The Group banner image
 
Home | About RA | The Board | Contact Us
First Previous

David Crowe Challenges Physics Professor Randall Scalise to Invite a Dissident instead of just Dissing them. And then Randi the Magician gets involved…

Next
Professors John L. Cotton and Randall J. Scalise teach a course at Southern Methodist University in Dallas entitled “The Scientific Method – Critical and Creative Thinking (Debunking Pseudoscience)”. Unfortunately, instead of encouraging critical thinking the course outline makes statements about Peter Duesberg, Christine Maggiore and Thabo Mbeki followed by the statement “Pseudoscience kills”. There is no serious attempt to describe the views of AIDS Rethinkers.

Debunking Pseudoscience or Enforcing Orthodoxy?

The website for this course is at physics.smu.edu/~pseudo. This includes a list of websites categorized as either “Good Science” or “Bad Science” (if only the world were so simple).

In response to this David Crowe wrote to Dr. Scalise challenging him to invite an AIDS Rethinker to address his class the next time he ran this course. David cc’d Peter Duesberg and Christine Maggiore because of the snide comments made about them, Dr. Scalise cc’d a much larger number of people, and the result follows.

David Crowe to Randall Scalise

December 15, 2006

Dr. Scalise;

I notice that you teach a course in “Debunking Pseudoscience” which appears to include objecting to the questioning of the HIV=AIDS=Death paradigm by people like retrovirologist Dr. Peter Duesberg and activist Christine Maggiore, judging by the page at:

physics.smu.edu/~pseudo/Intro

Have you ever considered having an AIDS dissident in one of your classes for a debate? There are thousands to choose from, see rethinkingaids.com/quotes/rethinkers.htm

I’m sure we could find one who could travel to Dallas for the occasion.

You might also want to correct your course outline. Peter Duesberg does not “deny” that HIV causes AIDS, but he provides scientific evidence (a considerable amount actually) that HIV is very unlikely to be the cause of AIDS. If you are really interested in encouraging critical thinking then I imagine that you would ask your students to read one of his peer-reviewed scientific papers or his book “Inventing the AIDS Virus” (or Christine Maggiore’s book “What if everything you thought you knew about AIDS was wrong”). After all, if they’re so obviously wrong, there should be no point in sheltering your students from encountering the ideas of the AIDS rethinkers/denialists/dissidents/reappraisers/pseudo-scientists. Should there?

Regards,

 

David Crowe Alberta Reappraising AIDS Society.

cc: Peter Duesberg, Christine Maggiore

Randall Scalise to David Crowe

December 16, 2006

Oh, can I pick a speaker from the list? How about :

  • David Bartell. Science Fiction writer, BA, Astrophysics; or
  • Angelo Battiston. D.C., Cape Town, South Africa (D.C. is ‘doctor’ of chiropractic, right? That’s reputable.)
  • Here’s another good one: - Maja Boxhorn. Instructor in Veterinary Homeopathy, Asthanga Research Institute for Homoeopathy, Hagen bei Murnau, Germany

Three great choices and I only made it to the B’s in the alphabetical list!

Got anyone who has published this remarkable theory in the peer-reviewed medical literature in the last five years? I’m not picky; it can be in JAMA, NEJM, or the Lancet – your choice. Shall we also alert the Nobel Prize Committee about this breakthrough?

Let me save you the price of airfare to Dallas. My students will say what I say now: Show me an article in a peer-reviewed medical journal or SHUT UP!

If they are so obviously right, why can’t they publish an article with enough evidence to convince editors and reviewers of their position? Are you so pathetically desperate that you need to plead your case to students who have no background in biology?

We won’t lend legitimacy to a crackpot idea by providing an academic forum for you to engage in debate when all the evidence is on one side. We don’t invite proponents of Intelligent Design (Phillip Johnson could cover both ID and AIDS!), ESP, Bigfoot, or the Flat Earth to the class, either. This is the Irigonegaray stategy that worked so well in Kansas.

As to the importance of peer review, I quote from Goodstein, David 2000. How Science Works. In U.S. Federal Judiciary Reference Manual on Evidence, pp. 6672.

In the competition among ideas, the institution of peer review plays a central role…Peer review works superbly to separate valid science from nonsense... ...peer review is one of the sacred pillars of the scientific edifice.

