Duesberg in SciAm
Greg G.
process with respect to Peter Duesberg. In the May 2007 edition of
Scientific American is an article by Peter Duesberg. An editor's note
is included nest to the author information disclaiming that SciAm
endorses Duesberg's claims about HIV and AIDS. The article discusses a
controversial theory about cancer being caused by chromsomal damage
rather than a series of gene mutations.
I have reconstructed the discussion as Bloopenblopper trimmed a post
including the first paragraph included here.
Pagano:
>>>> This is laughable. Everyone who depends on the secular scientific
>>>> community for their livelihood and who disputes the sacrosanct
>>>> theories is crushed. The easiest way to destroy someone who bucks the
>>>> orthodoxy is through peer review. I suspect the fear of being
>>>> squeezed out of the ability to publish has stifled many new ideas that
>>>> contradict the current sacrosanct theories consistent with atheism.
Bloopenblopper:
>> >Give an example.
Pagano:
>> Dr Peter Duesberg, a National Academy of Sciences member was
>> ostracized and isolated for disputing the truthlikeness of the
>> sacrosanct HIV-causes-AIDS theory.
Bloopenblopper:
>Yeah, but he was still able to get peer-reviewed articles published.
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Duesberg
Pagano:
I never said that he was summarily drummed out. I simply noted that
his daring to buck the sacrosanct and secular dogma of HIV-causes-
AIDS
caused him considerable difficulty. The fact that he was a National
Academy of Sciences member is probably the only thing that saved him.
Had some post doc dared to do the same thing his career in his field
would have been destroyed.
Tony backtracked after being asked for an example of somebody who was
"crushed", he claimed that Duesberg had been caused "considerable
difficulty". The article in the magazine is evidence that Peter
Duesberg is busy publishing controversial cancer research and
apparently obtaining funds.
--
Greg G.
Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn't mean
politics won't take an interest in you.
--Pericles 430 B.C.
Bobby Bryant
Yeah, but since when have facts, or reality in general, mattered to
Tony?
--
Bobby Bryant
Reno, Nevada
Remove your hat to reply by e-mail.
bul...@bellsouth.net
> Recently, there was an exchange that questioned the peer review
> process with respect to Peter Duesberg. In the May 2007 edition of
> Scientific American is an article by Peter Duesberg. An editor's note
> is included nest to the author information disclaiming that SciAm
> endorses Duesberg's claims about HIV and AIDS. The article discusses a
> controversial theory about cancer being caused by chromsomal damage
> rather than a series of gene mutations.
>
> I have reconstructed the discussion as Bloopenblopper trimmed a post
> including the first paragraph included here.
>
> Pagano:
>
> >>>> This is laughable. Everyone who depends on the secular scientific
> >>>> community for their livelihood and who disputes the sacrosanct
> >>>> theories is crushed. The easiest way to destroy someone who bucks the
> >>>> orthodoxy is through peer review. I suspect the fear of being
> >>>> squeezed out of the ability to publish has stifled many new ideas that
> >>>> contradict the current sacrosanct theories consistent with atheism.
>
> Bloopenblopper:
>
> >> >Give an example.
>
> Pagano:
>
> >> Dr Peter Duesberg, a National Academy of Sciences member was
> >> ostracized and isolated for disputing the truthlikeness of the
> >> sacrosanct HIV-causes-AIDS theory.
"Truthlikeness"?
>
> Bloopenblopper:
>
> >Yeah, but he was still able to get peer-reviewed articles published.
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Duesberg
>
> Pagano:
> I never said that he was summarily drummed out. I simply noted that
> his daring to buck the sacrosanct and secular dogma of HIV-causes-
> AIDS
> caused him considerable difficulty. The fact that he was a National
> Academy of Sciences member is probably the only thing that saved him.
> Had some post doc dared to do the same thing his career in his field
> would have been destroyed.
