Thursday, March 19, 2009

Peter's Principles

Below you can find the PDF version of the Discover article titled "Peter's Principles", by Jeanne Lenzer.

But before that, this here was the little info box on that article in the DISCOVER issue:

Von Consciousness in Development

Text Form:

JEANNE LENZER ("Peter's Principles", page 44) is an investigative medical journalist based in Kingston, New York. recently she met with biochemist Peter Duesberg to profile him for DISCOVER. Duesberg received attention in the scientific community in the late 1980s after he advanced a controversial theory that HIV doesn't cause AIDS. Throughout history, rebel thinkers have been essential to the advancement of science by putting conventional wisdom to test. Lenzer therefore was stunned when, during her research, several respected scientists who were willing to consider Duesberg's theories told her they preferred to remain anonymous rather than risk being ostracized by their peers. "A few highly placed physicians didn't want their names used even though they thought Duesberg could possibly be right in part, if not in whole, about HIV," Lenzer says. "Some were skeptical but felt that at a minimum his ideas should be tested rather than rejected out of hand." Lenzer is a frequent contributor to the British Medical Journal. Her work has appeared in The Scientist and Slate she recently completed a Knight Science Journalism Fellowship at MIT.

Peter's Principles (2008) Discover, Jeanne Lenzer
Here are some more comments on the article: - The Real Duesberg Discovered


jtdeshong said...

I just read the entire article of Peter's Principles. I was disapointed because it was just a profile piece on him and a very small bit about his history and WHY he believes as he does.
Please, google, "The Duesberg Phenomenon" which was published in SCIENCE in 1994 by Jon Cohen. (It is the piece that Bauer "moderated" out of his blog because it proved him wrong).
The SCIENCE article was researched over 3 months and presented Deusberg with every piece of evidence he requested. When Cohen presented the info, Duesberg changed the goal posts, as he always does.
If you read that article and still side with the "Re-Thinkers"..well, just read it.

sadunkal said...

Here's a link to Cohen's work:
The Duesberg Phenomenon

I actually read Cohen's stuff I think. At least some of it. I think the part about Koch's Postulates is the most important one actually, as it's related to the Perth Group. But sadly unsurprisingly it is also the shortest part of it all. I think that says a lot.

I'm not much of a Duesberg fan myself, as you should know by now. But I think that "Peter's Principles" was much more objective than anything else in the media so far. It examines him as a human being instead of some plastic object to be spit at. I posted this here because I wanted to give a link to it for youtube viewers, I linked this post to this youtube video: The Great AIDS Debate (1994) - Excerpts Part 4 Otherwise I don't really enjoy promoting Duesberg's views, I think his popularity has done a fair amount of damage to the HIV/AIDS skepticism.

Anyway, I don't think that Duesberg is a perfect scientist, obviously. But the way he was treated, isolated, excommunicated, attacked etc. is not a part of science. Plus I consider him as a much better scientist than most "AIDS experts" despite his flaws actually.

What are your thoughts about the part where "several respected scientists who were willing to consider Duesberg's theories told [Lenzer] they preferred to remain anonymous rather than risk being ostracized by their peers"... ? The part where Lenzer says "A few highly placed physicians didn't want their names used even though they thought Duesberg could possibly be right in part, if not in whole, about HIV"...?

Doesn't that disturb you at all? Do you think that's normal, fair, acceptable, ethical, scientific, objective etc.?

jtdeshong said...

OK, Sadun, NOW I know and am convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, that you do not know what you are talking about. Above you say the part of Jon Cohen's SCIENCE article in which he verifies HIV fulfilling Koch's Postulate "is the shortest part, and I think that says alot..." GEEZ, man. You are snowed. It says all it needs to say. Do you not understand? Three different HIV workers got the SAME strain of HIV from working with the virus. All three at different times. All three with the same strain...verified by PCR, and all three were not in ANY population that is prone to the disease, i.e. not Gay, not drug users, not Africans!!
God, Duesbarg would be proud of your progressive ignorance. I, however, am deeply ashamed and afraid for you. If you would actually take the time to read information such I have directed you to, and stopped reading the stupid, inane bullshit from The Perth Group, you might open up your brain that has been clogged by misinformation and propaganda.
Seriously, Sadunkal, the people you have put the most belief in, are the very ones with the least understanding and the BIGGEST AGENDA!!

sadunkal said...

DeShong, you sound unscientifically certain and arrogant about all this. The claims you refer to is answered here:

A rebuttal to the NIAID/NIH document
“The Evidence That HIV Causes AIDS”

"Of the three people who supposedly got AIDS from 'purified' or 'concentrated' virus, only one has been discussed in any credible detail in the scientific journals..."

...and continues.

Those who claim that this incident can be considered absolute proof for the HIV/AIDS theory lack scientific rigor. And that so many "AIDS experts" make this claim does show how sloppy "AIDS science" is.

jtdeshong said...

Yep, I guess to you I am arrogant. To someone who does not know science, as you have aptly demonstrated time and time again, I can see how you would think so. Also, what I have noticed about you time and time again, just as you have done with the "rebuttal" you posted above, is that you always find these little rebuttals from Re-Thinkers sites!!! I challenge you to find contradictory information from any source that is not "Re-Thinker" oriented. Seriously. If I seem arrogant to you, you seem like an extremely naive young person who is way over their head. And that is not from an arrogant stand point. I have 4 years of University study, 2 years of graduate study and over 20 years of actual experience! It takes alot more than just an armchair interest in science. So, do yourself a favor and try reading AWAY from these sources that are biased.

jtdeshong said...

Aslo, I will speak directly to your question about the scientists who would consider Duesberg's theory but did not want to go public for fear of being ostracized. I have noticed that you seem much more interested in the way people act, are treated, are perceieved. Which is great. You should persue that aspect of your personality.
What I think about that statement is as The Duesberg Phenomenon also explained, is that some scientists have an open mind and believe in Duesberg's right to dissent. However, by their reluctance to be really open about HIS beliefs, shows that they at least lean toward the real science and do not want to be associated with such potentially wrong thinking that flies directly in the face of hard facts and evidence...just as The Duesberg Phenomenon presented. 5 different areas in which Duesberg said HIV information was lacking and Cohen PROVED it was not. What did Duesberg do? He changed his wording. He changed what he said he MEANT. He moved the goal posts. I am convinced that Duesberg knows he is wrong by now, but is just too arrogant to admit it!! Think about it. He is probably also jealous of Gallo and is not man enough to admit his errors.

sadunkal said...

I accidentally disabled email notifications for my comments apparently, fixed now.

Regarding your comments... I don't even feel the need to respond in detail actually. I think you're in denial to put it simply. :)

Post a Comment