My condolences to Ms. Maggiore on the tragic passing of her young daughter. Maybe she would like to tell the class how her daughter did not die of Pneumocystis jiroveci pneumonia as a result of untreated AIDS.

You people are not just wrong, you’re dangerous. You’re costing innocent folks their lives. Duesberg alone has caused the deaths of millions in Africa by years ago influencing Thabo Mbeki’s policies.

Have an enlightened day, –

 

Randall J. Scalise, Ph.D.

cc: Christine Maggiore, Peter Duesberg, Fred Olness, John Cotton, Anthony Fauci, Stephen Barrett, James the Amazing Randi, Robert Park

Peter Duesberg to Randall Scalise

December 18, 2006

Dear colleague Randall Scalise,

You may be surprised to hear from me that we have one thing in common: We both defend classical scientific standards against pseudo-scientists.

In view of this may I make a suggestion to you? I would recommend to be a little more tolerant and forgiving or even courteous to current scientific minorities. After all, all scientific innovation came from minorities, eg. Galileo, Planck, Einstein, who used to say ‘The important thing is not to stop questioning’.

So as a professor myself, I encourage my students to “dissent”, but ask them to be prepared for “questions”.

A penny for your thoughts or questions,

 

Peter Duesberg

Harvey Bialy to Randall Scalise

December 18, 2006

Since you do profess to teach, and I am quite certain you have never even looked at the Amazon reviews of my biography of Prof. Duesberg, a copy of this email to Ms. Boyd in the cc field with your mailing address will quickly get a free, review copy to you.

Of course you do not have to review it, but I would expect that somebody with your CV would at least make an attempt to read it. Others with little or no formal education in biology have, as well as a host of those with the most advanced degrees and impeccable scientific credentials possible, as can be easily found by typing some code words into google or a similar search engine [hint for the cyber-challenged:.”Harvey Bialy AIDS Wiki”].

 

bialy

cc: David Crowe, Peter Duesberg, North Atlantic Books

Randall Scalise to Harvey Bialy

December 19, 2006

Dear "colleague" Bialy,

Here is the address to which Ms. Boyd can send a copy of "Oncogenes,
Aneuploidy, and AIDS: A Scientific Life and Times of Peter H. Duesberg":

    SMU Physics 0175
    3215 Daniel Avenue
    Dallas, TX 75275-0175

I did read the Amazon Reviews just now.  Here is my favorite:

    Mr. Bialy's opus. Science fiction at its worst., July 19, 2006
    Reviewer:   Manny Kimmel (Ohio) - See all my reviews

    Mr. Bialy's journeyman's prose never fails to bore. He creates a
    parallel universe in which the modern-day plague of AIDS is a fiction
    created by greedy and ambitious scientists, politicians, activists,
    Pharma executivies, and other assorted henchmen.

    Against this backdrop of evil, we are given a Christ figure, played by
    a scientist at a California university who would save the world from
    the great lie that is AIDS. Oddly, Mr. Bialy's descriptions of our hero
    smacks of a schoolgirl crush. Would that we had learned whether this
    curious realtionship was ever consummated.

    Mr. Bialy takes a halfway good science fiction story idea (what if HIV
    were harmless??) and beats it to death with excrutiating, ham-handed
    detail.

    Life is too short for this kind of drivel. Shame on me for wasting
    several hours of my life on this nonsense. Shame on YOU if you repeat
    my mistake.

Have an enlightened day,
--Randall J. Scalise

Harvey Bialy to Randall Scalise

December 19, 2006

I take it all back, even the tongue in cheek ref to you as a colleague.

Your choice of favorite review says it all

bialy

James the Amazing Randi to David Crowe

December 18, 2006

Dear Mr. Crowe:

You must excuse Dr. Scalise’s rude approach. I, too, receive a raft of mail from nut cases who send me lists of “authorities” who support their delusions, all festooned with attributes and credits. This constitutes a tiny fraction of the total of informed persons – yet these folks expect that each of these individuals named must be individually invalidated, in detail, before any case is made.  Quantity, of course, never makes up for quality, but that seems not to be a factor. (Millions of children will attest – honestly – that Santa exists because there were actual gifts under the tree.)

I share Dr. Scalise’s impatience, I must admit.

Speaking as an active skeptic, I’ll say that it’s a burden, if you’ll allow it be one. I’ve decided not to let it distract me, and I therefore merely respond: prove your case, rather than demanding that someone else disprove it. And, proof consists of replicable, double-blind, definitive evidence.

