Science Guardian

Truth, beauty and paradigm power in science and society

I am Nicolaus Copernicus, and I approve of this blog

News, views and reviews measured against professional literature in peer reviewed journals (adjusted for design flaws and bias), well researched books, authoritative encyclopedias (not the bowdlerized Wiki entries on controversial topics) and the investigative reporting and skeptical studies of courageous original thinkers among academics, philosophers, researchers, scholars, authors, filmmakers and journalists.

Supporting the right of exceptional minds to free speech, publication, media coverage and funding against the crowd prejudice, leadership resistance, monetary influences and internal professional politics of the paradigm wars of cancer, HIV(not)AIDS, evolution, global warming, cosmology, particle physics, macroeconomics, information technology, religions and cults, health, medicine, diet and nutrition.



Halton C. Arp wki/obit/txt/vds/txt/txt/bk/bk, Henry Bauer txt/blg/ blg/bks/bk/txt/bk/vd, John Beard bk, Harvey Bialy bk/bk/txt/txt/rdo/vd, John Bockris bio/txt/ltr/bk, Donald W. Braben, Peter Breggin ste/fb/col/bks, Darin Brown txt/txt/txt/txt/txt/vd, Giordano Bruno bk/bio/bio, Frank R. Buianouckas, Stanislav Burzynski mov, Erwin Chargaff bio/bk/bio/prs, James Chin bk/vd, Nicolaus Copernicus bk, Mark Craddock, Francis Crick vd, Paul Crutzen, Marie Curie, Rebecca Culshaw txt/bk, Roger Cunningham, Charles Darwin txts/bk, Erasmus Darwin txt//bk/txt/hse/bks, Peter Duesberg ste/ste/bk/txt/vd/vd, Freeman Dyson, Albert Einstein, Richard Feynman bio, John Fewster, Rosalind Franklin, Bernard Forscher tx, Galileo Galilei, Walter Gilbert vd, Goethe bio/bk/bio, Nicolas Gonzalez tlk/rec/stetxt/txt, Patricia Goodson txt/bk/bk, Alec Gordon, James Hansen, Etienne de Harven bk/txt/vd, Alfred Hassig intw/txt, Robert G. Houston txt, Steven Jonas vd, Edward Jenner txt, Benjamin Jesty, Adrian Kent vd, Thomas Kuhn, Fred Kummerow, Stefan Lanka txt/txt/vd, Serge Lang, John Lauritsen vd, Paul Lauterbur vd, Mark Leggett, Richard Lindzen, James Lovelock, Andrew Maniotis, Lynn Margulis, Barbara McClintock, Christi Meyer vd, George Miklos, Marco Mamone Capria, Peter Medawar, Luc Montagnier txt/txt/vd, Kary Mullis, Linus Pauling prs/vd/vd, Eric Penrose, Roger Penrose vd, Max Planck, Rainer Plaga, David Rasnick bio/vd/bk, Robert Root-Bernstein vd, Sherwood Rowland, Otto Rossler, Harry Rubin, Marco Ruggiero txt/txt/intw/vd, Bertrand Russell Carl Sagan vd, Erwin Schrodinger, Fred Singer, Barbara Starfield txt, Gordon Stewart txt/txt, Richard Strohman, Thomas Szasz, Nicola Tesla bio/bio, Charles Thomas intw/vd, Frank Tipler, James Watson vd/vd, Alfred Wegener vd, Edward O. Wilson vd.