>
> Tony backtracked after being asked for an example of somebody who was
> "crushed", he claimed that Duesberg had been caused "considerable
> difficulty". The article in the magazine is evidence that Peter
> Duesberg is busy publishing controversial cancer research and
> apparently obtaining funds.
>
Tony has the only bicycle with twenty reverse gears.
Boikat
T Pagano
Duesburg bucked the status quo in the late 1980s. He has been shunned
and marginalized since them. One wonders how much research money has
gone his way in the last 20 years. The fact that the editor published
a disclaimerdistancing themselves from Duesberg says it all. Wonder
how many disclaimers the Sci Am editor prints.
Regards,
T Pagano
wf3h
T Pagano wrote:
>>
> Duesburg bucked the status quo in the late 1980s.
but YOU said scientists dont do that.
He has been shunned
> and marginalized since them.
and the original post in this thread showed that's wrong. he's still
publishing. mike behe went from associate professor at my graduate
alma mater, to full professor AFTER he exposed his beliefs in
creationism
so you stand refuted.
Greg G.
Ten seconds on Google later shows that he is a professor at UC-
Berkeley and the following papers from the past 10 years:
Duesberg, P., Li, R., Fabarius, A. and Hehlmann, R. Aneuploidy and
Cancer: From Correlation to Causation. Contrib Microbiol. (Basel,
Krager) vol. 13, 16-44 (2006). PDF
Fabarius, A., Giehl, M., Frank, O., Duesberg, P., Houchhaus, A.,
Hehlmann, R., and Seifarth, W. Induction of centrosome and chromosome
aberrations by imatinib in vitro. Leukemia 9, 1573-1578(2005). PDF
Duesberg, P., Li, R., Fabarius, A. and Hehlmann, R. The chromosomal
basis of cancer. Cellular Oncology 27, 293-318(2005). PDF
Li, R., Hehlmann, R., Sachs, R. and Duesberg, P. Chromosomal
alterations cause the high rates and wild ranges of drug resistance in
cancer cells. Cancer Genet Cytogenet 163, 44-56(2005). PDF
Duesberg, P. Does aneuploidy or mutation start cancer? Science
307(5706), 41 (2005). PDF
Duesberg, P., Fabarius, A. & Hehlmann, R. Aneuploidy, the primary
cause of the multilateral genomic instability of neoplastic and
preneoplastic cells.
IUBMB Life 56, 65-81. (2004) PDF
Duesberg, P., Li, R. and Rasnick, D. Aneuploidy approaching a perfect
score in predicting and preventing cancer. Cell Cycle 3, 823-828
(2004). PDF
Duesberg, P., and Li, R. Multistep carcinogenesis: a chain reaction of
aneuploidizations. Cell Cycle 2, 202-210 (2003). PDF
Duesberg, P. H. Are cancers dependent on oncogenes or on aneuploidy?
Cancer Genet Cytogenet 143, 89-91 (2003). Link
Fabarius, A., Hehlmann, R., and Duesberg, P. H. Instability of
chromosome structure in cancer cells increases exponentially with
degrees of aneuploidy. Cancer Genet Cytogenet 143, 59-72 (2003). Link
Li, R., D. Rasnick, and P. Duesberg. Correspondence re: D. Zimonjic et
al., Derivation of human tumor cells in vitro without widespread
genomic instability. Cancer Res., 61: 8838-8844, 2001. Cancer Res.
62:6345-8; author reply 6348-9 (2002). PDF
Fabarius, A., Willer, A., Yerganian, G., Hehlmann, R., and Duesberg,
P.: Specific aneusomies in Chinese hamster cells at different stages
of neoplastic transformation, initiated by nitrosomethylurea.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States
of America 99, 6778-6783 (2002). Link
Duesberg, P., Stindl, R., Li, R. H., Hehlmann, R. & Rasnick, D.:
Aneuploidy versus gene mutation as cause of cancer. Current Science
81, 490-500 (2001). [PDF] (1.2Mb!!)