It’s interesting that you mention Wegener. Surely, that was one of the most obvious rushes-to-judgment by detractors in the history of modern science, but his case was proven by careful establishment of supportive data. As soon as that amount and quality of data is presented by the AIDS dissidents, I will stand corrected and chastened.

“Fortress Science” has the remarkable feature of self-repair, a quality exhibited by my knees when I was younger. It self-corrects, inevitably, because evidence is louder than noise. It took 45 years for Wegener to be vindicated. I think the HIV/AIDS relationship will not require a fraction of that…

I invite you to watch…

 

James Randi

cc: Christine Maggiore, Peter Duesberg, Randall Scalise, Fred Olness, John Cotton, Anthony Fauci, Stephen Barrett, Robert Park

David Crowe to Randall Scalise

December 18, 2006

Randall;

Thank you for your email, it is nice to get a communication even if it is quite rude and slanted.

Clearly in a long list of people, including many alternative medical practitioners, you can pick out a few with qualifications that you disdain. It is interesting that you skipped over the following questioners of the HIV=AIDS hypothesis:
  • Dr. Kary Mullis. PhD, Biochemist, Winner, 1993 Nobel Prize for Chemistry for inventing the polymerase chain reaction, the basis for the HIV viral load tests.
  • Dr. Charles L. Geshekter. PhD, three-time Fulbright scholar. Professor of African History, California State University, Chico. Former chair of the History of Science, Pacific Division, of the American Association for the Advancement of Sciences. He has served as an adviser to the U.S. State Department and several African governments
  • Dr. Peter Duesberg. PhD, Professor of Molecular Biology, University of California, member, National Academy of Sciences, first to map the genetic structure of retroviruses. Five-time recipient of the National Institutes of Health’s Outstanding Investigator Grant. (All federal grants terminated when he started challenging the HIV theory). Author, Inventing the AIDS Virus
  • Rodney Richards. PhD, Biochemist, Founding scientist for the biotech company Amgen. Collaborated with Abbott Laboratories in developing some of the first HIV tests
  • Lynn Margulis. PhD, Biologist, Professor of Geosciences, University of Massachusetts at Amherst. Originated the Endosymbiotic Theory for the origin of eukaryotic cells in 1966, which was ridiculed for years by the scientific establishment until proven in the 1980s. Recipient of the National Medal of Science. Member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. Author, Origin of Eukaryotic Cells, Early Life, Symbiosis as a Source of Evolutionary Innovation: Speciation and Morphogenesis, Symbiotic Planet: A New Look at Evolution, The Ice Chronicles: The Quest to Understand Global Climate Change and many other books.
  • Phyllis Pease. PhD. Medical Microbiologist. Department of Medical Microbiology, University of Birmingham Medical School. Author of AIDS, Cancer and Arthritis – A New Approach (2006) and L-Forms, Episomes and Autoimmune Disease (1965)
  • Gerald H. Pollack. PhD. Professor of Bioengineering, University of Washington, Seattle. Author: Cells, Gels and the Engines of Life and Muscles and Molecules: Uncovering the Principles of Biological Motion [Says the Hiv-Aids-AZT controversy needs serious debate, and debate is being blocked by the Aids establishment]
  • Sir David Smith. MA, DPhil, FRS, FRSE. Biologist. Fellow of the Royal Society. Founder Member of the International Society of Endocytobiology. Principle of Edinburgh University 1989 – 1994. Head of the largest graduate college (Wolfson) Oxford University 1994 – 2000. Currently government adviser on environmental concerns.
  • Dr. Etienne de Harven, MD, Emeritus Professor of Pathology, University of Toronto (1981-1993). Professor of Cell Biology, Cornell Graduate School of Medical Science (1968-1981). Associate Professor (1964-1968). Assistant Professor, Pathology. Université Libre de Bruxells (1956-1962). Belgian Air Force Medical Corps (1953-1956). Author of over 100 peer-reviewed medical papers on virology, cancer, immunology and electron microscopy.
  • The 556 PhDs on the list (not counting degrees that might be equivalent but use different letters)
  • The 402 MDs on the list (not counting equivalents)

Regarding the issue of peer-reviewed literature, you are apparently not familiar with the extensive (and often peer-reviewed) literature indicating how peer-review can ensure the publication of the mediocre, and ensure the censorship of the truly new and revolutionary. Not being able to publish in the peer-reviewed literature could indicate lack of scientific merit, but it could also indicate that your ideas are a threat to the scientific establishment. I could cite you references if you'd like, but don't want to make this email impossibly long. But let me mention Rothwell's paper from 2000 that showed that agreement between peer reviewers in clinical neuroscience journals was little greater than that predicted by chance. The publications of David Horrobin are very important when discussing peer review as well. A Cochrane Methodology review in 2003 stated "At present there is little empirical evidence to support the use of editorial peer-review as a mechanism to ensure quality of biomedical research, despite its widespread use and costs."

