Dean's World

Man. This is getting funny. Professor Brown defends Professor Culshaw from a group of increasingly hysterical virus researchers. (Rebecca Culshaw is a mathematical biologist and former professional AIDS researcher.)

Dig that quote from Professor Fendel, too.

My God, what have these people been doing with our tax money? (And no, I don't mean Culshaw or Brown.)

Looks like the Wall Street Journal has noticed something's up.

I'm wondering when I'm going to get some sort of apology from some folks who obviously owe me one. Probably never. Ah well.

Note to the Wall Street Journal, or other serious news organs: why exactly is Peter Duesberg a "pariah," as Scientific American called him? What exactly did he do wrong? He published a few invited papers that were approved by respected scientific editors and editorial peer reviewers (who had no financial conflicts of interest) that questioned the role of HIV in AIDS. Was it publishing those papers?

Is it because in his call for a public debate in the pages of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Robert Gallo agreed to debate him and then declared that he was too busy saving lives to be bothered?

What is it EXACTLY that this mild-mannered professor with an unorthodox opinion did that was so bad that even though ten years ago he advanced a hugely important theory in cancer research that everyone in the industry now acknowledges, he still can't get a grant application approved to save his life?

Since when did questioning established medical procedures make one a "pariah?" Why didn't it immediately become, "Well, Peter's just wrong here, but he's got a right to his odd opinions," which is the norm with most credible and qualified scientific dissenters? Just curious.

Why is he a pariah exactly? Some crack reporter should investigate and ask for more than the opinions of researchers who have clear financial conflicts of interest, no?