Dean's World

The following review was submitted by Gerald Pollack, Professor of Bioengineering at the University of Washington. --Dean)

Not long ago I received the following piece of spam:

Subject: I have written a book about Peter Duesberg, cancer, and HIV

Body: It is very good, and Peter and I are not the only ones who think so, as you can discover at the online Barnes and Noble or Amazon, or by reading George Miklos’s review in Nature Biotechnology
(http://www.duesberg.com/books/oncogenes.html).

The piece continued:

...Many will not know or remember that two of the great themes of modern medicine, AIDS and cancer genes, both directly derive from the pioneering work on retroviruses of Peter Duesberg and a handful of others...Thus Duesberg's more than two decade, ongoing theoretical and experimental critiques of the dominant etiological explanations in each of these fields comes from substantial scientific contributions over a highly distinguished professional career that not only placed him in the US National Academy of Sciences at the young age of 50 in 1986, but gave him his own archive at the U.C. Berkeley Bancroft library — an archive that provided much of the documentation for revelations about the extremely unscientific behavior of several of Duesberg's powerful scientific adversaries.

Adversaries? I'd known vaguely of Duesberg’s claim that HIV was not the cause of AIDS, and that oncogenes were not the culprit whose pursuit would lead to a cure for cancer, and that as a result of these unorthodox views, he'd been excoriated by his scientific and medical colleagues. So, I was curious, and read on with interest:

In tracing Duesberg's academic trials, tribulations and recent emerging triumphs, the author, an early PhD from the country’s first department of molecular biology at Berkeley, and the founding scientific editor of Nature Biotechnology... [tells] the story of the iconoclastic professor's professionally self-destructive questioning of other pillar of today's biotech-driven molecular medicine that he unwittingly midwived — HIV and its relationship to AIDS etiology.

Impressed by these credentials, I took the leap and ordered a copy of the (surprisingly inexpensive) book from the publisher.
(http://nabfrog.fatcow.com/store/1556435312.html).

Bialy's book is not one you can easily put down. I found myself thoroughly engaged and deeply moved by the saga of Peter Duesberg — evolving from a founder of cancer molecular biology to a pariah reviled by his peers. It reminded me of Ignaz Semmelweis, the Hungarian physician working in a leading Viennese hospital, who had suggested before Pasteur that there might be a simple expedient to reducing mothers' post-childbirth mortality rate: doctors' hand washing. A curious observation was that the mortality rate was far higher in those wards directed by physicians compared to the wards directed by midwives. Semmelweis noted a clue: doctors began their morning rounds with autopsies on patients who had died the day prior; only after completion of the autopsies did the physicians examine the women in labor. Midwives were free of any such contaminating burden. Even after Semmelweis demonstrated that the mortality rate plummeted if the physicians washed and disinfected their hands before physically examining their patients, his colleagues were reluctant to accept his thesis, and the dead multiplied unnecessarily. Semmelweis died in an insane asylum.

Unlike the good doctor Semmelweis, whose character was notably fragile, Duesberg seems to have the robust outlook and iron backbone that allow him to press on, notwithstanding the ridicule of his peers and heroic battles competing for research funds. For some, he is every bit as much a hero as Semmelweis and Galileo; his logic seems impeccable, and his dogged persistence must be practically unmatched. For most, including drug companies who profit from current research directions and scientists whose careers rest on the prevailing orthodoxy, Duesberg is a villain who poses a threat. Better he be banished from the scene.

Could Duesberg really be on to something? Could the scientific establishment be as far off track as the story asserts?

If the papers that Duesberg cites are not misrepresented — and it is difficult to see how hundreds of papers could be misrepresented without the AIDS establishment coming down mercilessly on his misrepresentations — then his points are indeed compelling. For example: Why is the amount of HIV present in most AIDS patients so small that PCR amplification is required to demonstrate its presence? Why is AIDS in the US and Europe not random as it is in other viral epidemics? Why would HIV take 10 – 15 years from infection to AIDS? Why is the mortality of HIV-antibody positives treated with anti-HIV drugs higher than the untreated group? These and other troubling questions are answered with impeccable logic and abundant references. Of course, the literature could have been abused to make a point, and I’m impressed that the full text of most of the papers cited in Duesberg’s 1992 review are now available though a hyperlink (http://www.rethinkaids.info/body.cfm?id=58). Anyone interested can make judgment.

One could only hope for a detailed point-by-point response from the establishment, but very little of substance has been forthcoming. Mainly, what have come from the AIDS establishment are ex-cathedra responses such as "the evidence is overwhelming." The book reminds us that although over $100 billion has been spent on AIDS research, not a single AIDS patient has been cured — a colossal failure with tragic consequences. It explains in too-clear terms the reasons why AIDS research focuses so single-mindedly on this lone hypothesis to the exclusion of all others: egos, prestige, and money. Mainstream virologists have assumed the power of the purse, and their self-interests (sometimes financial), propel them to suppress challenges. This is not an unusual story: challenges to mainstream views are consistently suppressed by mainstream scientists who have a stake in maintaining the status quo. It's not just Semmelweis and Galileo, but is happening broadly in today's scientific arena. Only now are the granting agencies beginning to face up to this serious problem.

I invite you to read this fascinating book and decide for yourself whether Duesberg has a point. I took time from a busy schedule to see quickly how the saga would end, and came away enlightened by a rich body of information about issues of profound significance that cry out for resolution. The message is quite serious, but the presentation is buoyed by abundant humor and wit — a pleasure to read. This is one of those books that will inspire unending conversations with friends and colleagues. Rarely have I been as moved by a book as by this very scientific biography.

Reviewer: G. H. Pollack, Dept. of Bioengineering,
University of Washington, Seattle WA 98195,
ghp@u.washington.edu

(Professor Pollack is the author of Cells, Gels and the Engines of Life. --Dean)