While you casually call AIDS rethinkers murderers, you might consider that the system you support, based on the HIV=AIDS=Death dogma, prescribes drugs that have documented fatal side effects. If you're not familiar with this literature, I would encourage you to study it. We have provided an easy way, through quotes taken directly from scientific publications at http://rethinkingaids.com/quotes/haart.html. Can you truly say that your support for the continued prescription of these drugs is not causing the death of many people?

You may be familiar with the history of Continental Drift/Plate Tectonics. When the theory was first described, with extensive scientific evidence first published by the obscure Austrian meteorologist Alfred Wegener in 1915 the geological establishment was scathing in their criticism. Right up to the early 1960s publication on this subject in major journals was forbidden, and discussing continental drift within a geology department would be the end of a young geologist's career. But, as I'm sure you know, by the end of the 1960s the theory of plate tectonics had taken hold, based on Wegener's evidence as well as much that had accumulated since then. It is important to note that the evidence did not accumulate through the deliberate actions of the scientific community but because of investigations launched for other purposes. Grants to directly study the drift of the continents would have certainly been refused (most scientists were smart enough not to ask).

If you want to think critically about science, I really think you need to be critical of the establishment and the methods used by the establishment (including peer-review). You may see your job as defending Fortress Science from the infidels, but I think your students deserve more. You need to come down and talk with those you see as your enemy, you might find out that much good comes out of respectful discussions, and that eventually a common understanding develops.

Regards,
    David Crowe
    Alberta Reappraising AIDS Society.

cc: Christine Maggiore, Peter Duesberg, Fred Olness, John Cotton, Anthony Fauci, Stephen Barrett, James the Amazing Randi, Robert Park

Peter Duesberg to James the Amazing Randi

December 18, 2006

Dear James,

Thanks for cc‘ing me to your David Crowe letter.

Here is what I send to our science-minority buster Randall.

Re your Gallo/NIH-Wegener analogy: The HIV-AIDS hypothesis of Gallo/NIH has by now used up close to 50% of the time it took Wegener to be vindicated, ie. 45 yrs. 

Considering that thousands of researchers and doctors around the globe are studying the Gallo/NIH hypothesis for billions of $ per yr, and the US government is promoting it with numerous hand outs, it seems that the chances for the Gallo/NIH team are not as good as those of Wegener’s were at “half-time”.

Regards,

 

Peter D.

David Crowe to James the Amazing Randi

December 18, 2006

James;

[James the Amazing Randi’s comments are indented and in this color and font style.]

Dear Mr. Crowe:

You must excuse Dr. Scalise’s rude approach.


I have a pretty thick skin. I find his refusal to discuss the issue more disturbing than his rudeness.
 I, too, receive a raft of mail from nut cases who send me lists of “authorities” who support their delusions, all festooned with attributes and credits.  This constitutes a tiny fraction of the total of informed persons – yet these folks expect that each of these individuals named must be individually invalidated, in detail, before any case is made.  Quantity, of course, never makes up for quality, but that seems not to be a factor. (Millions of children will attest – honestly – that Santa exists because there were actual gifts under the tree.)

Where do my gifts come from then? Next you'll be saying the tooth fairy doesn't exist! The Easter Bunny!

Regarding nuts, using a botanical analogy, it's not always so easy to tell the nuts from the non-nuts. A nut is defined botanically as a fruit with a hard shell enclosing a seed. The enclosed ovary is characteristic of the higher plants (angiosperms) meaning that a "pine nut" is not, botanically speaking a nut (pines are gymnosperms). Yet faced with a new nut a botanist will be forced to pause for a little while before making a decision. Not every object that is new to them can be dismissed as a non-nut immediately, some are more of a puzzle than others.

