a dollar from a private source.
All of this gives the federal funding agencies tremendous power to set the agenda for for research and development in the universities. Researchers know that they have a better chance of getting funded if they tailor their research to the interests of the federal government.
I have been told by project directors at NSF that they do not want to fund "risky" or even "novel" research. They prefer to give money to researchers who have a "proven track record." That means researchers who have a publication record in an approved field. It helps to be associated with an established research institution. It also helps to have contacts at the funding agencies, preferably former students and colleagues who will look favorably upon one's grant applications.
Unfortunately for Duesberg, he has run afoul of the scientists who control the review process at the funding agencies. I doubt he has many friends or former students at those agencies who can steer funding his way. He has tenure, so U. C. Berkeley cannot fire him merely for not bringing in money; but the administrators there can find ways to make his life miserable.
I think a strong case can be made for getting the federal government out of the business of funding researchafter we get them out of the business of funding health care.
If it's so well documented, then why does Duesberg tear his "scientific" opposition to shreds in debate (to include printed debates in scientific journals)?
==If Duesbergs claims were true, HIV screening of the blood supply wouldnt have reduced the rate that recipients of blood, and blood products, get AIDS.
Did you take a look at the graph I sent you? HIV screening of the blood supply did nothing to reduce the number of AIDS cases. Indeed, the number of AIDS cases continued their steep rise for almost a decade, even as the number of HIV-positive blood donors steeply declined during that same period.
==You are incorrect. It's well known that AIDS takes years to develop from HIV infection.
You mean the infamous latency period that they kept have to revise for less than a year, to a year, to three years, to five years, to ten years, to twelve years, etc, etc?
Tell me 1/1%, how do you explain the total number of HIV infections remaining constant as the number of AIDS cases increased, and then decreased. Do you suppose it is possible that it has something to do with the graphs below?
==I think a strong case can be made for getting the federal government out of the business of funding research
Hear, hear! The feds are ruining science. With the exceptions of national defense and intelligence, science should be returned to the private sector where it belongs!
Research on AIDS has become sufficiently politicized that it is difficult to properly evaluate certain hypotheses. For example, if AIDS is defined as the occurrence of certain symptoms in a person who is HIV-positive, then by definition HIV will be a necessary causal factor for AIDS, but that won't imply that the HIV-AIDS link is meaningful (nor that it isn't).
The association between HIV and AIDS (the combination of symptoms associated with AIDS is much more common in people who are HIV-positive than in those who aren't) is sufficiently strong as to clearly merit study. Even if HIV is in fact harmless, its association with AIDS would, at minimum, suggest that tracking HIV may be useful as a proxy for tracking AIDS. That having been said, I would think it very important to be mindful of various ways that AIDS might be caused by a contagious agent other than HIV; if it is caused by some other agent, and an HIV-negative person infected with that agent infects other people, the HIV-antibody test might become ineffective at screening for AIDS.
Not to go off topic, but this sounds alot like profiling...
instead of following the actual evidence to the end of the trail, scientists are encouraged to only look into "approved" targets.
I thought our lovable government frowned on that tactic.
Also, haven't most of the really big leaps been made by the so-called renegades?
Grade 4 events were anything not directly attributed to AIDS, for example, the various kinds of hepatitis (viral caused), and psychiatric problems. That would give a somewhat different picture of what the review showed.
Federal funding does vastly augment the research output of this country. It can be argued that the money is not being spent cost-effectively, but I have seen first-hand that it does produce real knowledge that otherwise would not exist.
Without federal support there would be far less research being done, especially in basic science where discoveries cannot be readily translated into profitable enterprises.
I believe that knowledge about the mechanisms of life is inherently valuable, even if it doesn’t shortly lead to tangible (i.e. lucrative) augmentations to our existence. Investments in basic science lead eventually to practical applications, but usually not on a timescale a private investor could afford to bank on.
That said, there is indisputably a “scientific establishment” which discriminates between scientists, most obviously based on reputation (i.e. track record), but also on whether or not they’re moving in the “consensus” direction. In many cases, these policies serve their purported purpose, which is to invest money where it is most likely to yield results. However, it can also lead to the perpetuation of groupthink and the entrenchment of “scientific mythologies,” which is obviously a bad thing. I don’t think abolishing federal funding is the answer though. There are far worse uses for our tax dollars.
I should have also noted that in an age where manufacturing has been almost completely outsourced, and the “service economy” is going the same way, scientific research is one of the few areas where the USA totally dominates. One of the few areas that draws the most talented people from all over the world. I don’t want to risk throwing that way, I believe it is an enormous asset.