Jad Adams bk, Marci Angell bk/txt/txt/txt, Clark Baker ste/txt/rdo/vd, James Blodgett, Tony Brown vd, Hiram Caton txt/txt/txt/bk/ste, Jonathan Collin ste , Marcus Cohen, David Crowe vd, Margaret Cuomo, Stephen Davis BK/BK,/rdo, Michael Ellner vd, Elizabeth Ely txt/txt/ste, Epicurus, Dean Esmay, Celia Farber bio/txt/txt/txt/vd, Jonathan Fishbein txt/txt/wk, T.C.Fry, Michael Fumento, Max Gerson txt, Charles Geshekter vd, Michael Geiger, Roberto Giraldo, David Healy txt, Bob Herbert, Mike Hersee ste/rdo, Neville Hodgkinson txt /vd, James P. Hogan, Richard Horton bio/vd/vd, Christopher Hitchens, Eric Johnson, Claus Jensen vd, Phillip Johnson, Coleman Jones vds, William Donald Kelley, Ernst T. Krebs Sr txt, Ernst T. Krebs Jr. txt,/bio/txt/txt/ltr, Paul Krugman, Brett Leung MOV/ste/txt/txt/tx+vd/txt, Katie Leishman, Anthony Liversidge blg/intv/intv/txt/txts/txt/intv/txt/vd/vd, Bruce Livesey txt, James W. Loewen, Frank Lusardi, Nathaniel Lehrman vd, Christine Maggiore bk/ste/rec/rdo/vd, Rouben Mamoulian txt/txt/txt/txt/txt/doc/flm/flm, Noreen Martin vd, Robert Maver txt/itw, Eric Merola MOV, Lady Mary Wortley Montagu, Michael Moore bio/MOV/MOV/MOV, Gordon Moran, Ralph Nader bk, Ralph Moss txt/blg/ste/bks, Gary Null /txt/rdo/vd, Dan Olmsted wki, Toby Ord vd, Charles Ortleb bk/txt/bk/intw/flm, Neenyah Ostrom bk, Dennis Overbye, Mehmet Dr Oz vd, Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos ste/vd, Maria Papagiannidou bk, Thomas Piketty bk/bk/bk/bk/bk/bk/bk/bk/bk/bk, Robert Pollin txt/vd/bk, Jon Rappoport bio/bk/bk/ste/bk/bk/vd, Janine Roberts bk/bk, Luis Sancho vd, Liam Scheff ste/txt/bk/bk/rdio/vd, John Scythes, Casper Schmidt txt/txt, Joan Shenton vd/vd, Joseph Sonnabend vd, John Stauber, David Steele, Joseph Stiglitz bk/txt, Will Storr rdo Wolfgang Streeck, James P. Tankersley ste, Gary Taubes vd, Mwizenge S. Tembo, John Tierney vd, Michael Tracey, Valendar Turner rec, Jesse Ventura bk, Michael Verney-Elliott bio/vds/vd, Voltaire, Walter Wagner, Andrew Weil vd, David Weinberger bio/bk/blg/blg/BK/bk/pds, Robert Willner bk/txt/txt/vd, Howard Zinn.

I am Albert Einstein, and I heartily approve of this blog, insofar as it seems to believe both in science and the importance of intellectual imagination, uncompromised by out of date emotions such as the impulse toward conventional religious beliefs, national aggression as a part of patriotism, and so on.   As I once remarked, the further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge.   Certainly the application of the impulse toward blind faith in science whereby authority is treated as some kind of church is to be deplored.  As I have also said, the only thing that ever interfered with my learning was my education. I am Freeman Dyson, and I approve of this blog, but would warn the author that life as a heretic is a hard one, since the ignorant and the half informed, let alone those who should know better, will automatically trash their betters who try to enlighten them with independent thinking, as I have found to my sorrow in commenting on "global warming" and its cures.
Many people would die rather than think – in fact, they do so. – Bertrand Russell.