You have to make the opposite choice. Can AIDS Rethinkers be discarded as nuts, or are we non-nuts who really have something to say? I'll try to help you a little.

I share Dr. Scalise’s impatience, I must admit.

You share "some" of his impatience, you clearly don't share it all ;)
Speaking as an active skeptic, I’ll say that it’s a burden, if you’ll allow it be one.  I’ve decided not to let it distract me, and I therefore merely respond: prove your case, rather than demanding that someone else disprove it.  And, proof consists of replicable, double-blind, definitive evidence.

Well, by that standard I have to say that those who support the HIV=AIDS=Death dogma have not proven their case.

The only double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of an AIDS drug was for AZT (aka Retrovir aka Zidovudine). The problem is that there is lots of evidence that that the trial of this drug was unblinded, unrandomized and not placebo-controlled because participants were sharing their capsules, buying AZT on the black market etc. This is described well in John Lauritsen's book "AZT: Poison by Prescription".

The relative uselessness of AZT was emphasized by the Concorde study which stated "The results of Concorde do not encourage the early use of zidovudine in symptom-free HIV-infected adults". In that study, only 3 out of 172 deaths were in people still taking the placebo at the time of death. (Lancet, 1994 Apr 9)

This is not surprising because AZT is a nucleoside analog, designed to interfere with DNA synthesis (the 'T' in AZT stands for Thymidine, one of the four building blocks of DNA). This drug is still the only drug approved in most countries for use in pregnant women to prevent Mother To Child Transmission of HIV. This, I think is criminal, especially given the number of studies that show that babies exposed to AZT do worse than those who are not (with the same HIV status). See http://rethinkingaids.com/quotes/azt-perinatal.html. If you think I've made up these quotes, I'd be happy to fax you the pages from the journals, or you can look them up yourself.

In fact, one of the early developers of AZT, Richard Belz, was recently quoted as saying "you are justified in sounding a warning against the long-term therapeutic use of AZT, or its use in pregnant women, because of its demonstrated toxicity and side effects. Unfortunately, the devastating effects of AZT emerged only after the final level of experiments were well underway, that is the experiments which consisted of giving AZT to large numbers of human patients over a long period of time. Your effort is a worthy one…I hope you succeed in convincing your government not to make AZT available" [private correspondence to Anthony Brink]

Regarding the HIV test, positive results were not found in 100% of AIDS victims, and it's not at all clear why it was concluded that the test does not cross react, and why it was believed that 100% of people who were positive on the test but healthy would rapidly sicken and die. That latency time was gradually lengthened to about 10 years (Munoz. AIDS. 1997). But I know people who have been HIV+ without AIDS drugs for 25 years. How long do they have to live before someone says "Well, maybe not everyone will get sick within a normal lifetime from AIDS"?

Why, when it is known that LTNPs exist (Long-Term Non-Progressors) and it is known that CD4 counts are not a reliable marker (the Concorde study above was one of the first to show this, but not the last) are people in the United States (but not elsewhere) diagnosed with AIDS and encouraged to go on AIDS drugs solely on the basis of a positive HIV test and a low CD4 cell count?

It’s interesting that you mention Wegener.  Surely, that was one of the most obvious rushes-to-judgment by detractors in the history of modern science, but his case was proven by careful establishment of supportive data.
No, that's not true at all. The real clinching data was the magnetic survey of the North Atlantic Ridge. And that was most definitely not designed to test the hypothesis of whether the continents were moving!
It was not until the end of the 1950s there were some brave geologists who risked their careers. I suggest you read Oreske's excellent book "Plate Tectonics" (Westview Press, 2001) which includes discussions with both proponents and opponents of the theory, reflecting on the time of ferment, when plate tectonics finally became accepted.

A NASA website says "This puzzling picture [symmetric magnetic reversals around the North Atlantic Ridge] was explained in 1962 by Lawrence Morley (whose article was rejected by the journals as too speculative)". Luckily, by then, others were able to start publishing, but it was almost 50 years!

Ditto for the Piltdown Man. Also accepted by the highest status scientists in 1913 (approx.), and not questioned by scientists until the early 1950s when a brave scientist drilled through the skull and found white bone underneath, indicating a crude fake.

As soon as that amount and quality of data is presented by the AIDS dissidents, I will stand corrected and chastened.