Duesberg, P., Stindl, R. & Hehlmann, R.: Origin of multidrug
resistance in cells with and without multidrug resistance genes:
Chromosome reassortments catalyzed by aneuploidy. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 98,
11283-11288 (2001). Link
Duesberg, P., Stindl, R. & Hehlmann, R.: Explaining the high mutation
rates of cancer cells to drug and multidrug resistance by chromosome
reassortments that are catalyzed by aneuploidy. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 97,
14295-14300 (2000). Link
Duesberg, P. & Rasnick, D.: Aneuploidy, the somatic mutation that
makes cancer a species of its own. Cell Motility and the Cytoskeleton
47, 81-107 (2000). PDF
Duesberg, P. et al.: Aneuploidy precedes and segregates with chemical
carcinogenesis. Cancer Genetics and Cytogenetics 119, 83-93 (2000).
PDF
Li, R. H., Sonik, A., Stindl, R., Rasnick, D. & Duesberg, P.:
Aneuploidy vs. gene mutation hypothesis of cancer: Recent study claims
mutation but is found to support aneuploidy. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 97,
3236-3241 (2000). Link
Rasnick, D. & Duesberg, P. How aneuploidy affects metabolic control
and causes cancer. Biochem J, 340, 621-630 (1999) PDF
Duesberg, P., Rasnick, D., Li, R., Winters, L., Rausch, C., and
Hehlmann, R. . How aneuploidy may cause cancer and genetic
instability. Anticancer Res 19, 4887-4906 (1999). Link
Duesberg, P.: Are centrosomes or aneuploidy the key to cancer? Science
284, 2091-2092 (1999). PDF
Duesberg, P., Rausch, C., Rasnick, D. & Hehlmann, R.: Genetic
instability of cancer cells is proportional to their degree of
aneuploidy. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the
United States of America 95, 13692-13697 (1998). PDF
Li, R. H. et al.: Aneuploidy correlated 100% with chemical
transformation of Chinese hamster cells. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 94, 14506-14511
(1997). PDF
> The fact that the editor published
> a disclaimerdistancing themselves from Duesberg says it all. Wonder
> how many disclaimers the Sci Am editor prints.
The disclaimer follows:
Editor's Note: The author, Peter Duesberg, a pioneering virologist,
may be well known to readers for his assertion that HIV is not the
cause of AIDS. The biomedical community has roundly rebutted that
claim many times. Duesberg's ideas about chromosomal abnormality as a
root cause for cancer, in contrast, are controversial but are being
actively investigated by mainstream science. We have therefore asked
Duesberg to explain that work here. This article is in no sense an
endorsement by SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN of his AIDS theories.
This is hardly "crushing".
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
--
Greg G.
You have two choices in life: You can stay single and be miserable, or
get married and wish you were dead.
Boswell
wrote:
Those cold fusion guys aren't getting much in the way of research
grants either. Have you considered that Duesburg's problems (such as
they are) might relate somewhat to the fact that he's not well
supported by relevant evidence?
>
>Regards,
>T Pagano
Paul Ciszek
In article <1177371044.4...@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
Greg G. <ggw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Recently, there was an exchange that questioned the peer review
>process with respect to Peter Duesberg. In the May 2007 edition of
>Scientific American is an article by Peter Duesberg. An editor's note
>is included nest to the author information disclaiming that SciAm
>endorses Duesberg's claims about HIV and AIDS. The article discusses a
>controversial theory about cancer being caused by chromsomal damage
>rather than a series of gene mutations.
What exactly is the difference between "chromosomal damage" and "a
series of gene mutatuions"?
--
Please reply to: | "One of the hardest parts of my job is to
pciszek at panix dot com | connect Iraq to the War on Terror."