The progress of science is strewn, like an ancient desert trail, with the bleached skeletons of discarded theories which once seemed to possess eternal life. - Arthur Koestler

One should as a rule respect public opinion in so far as is necessary to avoid starvation and to keep out of prison. – Bertrand Russell

Fraud and falsehood only dread examination. Truth invites it. - Samuel Johnson

A sudden bold and unexpected question doth many times surprise a man and lay him open. – Sir Francis Bacon (1561 – 1626)

He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that. – John Stuart Mill

Whenever you find that you are on the side of the majority, it is time to reform. – Mark Twain

Although science has led to the generally high living standards that most of the industrialized world enjoys today, the astounding discoveries underpinning them were made by a tiny number of courageous, out-of-step, visionary, determined, and passionate scientists working to their own agenda and radically challenging the status quo. – Donald W. Braben

An old error is always more popular than a new truth. — German Proverb

I am Richard Feynman and I approve of this blog

When even the brightest mind in our world has been trained up from childhood in a superstition of any kind, it will never be possible for that mind, in its maturity, to examine sincerely, dispassionately, and conscientiously any evidence or any circumstance which shall seem to cast a doubt upon the validity of that superstition. I doubt if I could do it myself. – Mark Twain

It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his income depends on his not understanding it. – Upton Sinclair

A clash of doctrines is not a disaster, but an opportunity. - Alfred North Whitehead

Fraud and falsehood only dread examination. Truth invites it. – Samuel Johnson

Man’s mind cannot grasp the causes of events in their completeness, but the desire to find those causes is implanted in man’s soul. And without considering the multiplicity and complexity of the conditions any one of which taken separately may seem to be the cause, he snatches at the first approximation to a cause that seems to him intelligible and says: “This is the cause!” – Leo Tolstoy

The evolution of the world tends to show the absolute importance of the category of the individual apart from the crowd. - Soren Kierkegaard

Who does not know the truth is simply a fool, yet who knows the truth and calls it a lie is a criminal. – Bertold Brecht

How easily the learned give up the evidence of their senses to preserve the coherence of ideas in their imagination. – Adam Smith

Education consists mainly in what we have unlearned. – Mark Twain

The mind likes a strange idea as little as the body likes a strange protein and resists it with similar energy. If we watch ourselves honestly, we shall often find that we have begun to argue against a new idea even before it has been completely stated. – Arthur Koestler

Whenever the human race assembles to a number exceeding four, it cannot stand free speech. – Mark Twain

People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. - Adam Smith

There isn’t anything so grotesque or so incredible that the average human being can’t believe it. – Mark Twain

He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that. – John Stuart Mill

It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere. – Voltaire

People are generally better persuaded by the reasons which they have themselves discovered than by those which have come into the mind of others.- Blaise Pascal.

Illusion is the first of all pleasures. – Voltaire

The applause of a single human being is of great consequence. – Samuel Johnson

(Click for more Unusual Quotations on Science and Human Nature)

Important: This site is best viewed in LARGE FONT, and in Firefox for image title visibility (place cursor on pics to reveal comments) and layout display. Click the title of any post to get only that post and its Comments for printing. All posts guaranteed fact checked according to reference level cited, typically the original journal studies. Full guide to site purpose, layout and how to print posts out is in the lower blue section at the bottom of the home page.
---Admin AL/E/ILMK---

Resources: key reference CD to the literature of HIV?AIDS

A CD makes it easy to access the many scientific papers in AIDS which show the official story is invalid

A fundamental problem in the HIV?AIDS discussion is the fact that virtually no one reads the scientific literature properly except the few scientists and their supporters who object to the paradigm.

This will tell you something in itself, of course, if you are wondering whose view is correct.

One thing in the ongoing dispute is certain, as we never tire of repeating. It is the scientific literature in leading journals, thoroughly peer reviewed by scientists of equal stature and expertise before publication, that is the key credible, authoritative source which tells outsiders whether or not HIV is a valid candidate for causing immune dysfunction. At the present stage of the discussion, this literature concludes that it is not.

To repeat, the top, mostly severely peer-reviewed review literature in AIDS says and has said consistently for 18 years that HIV is not the cause of AIDS, and that all logic and all evidence is against it, and if any evidence or paper purports to support the theory, it does not bear inspection.