Well, as with Plate Tectonics, if the major rethinking scientists like Peter Duesberg and the Perth Group, have great difficulty getting funding and find it hard to publish, an illusion is created that they're not legitimate scientists and have nothing important to say.

Yet, as I mentioned to Dr. Scalise, there is extensive scientific research to show that peer review is ineffective at weeding out bad science (e.g. fraud) but is very good at preventing new ideas from being published.
“Fortress Science” has the remarkable feature of self-repair, a quality exhibited by my knees when I was younger.
Horace Judson's 2004 book "The great betrayal: Science in the culture of fraud" describes many cases where fraudulent science got published, and is a good description of how science is not self-correcting, as the natural reaction is usually "shoot the messenger".

Bell's 1992 book "Impure Science: Fraud, Compromise, and Political Influence in Scientific Research" is another good one that covers some of the same cases, but mostly different cases.

On July 31 2005 both BMJ and Lancet were forced to publish articles bringing in to question the many publications of Ram B. Singh on the Indo-Mediterranean diet. They implied that all his research might be faked, but they have had very little support from the scientific community in actually proving this. The Indian medical societies, for example, have not been helpful. Consequently, they can call his research into question, but not withdraw it. This does not indicate a robust method of discarding bad science. If you do a PubMed search on "Singh RB[au] AND Morabadad" you will still see an extensive list of publications. Only if you follow some of the links from his 2002 Lancet publication will you start to find references to the probable fraud. Many people may overlook this.

I can provide you with a list of references that show that peer review has many serious problems if you'd like.
It self-corrects, inevitably, because evidence is louder than noise.  It took 45 years for Wegener to be vindicated.  I think the HIV/AIDS relationship will not requite a fraction of that…
Well, it's already been 25 years and most people don't even know that there is a debate, so I have to disagree with that statement. It hasn't self-corrected yet. It's still excluding scientists from the debate. Let's have the debate and get it over with.

If you are interested in scientific fraud you really should read Chicago Tribune science journalist John Crewdson's book about Robert Gallo's AIDS research entitled "Science fictions: A scientific mystery, a massive cover-up, and the dark legacy of Robert Gallo". Why was the "probable cause of AIDS" announced at a press conference just after the HIV blood test was patented by Robert Gallo but before any scientific papers were published? Why did Luc Montagnier's patent languish in the patent office, but Robert Gallo's get rushed through? Was Robert Gallo an incredibly sloppy scientist or did he appropriate his "HTLV-III" from specimens of "LAV" sent from the Pasteur Institute? Why did the President's of France and the US have to meet to describe what the true history of the discovery of HIV was?

The congressional investigation into Robert Gallo makes fascinating reading as well: http://www.healtoronto.com/galloindex.html  (It's nice to see Dingell back in charge of his committee).
I invite you to watch…
I am sure it will be fun to watch when Fortress AID$ crumbles, but it's a lot of hard work until then.

Regards,

David Crowe

Randall Scalise to Peter Duesberg

December 22, 2006

Dear Professor Duesberg,

On Mon, 18 Dec 2006, peter duesberg wrote:

“After all, all scientific innovation came from minorities, eg. Galileo, Planck, Einstein,…”

Galileo’s nemesis was the Roman Catholic Church, not other scientists. Galileo, Planck, and Einstein are famous and respected because they published and in this way convinced their peers that they were correct. Pons and Fleischmann are infamous because they announced their Cold Fusion claim in the press, bypassing the peer-review process.

You are the one making the extraordinary claim, “that HIV is very unlikely to be the cause of AIDS,” in the words of David Crowe. You have the burden of proof. Please publish your evidence and logical argument in a tier-1 peer-reviewed medical journal such as JAMA, NEJM, or the Lancet.

Mr. Crowe also says, “...agreement between peer reviewers in clinical neuroscience journals was little greater than that predicted by chance.” If you think you have a 50% chance of being published, simply submit your work to ten peer-reviewed journals. Then the chances that you will not be published by any of them is only 1 out of 1024.

My expertise is particle physics, not virology. I rely on the editors and referees and the peer-review process to separate valid work from nonsense.