Autoreply is disabled | -- G. W. Bush, 9/7/2006
Ernest Major
<nos...@nospam.com> writes
>
>In article <1177371044.4...@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
>Greg G. <ggw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>Recently, there was an exchange that questioned the peer review
>>process with respect to Peter Duesberg. In the May 2007 edition of
>>Scientific American is an article by Peter Duesberg. An editor's note
>>is included nest to the author information disclaiming that SciAm
>>endorses Duesberg's claims about HIV and AIDS. The article discusses a
>>controversial theory about cancer being caused by chromsomal damage
>>rather than a series of gene mutations.
>
>What exactly is the difference between "chromosomal damage" and "a
>series of gene mutatuions"?
>
The papers (or at least the titles) refer to aneuploidy, which refers to
changes in the number of chromosomes. Mammalian gene regulation is often
disrupted to changes to the copy number of genes, such as occurs when
the number of chromosomes changes. (Hence monosomic and trisomic
conceptions are nearly always lethal before birth.) Chromsomal damage
would also apply to the loss (or duplication) of parts of a chromosome,
with similar effects.
Note that in these situations the genes are the same; it's just the
number of copies which differs.
--
alias Ernest Major
Bloopen...@juno.com
Duesberg and his compatriots do complain of discrimination and
blackballing in the scientific community. Their main complaint is
being denied funding, which is certainly true. See his website,
http://www.duesberg.com/index.html. Still, he nowhere claims to have
been crushed or destroyed. He's a professor of molecular and cell
biology at Berkeley, where he is running a laboratory. And he states,
right there on the site, that he has peer-reviewed articles.
Greg G.
> In article <1177371044.476015.137...@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Greg G. <ggw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Recently, there was an exchange that questioned the peer review
> >process with respect to Peter Duesberg. In the May 2007 edition of
> >Scientific American is an article by Peter Duesberg. An editor's note
> >is included nest to the author information disclaiming that SciAm
> >endorses Duesberg's claims about HIV and AIDS. The article discusses a
> >controversial theory about cancer being caused by chromsomal damage
> >rather than a series of gene mutations.
>
> What exactly is the difference between "chromosomal damage" and "a
> series of gene mutatuions"?
The prevalent theory of cancer development is that it takes about a
half dozen mutations to certain genes before a cell becomes cancerous.
Chromosomal damage would be a missing or an extra chromosome, possibly
a random error or damage to a mitotic spindle by a carcinogen. The
extra or missing genes changes the chemistry of the cell producing
more chromosome change.
>
> --
> Please reply to: | "One of the hardest parts of my job is to
> pciszek at panix dot com | connect Iraq to the War on Terror."
> Autoreply is disabled | -- G. W. Bush, 9/7/2006
--
Greg G.
When given a choice between Republicans and Republicans, the people
will always choose the Republicans.
--Harry Truman
Bobby Bryant
Bloopen...@juno.com writes:
> Duesberg and his compatriots do complain of discrimination and
> blackballing in the scientific community. Their main complaint is
> being denied funding, which is certainly true.
Being denied funding isn't automatically a sign of discrimination and
blackballing. Everyone knows that even the best submissions are little
more than a crap shot.
Scooter the Mighty
The thing is though is Duesburg is just plain wrong about HIV-AIDS.
His claims have been taken seriously, studied and debunked. He blames
AIDS on AZT, Amyl Nitrates, and homosexuality, but there are millions
of AIDS sufferers in Africa with none of those factors, and plenty of
Homosexuals who abuse Amyl NItrates who don't have AIDS. Tissue
culture models of AIDS show HIV destroying immune cells. People
injected with HIV get AIDS. Every step of HIV infection and it's
resulting destruction of immune cells has been discovered and
studied.
The fact that Duesburg has been taken seriously and is still able to
publish is very strong evidence that the scientific community ISN'T a
juggernaut that rolls over all dissenters. His ideas have been given
way more attention than their merit requires.