We are referring of course to the extensive and evidently unanswerable series of papers against the HIV=AIDS hypothesis by Peter Duesberg and others in the pages of such journals as Cancer Research, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Science, Nature, Lancet, Journal of AIDS, AIDS Forschung, Biomedicine and Pharmacotherapeutics, New England Journal of Medicine, Research in Immunology and Journal of Biosciences.

The people who argue most vociferously with this, the scientific literature’s HIV review and so far unrefuted conclusion that HIV is NOT the cause of immune dysfunction either do not read the review literature properly, or if they do read it they tend to notice only what they believe supports their own beliefs. In other words, they skim it with prejudice.

Of course that statement itself is merely an assertion, without credibility unless it is referenced. And to be honest we don’t have any reference for it. The study on how well people read any of the HIV critique remains to be done. We would bet that the result of such a study would be pretty dismal.

In our experience, it is a consistent characteristic of the scientists who run HIV?AIDS meetings, and who give talks and write papers along orthodox lines, and the editors of science journals who support them, that they generally have a great natural distaste for reading literature that disagrees with their basic assumption. Their claims to have read any of it usually prove hollow if challenged.

We do, however, have an anecdote. A couple of years ago we attended a conference at Rockefeller University held by the premier scientific society for immunology research. There we met the president of the society and asked him what he thought of Peter Duesberg, and the review literature Duesberg had published rejecting the theory of HIV causing AIDS.

This gentleman, a rather dapper little fellow in a well tailored Savile Row suit, seemed to find even the mention of Duesberg’s work laughable in the context of the meeting of his distinguished fellow immunologists, However, we detected that he did not claim to have read much of the review material himself, if any at all, and that his opinion was founded on the quicksand of hearsay, which he however seemed to view as solid enough on which to base his opinion, since it was after all his familiar colleagues who had transmitted it to him.

Therefore we were rather surprised to get an email from him after the conference asking us if we still thought there was something to Duesberg’s papers. We sent an email explaining that we did, and why, and attached a copy of Duesberg’s 2003 Journal of Bioscioences devastating megacritique of HIV?AIDS, which scotches every single aspect of the paradigm and every single Ptolemaic counter argument made to what is now a two decade long review.

Strangely enough, we got only one brief reply from our smartly tailored correspondent, saying that the paper had merely confirmed his conivtion that HIV caused AIDS and that he was in a rush to get to the airport and would reply at length later. He never did.

We found that reaction to Duesberg’s paper interesting because of what it revealed in his response. This was a fairly intelligent fellow who had evidently not given the paper any serious attention, otherwise he would have been forced to admit that it at the very least provided food for thought. The paper, as anyone can see who goes to Duesberg, P., Koehnlein, C. and Rasnick, D. (2003) The Chemical Bases of the Various AIDS Epidemics: Recreational Drugs, Anti-viral Chemotherapy and Malnutrition.

(J. Biosci. 28: 383-412) and reads it for him or herself, is simply not something that can be dismissed lightly, let alone be interpreted in any way as reinforcing belief in the paradigm. even if one reads it standing on one’s head.

The only way one can read it that way is not logical but psychological, of course. Just as the man in the Aesop fable pulls his coat ever more tightly around him when the wind blows as hard as it can to make him take it off, so the Duesberg critique acts like a chill wind to make any mainstream HIV/AIDS priest wrap the protective cloak of the paradigm around himself more tightly than ever.

It is therefore with optimism and pleasure but a certain disheartened cynicism that we pass along the signal news that Harvey Bialy, the expert scientific commentator on matters biological, ex-scientific founder of Nature Biotechnology and the author of the only scientifically fully informed biography of Duesberg and his work so far (Oncogenes, Aneuploidy and AIDS: The Scientific Life and Times of Peter Duesberg (North Atlantic Press 2004) has made available a remarkable CD.