Let me illustrate the problem with a hypothetical exercise. Suppose that you had no background whatsoever in particle physics and I sent you an email touting my great discovery that there are 4 colors of quark instead of the 3 that appear in physics literature. I then sent you hundreds of pages of quantum chromodynamics equations, experimental data from accelerators at national laboratories, and an argument justifying my conclusion that there are 4 colors. Should you believe me? You would want to know my credentials. You do a little research and find that I have a PhD in particle physics, have tenure at a prestigious university, and have a record of scholarly publications. Wouldn’t it bother you just a bit that I was announcing this discovery, surely worth a Nobel Prize, by email or in a book written for the non-physicist or on the internet? Wouldn’t you wonder why it didn’t appear in a tier-1 peer-reviewed physics journal? Without going back to school and earning a PhD in particle physics, you must rely on the physics journal editors and referees.

Now suppose that when you ask other expert particle physicists, 5000 of them tell you that there are definitely only 3 colors of quark, not 4. But you receive a steady stream of emails from acolytes who defend me and tell you that I’m right. Whom do you believe? I seem like a reasonable fellow and I did great work in the past. Still... where are those peer-reviewed journal articles?

–Randall J. Scalise

cc: David Crowe, John Cotton, Fred Olness, James the Amazing Randi, Stephen Barret, Anthony Fauci, Brian Foley

David Crowe to Randall Scalise

December 23, 2006

Randall;

Here is a list of 34 papers, letters etc. in major journals on HIV and AIDS with Peter Duesberg as an author (based on a PubMed query). I’d send his entire list of papers since 1962, but it’s over 200.

Note that his first paper, #34 in this list, is the one that started all the trouble. It’s definitely worth reading.

If you need help with PubMed let me know, it’s pretty easy to use.

And, have a Merry Christmas (if I’m still allowed to say that).

Regards, David Crowe

1: Duesberg P, Koehnlein C, Rasnick D. The chemical bases of the various AIDS epidemics: recreational drugs, anti-viral chemotherapy and malnutrition. J Biosci. 2003 Jun;28(4):383-412. PMID: 12799487 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

2: Duesberg P, Rasnick D. The AIDS dilemma: drug diseases blamed on a passenger virus. Genetica. 1998;104(2):85-132. Review. PMID: 10220905 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

3: Duesberg P. Commentary: non-HIV hypotheses must be studied more carefully. BMJ. 1996 Jan 27;312(7025):210-1. No abstract available. PMID: 8563583 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

4: Duesberg PH. Is HIV the cause of AIDS? Lancet. 1995 Nov 18;346(8986):1371-2. No abstract available. PMID: 7475805 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

5: Duesberg P, Bialy H. HIV results in the frame. HIV an illusion. Nature. 1995 May 18;375(6528):197; author reply 198. No abstract available. PMID: 7746319 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

6: Duesberg P. AIDS data. Science. 1995 Apr 21;268(5209):350-2. No abstract available. PMID: 7716530 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

7: Baumann E, Bethell T, Bialy H, Duesberg PH, Farber C, Geshekter CL, Johnson PE, Maver RW, Schoch R, Stewart GT, et al. AIDS proposal. Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV/AIDS Hypothesis. Science. 1995 Feb 17;267(5200):945-6. No abstract available. PMID: 7863335 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

8: Duesberg PH. “The Duesberg phenomenon”: Duesberg and other voices. Science. 1995 Jan 20;267(5196):313-4; author reply 316. No abstract available. PMID: 7824919 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

9: Duesberg PH. Foreign-protein-mediated immunodeficiency in hemophiliacs with and without HIV. Genetica. 1995;95(1-3):51-70. Review. PMID: 7744263 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

10: Ellison BJ, Downey AB, Duesberg PH. HIV as a surrogate marker for drug use: a re-analysis of the San Francisco Men’s Health Study. Genetica. 1995;95(1-3):165-71. PMID: 7744259 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

11: Chiu DT, Duesberg PH. The toxicity of azidothymidine (AZT) on human and animal cells in culture at concentrations used for antiviral therapy. Genetica. 1995;95(1-3):103-9. PMID: 7744255 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

12: Duesberg P. Infectious AIDS–stretching the germ theory beyond its limits. Int Arch Allergy Immunol. 1994;103(2):118-27. Review. PMID: 8292899 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

13: Duesberg PH. The HIV gap in national AIDS statistics. Biotechnology (N Y). 1993 Aug;11(8):955-6. No abstract available. PMID: 7763920 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

14: Duesberg P. HIV and AIDS. Science. 1993 Jun 18;260(5115):1705-6. No abstract available. PMID: 8511572 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