Bloopen...@juno.com
See his website, http://www.duesberg.com. Duesberg does complain of
discrimination and blackballing in the scientific community, and at
least one instance of censorship ( http://www.duesberg.com/papers/ch12.html
). His main complaint is being denied funding, which is certainly
true. Still, he does not claim to have been crushed or destroyed. He
is a professor of Molecular and Cell Biology at Berkeley, where he
runs a laboratory. On his site is an index ( http://www.duesberg.com/papers/index.html
) of his papers and correspondences published in respectable journals
involving both his controversial theories on AIDS and cancer. See in
particular this article in Genetica: http://www.duesberg.com/papers/The%20AIDS%20Dilemma.pdf
, and this one in Science http://www.duesberg.com/papers/ch2.html .
Kermit
> been crushed or destroyed. He's a professor of molecular and cell
> biology at Berkeley, where he is running a laboratory. And he states,
> right there on the site, that he has peer-reviewed articles.
For someone like Tony, who considers evidence to be either an abstract
concept or irrelevant, Duesberg should be funded as well as any
scientist is. But since research grants always comes from somebody
interested in science, it makes sense that they would favor
researchers who are supported by the data.
This is analogous to censorship: it's not censorship if a writer or
speaker can't get funding, but only if he/she is actually forbidden
from speaking his mind if the means is available.
Kermit
Glenn
"Give an example" is what Tony was asked to do, and his understanding
of "crushed" is not as it were, written in stone by you to the
exclusion of Tony's clarification.
His answer *is* true; "Dr Peter Duesberg, a National Academy of
Sciences member was ostracized and isolated for disputing the
regard that as "crushed" but it would be your personal opinion of a
word Tony had chosen to mean experienced "considerable difficulty".
And Tony never said that a "crushed" researcher could or would never
publish anything ever again. He said the *fear* of being squeezed out
of the ability to publish has stifled many new ideas. Duesberg's
research on HIV/AIDS *was* "squeezed out", and he did suffer ostracism
and loss of funding. Bloopenblopper provides reference to that effect
elsewhere in the thread. Bloopenblopper as well should note here that
Tony didn't claim that Duesberg was "destroyed", or that he would
never publish ever again, but that a post doc who did something
similar would have been.
Bobby Bryant
Bloopen...@juno.com writes:
> See his website, http://www.duesberg.com. Duesberg does complain of
> discrimination and blackballing in the scientific community, and at
> least one instance of censorship ( http://www.duesberg.com/papers/ch12.html
> ).
Frankly, I don't consider a journal's refusal to publish someone's
letter as censorship.
Noelie S. Alito
> In article <1177428435.8...@t38g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
> Bloopen...@juno.com writes:
>
>> See his website, http://www.duesberg.com. Duesberg does complain of
>> discrimination and blackballing in the scientific community, and at
>> least one instance of censorship ( http://www.duesberg.com/papers/ch12.html
>> ).
>
> Frankly, I don't consider a journal's refusal to publish someone's
> letter as censorship.
Well, I'd expect that response from a member of the self-perpetuating
autocracy.
--
"Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
Help! Help! I'm being repressed!"
2004 Two Wives Shiraz
Bobby Bryant
"Noelie S. Alito" <noe...@deadspam.com> writes:
> Bobby Bryant wrote:
>> In article <1177428435.8...@t38g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
>> Bloopen...@juno.com writes:
>>
>>> See his website, http://www.duesberg.com. Duesberg does complain of
>>> discrimination and blackballing in the scientific community, and at
>>> least one instance of censorship ( http://www.duesberg.com/papers/ch12.html
>>> ).
>>
>> Frankly, I don't consider a journal's refusal to publish someone's
>> letter as censorship.
>
> Well, I'd expect that response from a member of the self-perpetuating
> autocracy.
Who allowed you to post that!
Tachyglossus
news:1177424096.886283.152080@b40g2000prd.
>
> The thing is though is Duesburg is just plain wrong about HIV-AIDS.