The CD (or its downloadable version) consist of a watershed article written by Duesberg, As Bialy writes

In 1992, Duesberg published an extensive and updated review in Pharmacology & Therapeutics (55: 201-277) ( of the state of HIV/AIDS research. The article is typical of Duesberg’s reasoning and contains the usual number of abundant citations.

Between 1994 and 1996, thanks to the generous financial support of Seth Ian Goldberg, MD, I was able to compile a CD that contains the complete text of this monograph, with hyperlinks to approximately 85% of the hundreds of references and all the references listed in the footnotes—and their live urls.

This is normally an impossibly weary slog, undertaken by no one at all ever, we suspect, with the possible exception of the peer reviewers who passed on the paper. Reading these references is absolutely essential, however, if anyone is to assess the validity of Duesberg’s case, since they are the bedrock foundation upon which it is built.

Now, however, by obtaining this CD anyone even halfway literate in science can quickly click to the original sources and see for him/herself exactly why Serge Lang and numerous other independent minded scientists and intellectually alert individuals credit what Duesberg writes despite the combined political weight of the monumental scientific church of HIV?AIDS, possibly the greatest post-Soviet force for repression of thought after the Vatican and Beijing.

To be frank we don’t think that any of them will find anything that contradicts Duesberg, who with his entire reputation on the line is without doubt the best read scientist in the field on the topic of whether HIV causes AIDS.

As Bialy writes, the purpose of the CD is to answer the empty calumny occasionally voiced by the mainstream defenders of the status quo in AIDS science, those that defend the claim that HIV causes AIDS despite the endless evisceration of the paradigm by Duesberg and other distinguished reviewers, that Duesberg et al are cheating by misquoting the scientific literature.

In other words, the long list of references to the papers of the mainstream scientific literature on HIV?AIDS, which Duesberg and his fellow critics are careful to use as the sources for the various details of the paradigm they condemn, which they attach to every review paper they write to back up their own assertions and demolition of the conventional wisdom, are somehow misinterpreted.

Of course, this is a very effective counter in most circumstances since, just like our friend the British president of the immunology society, virtually no one can muster the appetitite to comb through hundreds of papers on AIDS, let alone read them carefully. So as far as anyone listening to the debate is concerned, Duesberg et al are stymied, their arguments cast into sufficient doubt that no one need attend to them. Thank God.

This gamesmanship is typical of the tricky way in which Duesberg is dismissed in HIV?AIDS on every level, scientific and political, It is particularly revolting to anyone who loves good science, since the scientific literature is really the only way of knowing whether a claim is correctly and securely founded or not. Peer review of scientific claims is the gold standard of science, and deserves to be if it is done by honest and capable scientists who do a good job of assessing a paper without fear or favor.

Unfortunately is not always the case, of course. Scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours is all too often the underlying impulse in peer reviewing, judging from the unsettling number of poorly designed studies and experiments and speciously argued papers that almost any good scientist can point to, papers which have survived peer review by colleagues friendly to their premises or their authors or both. As we have mentioned before Nobel prize winner Walter Gilbert told us once that he never embarked on any line of experimentation based on a published experiment by someone else without redoing it himself, since all too often it just didn’t stand up.

Duesberg’s major achievement in review is not just a still unrefuted demolition of the arguments and evidence for HIV as the cause of AIDS (his major peer-reviewed review papers are effectively unanswered by any peer-reviewed response in any of the leading journals in which he has published them) but also a remarkable exposure of the fact that so many of the papers supporting it do not stand up to unfriendly analysis. The studies which purport to establish that HIV possibly causes AIDS symptoms (none of them claim the stature of proof) are riddled with errors in design and logic.

Some might feel that this kind of problem with the literature in health and medicine, especially in epidemiology, is fairly evident even to the general newspaper reading public who can see how often this week’s study is contradicted by one a year later. But this is not proof of bad science since such inconclusiveness can stem from the nature of medical research on human beings, whose biological system, diet, environment and activity involve thousands of variables and make it impossible to control for just one. Large studies over long periods are needed to tease out firm conclusions and they are expensive and difficult to arrange.