15: Duesberg P. Aetiology of AIDS. Lancet. 1993 Jun 12;341(8859):1544. No abstract available. PMID: 8099426 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

16: Duesberg P. HIV and the aetiology of AIDS. Lancet. 1993 Apr 10;341(8850):957-8. No abstract available. PMID: 8096289 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

17: Duesberg PH. HIV latency. Biotechnology (N Y). 1993 Mar;11(3):247. No abstract available. PMID: 7763436 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

18: Duesberg P. HIV-free AIDS reports. Science. 1992 Sep 25;257(5078):1848. No abstract available. PMID: 1411497 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

19: Duesberg P. AIDS: the alternative view. Lancet. 1992 Jun 20;339(8808):1547. No abstract available. PMID: 1351226 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

20: Duesberg PH. HIV as target for zidovudine. Lancet. 1992 Feb 29;339(8792):551. No abstract available. PMID: 1346894 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

21: Duesberg PH. AIDS acquired by drug consumption and other noncontagious risk factors. Pharmacol Ther. 1992;55(3):201-77. Review. PMID: 1492119 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

22: Duesberg PH. The role of drugs in the origin of AIDS. Biomed Pharmacother. 1992;46(1):3-15. Review. PMID: 1421032 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

23: Duesberg PH, Schwartz JR. Latent viruses and mutated oncogenes: no evidence for pathogenicity. Prog Nucleic Acid Res Mol Biol. 1992;43:135-204. Review. No abstract available. PMID: 1410445 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

24: Duesberg PH. Duesberg on AIDS and HIV. Nature. 1991 Mar 7;350(6313):10. No abstract available. PMID: 2002834 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

25: Duesberg PH. AIDS epidemiology: inconsistencies with human immunodeficiency virus and with infectious disease. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1991 Feb 15;88(4):1575-9. PMID: 1996359 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

26: Duesberg PH. Duesberg replies. Nature. 1990 Aug 30;346(6287):788. No abstract available. PMID: 2392147 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

27: Duesberg PH. “The AIDS debate”. Naturwissenschaften. 1990 Mar;77(3):97-102. No abstract available. PMID: 2342583 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

28: Duesberg PH. AIDS: non-infectious deficiencies acquired by drug consumption and other risk factors. Res Immunol. 1990 Jan;141(1):5-11. Review. No abstract available. PMID: 2189168 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

29: Duesberg P. Defective viruses and AIDS. Nature. 1989 Aug 17;340(6234):515. No abstract available. PMID: 2770859 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

30: Duesberg P. Duesberg’s PNAS paper. Science. 1989 Mar 3;243(4895):1125. No abstract available. PMID: 2922599 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

31: Duesberg PH. Human immunodeficiency virus and acquired immunodeficiency syndrome: correlation but not causation. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1989 Feb;86(3):755-64. Review. PMID: 2644642 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

32: Duesberg P. Does HIV cause AIDS? J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 1989;2(5):514-7. No abstract available. PMID: 2795452 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

33: Duesberg P. HIV is not the cause of AIDS. Science. 1988 Jul 29;241(4865):514, 517. No abstract available. PMID: 3399880 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

34: Duesberg PH. Retroviruses as carcinogens and pathogens: expectations and reality. Cancer Res. 1987 Mar 1;47(5):1199-220. Review. PMID: 3028606 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Christine Maggiore to James Randi and Randall Scalise

February 10, 2007

Gentlemen:

Please pardon my late arrival to the discussion. Your email exchange surfaced today from the bottom of my inbox and reading through, I noticed that the death of my daughter has been used as a argument for the HIV hypothesis of AIDS or as an indirect measure of the intelligence and/or sanity of so-called dissidents. With that discussion in mind, I wonder if any of the sane medical professionals on this list would offer comment on the most recently published analysis of my daughter’s autopsy report. This report includes photos of her lung tissue slides which the world seemed quite cranky about our pathologist not having examined immediately following her alleged death from pneumonia. It may interest you to know that all remarks on the matter that appeared in the media were made without any of the expert commentators having actually seen these slides.

I also wonder if any of you with power and influence might help get the LA County Coroner’s office to provide us with lab evidence of my daughter’s HIV status.

The new report with the photos of lung tissue slides is found under my daughter’s photo at JusticeForEJ.com

Your comments and help would be appreciated.

With gratitude,

 

Christine Maggiore

© Copyright May 18, 2009 by Rethinking AIDS.