> His claims have been taken seriously, studied and debunked. He blames
> AIDS on AZT, Amyl Nitrates, and homosexuality,
Ummm... Am I the only person hereabouts who reads the above and begins to
wonder if ... by any chance ... Duesburg ... might just ... possibly ... be
pusuing ... an *anti-gay agenda* ...?!? At the very least, it's a
*weird-looking* collection of 'causes'...!
T.
David Canzi -- non-mailable
T Pagano <not....@address.net> wrote:
>Duesburg bucked the status quo in the late 1980s. He has been shunned
>and marginalized since them.
Deservedly so.
Below is a paragraph from the article by Duesberg that AIDS
dissidents were swooning over in 1993. Some readers might enjoy
the challenge of finding the biggest fallacy in the paragraph's
argument for themselves. I will describe it farther below.
| However, (a) statistical scrutiny and (b) a controlled study
| unconfirm the hypothesis that hemophilia AIDS is sexually
| transmissible: (a) The CDC reports that 94 wives of hemophiliacs
| have been diagnosed with unnamed AIDS diseases since 1985
| (Centers for Disease Control, 1992b). If one considers that there
| have been 15,000 HIV-positive hemophiliacs in the U.S. since
| 1985 and assumes that a third are married, then there are 5000
| wives of HIV-positive hemophiliacs. About 13 of these women have
| developed AIDS annually during the 7 years (94:7) from 1985 to
| 1991 (Centers for Disease Control, 1992b). By contrast, at least
| 80 of these women would be expected to die per year, considering
| the human lifespan of about 80 years and that on average at
| least 1.6% of all those over 20 years of age die annually.
| Thus, until controls show that among 5000 HIV-negative wives
| of hemophiliacs only 67 (80-13) die annually, the claim that
| wives of hemophilics die from sexual transmission of HIV is
| unfounded speculation.
Duesberg is saying that, if the death rate among the wives
of HIV-positive hemophiliacs is higher than the average for
adult women, then we should expect the death rate among wives
of HIV-negative hemophiliacs to be lower than average by a
similar amount. Duesberg's argument above is a variant of the
Gambler's Fallacy.
--
David Canzi "Successful revolutionaries ignore the admonitions about which
fork to use for their salad because they care only to grab
the steak knife as they launch themselves over the table."
-- PZ Myers, _We Aim to Misbehave_
Bloopen...@juno.com
Whatever. I'm not going to pick apart Pagano's semantics any further.
The point is that whatever Duesberg suffered, it is so mild that
citing it as an example is not sufficient to establish the claim that
> > >>>> This is laughable. Everyone who depends on the secular scientific
> > >>>> community for their livelihood and who disputes the sacrosanct
> > >>>> theories is crushed. The easiest way to destroy someone who bucks the
> > >>>> orthodoxy is through peer review. I suspect the fear of being
> > >>>> squeezed out of the ability to publish has stifled many new ideas that
> > >>>> contradict the current sacrosanct theories consistent with atheism.
Duesberg has gotten his ideas out for an appreciable number of
scientists to hear, and these scientists have rejected them. Pagano
claims that a post doc would not have been able to do even that much,
but has thus far offered no example of such a post doc. Of course,
what he says is an unfalsifiable conspiracy theory: we should not
expect to find such an example regardless of whether it exists or not.
Much less is the example of Duesberg sufficient to refute Snex's claim
in the post that started this whole exchange, which is that science
does not impose forceful penalties for refusing to accept its
conclusions. This stands in contrast to religion which frequently
imposes forceful psychological, if not physical, penalties on people
who do not accept its claims.
Google groups seems to have gotten jammed somehow. That is why I seem
to have made two similar posts above.
Glenn
Yet you continue to do so below.