Nor are we referring to actual fraud which occasionally makes its appearance in the annals of science and is generally deplored by all. The problem we are referring to is that of studies which are poorly designed, or which are prematurely concluded, or where the logic and the science are faulty, which is apparently a problem endemic in AIDS. We say this because we have in years past been in touch with Duesberg on the topic of one study or another in journals as respected as Science and Nature, where he is supposedly proved misguided in his objections to HIV=AIDS, only to find that he can clearly show us that the study itself is egregiously misleading because of inherent problems with its design.

Nevertheless, where necessary all such criticism other people’s papers is mentioned in his HIV?AIDS review papers, and it is not the basis of his fundamental disagreement with HIV?AIDS. Duesberg’s critique and rejection of HIV as the cause of AIDS is based on the same literature as the proponents of the still unproven theory claim supports it.

Duesberg does not reject the literature of AIDS so much as accept it and prove that it fails to support the theory.

Any decent scientist or other researcher who reads his arguments will want to see for him or herself what the original papers he references actually do say, since they are the foundation of his critique, and he claims support his arguments and not the hypothesis that HIV causes AIDS.

But there has always been the barrier of the trouble it takes to get to the hundreds of papers involved. The first Proceedings paper has over 200, for example.

This is what the CD prepared and made available by Harvey Bialy solves. Here is the letter from this author:


Tools for Finding the Truth about HIV and AIDS

Of all the accusations that have been leveled against my friend, Peter Duesberg, over the many years he has been challenging conventional wisdom in cancer genetics and ‘deadly’- disease etiology, the one that is most frequently heard in scientific circles, and one that is impossible to counter except by extended debate, either at a scientific forum or in the journals (something that for some reason has never occurred) is that “Peter abuses the literature”. Either he cites so many papers that no one can read them all, or, and much worse, he misquotes and draws inferences that are not appropriate from the data in the papers he cites. The latter, as I said, has been a damning accusation, impossible to refute – until now.

In 1992, Duesberg published an extensive and updated review in Pharmacology & Therapeutics (55: 201-277) ( of the state of HIV/AIDS research. The article is typical of Duesberg’s reasoning and contains the usual number of abundant citations.

Between 1994 and 1996, thanks to the generous financial support of Seth Ian Goldberg, MD, I was able to compile a CD that contains the complete text of this monograph, with hyperlinks to approximately 85% of the hundreds of references.

I would now like to make it widely available to all serious scientists as the ultimate tool for deciding, for themselves, the questions of what the literature actually says, and what proper inferences may be drawn from the data in the scientific papers.

Also available here is the NIH/NIAID Official website (http://bialystocker.netwp-content/uploads/science_guardian/NIHONAID.PDF) from 1995 that represents the orthodox, scientific community’s position on HIV/AIDS that is contemporaneous with the Duesberg monograph on the CD.

Whether the HIV/AIDS hypothesis rests on ever-changing quicksand or solid scientific bases is another contentious issue that has been bandied back and forth but never resolved. I think that a careful comparison between this document and the one currently available is useful in the resolution of this conundrum as well.

Harvey Bialy

The CD is being offered under the auspices of The Virtual Library of Biotechnology for the Americas ( To obtain a copy click here. (

Click here (http://bialystocker.netwp-content/uploads/science_guardian/Sample.pdf) for a sample.

Of course, anyone with access to university research systems knows that a number of the data bases available – Sciencedirect and Scopus for instance – will provide live links to many or all of the references in this and other scientific papers. But typically the reference link proves to be an abstract. This invaluable resource has the full texts.

The CD or its online version will solve a major problem for those for those without such expensive access, letting them access the papers without being on line, or to find and read them rapidly on line (a url for this will go up shortly at the site for The Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV/AIDS Hypothesis, currently in beta) .

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Bad Behavior has blocked 1332 access attempts in the last 7 days.