> The point is that whatever Duesberg suffered, it is so mild that
> citing it as an example is not sufficient to establish the claim that
That may be the point you'd like to establish, but the OPs point was
that Tony "backtracked". The only point of dispute I can see here
concerns the topic of publishing. Greg said "Duesberg is busy
publishing controversial cancer research and apparently obtaining
funds." Well, he isn't publishing on HIV/AIDS, and it appears to me
that he hasn't got government funding since the 90s. He supposedly
gets some money from private sources - which I wouldn't characterize
as the "scientific community".
>
> > > >>>> This is laughable. Everyone who depends on the secular scientific
> > > >>>> community for their livelihood and who disputes the sacrosanct
> > > >>>> theories is crushed. The easiest way to destroy someone who bucks the
> > > >>>> orthodoxy is through peer review. I suspect the fear of being
> > > >>>> squeezed out of the ability to publish has stifled many new ideas that
> > > >>>> contradict the current sacrosanct theories consistent with atheism.
>
> Duesberg has gotten his ideas out for an appreciable number of
> scientists to hear, and these scientists have rejected them.
I don't know what you mean by "appreciable", or of what time frame you
refer, but from 1996 I found this, by Richard Strohman: "Finally, I
agree with Derbyshire: Duesberg has been mistreated. What Peter
Duesberg has been arguing for--more research on substances known or
suspected to be immunosuppressive--should not be controversial, it
should be welcomed. If true, then Duesberg should be taken seriously
and not, as Derbyshire suggests, placed "peripheral to the mainstream
AIDS debate ... as a maverick rather than as a heretic." That debate
would be impoverished or non-existent were it not for Duesberg's
persistent scientific criticisms over 10 years. Derbyshire cannot have
it both ways where a serious critic with something constructive to
offer is also marginalised and mistreated by our AIDS leadership."
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/313/7065/1147/c
I wonder how much more progress Duesberg would have made and could now
make on cancer research if he could have gotten government funding
then and now.
>Pagano
> claims that a post doc would not have been able to do even that much,
> but has thus far offered no example of such a post doc. Of course,
> what he says is an unfalsifiable conspiracy theory: we should not
> expect to find such an example regardless of whether it exists or not.
Perhaps logically true, but then we can observe those with AIDS on AZT
live longer than those not on AZT, and infer that those on AZT would
have died sooner had they not been on AZT. We can infer that you would
die if thrown into the sun, but that has never been observed. Had
Duesberg not already been tenured and contributed to science before
HIV, I wonder whether he would have survived at all. I don't think
it's a stretch to assume that Tony has a valid point here, since post
docs going into their fields need to know whether they can make a
living. Duesberg was quoted in 99: "Duesberg said students visit early
in the semester and seem interested. But after a few weeks, they fade
away. "They're told by the graduate advisers and by their peers, they
may not be able to get a job, I may not be able to pay them, and it
would be bad for their reputations," he said." http://www.aegis.com/news/ap/1999/AP990313.html
>
> Much less is the example of Duesberg sufficient to refute Snex's claim
> in the post that started this whole exchange, which is that science
> does not impose forceful penalties for refusing to accept its
> conclusions. This stands in contrast to religion which frequently
> imposes forceful psychological, if not physical, penalties on people
> who do not accept its claims.
Denying grants is not a forceful penalty?? From the last URL, "Since
1987, Duesberg has had 20 grant applications turned down. A spokesman
for the NIH declined to comment. "
Tony in the other thread: "Dr Peter Duesberg, a National Academy of
Sciences member was ostracized and isolated for disputing the
truthlikeness of the sacrosanct HIV-causes-AIDS theory."
You agreed: "Yeah, but he was still able to get peer-reviewed articles
published."
As Tony has said, he never claimed that Duesberg was denied the
ability publish at all. But being ostracised, isolated and denied
funding would seem to have an effect on publishing research. What
effect that was we can not know.
Bloopen...@juno.com
All right, you've raised some interesting points, and I've been giving
them some careful thought. Yes, I believe I have worded some of my
last few posts somewhat foolishly. I'm sorry. I'm not interested in
arguing these points further, though.