"AIDS experts", alternative hypotheses, anonymity, Claus Koehnlein, conflicts of interest, David Rasnick, Dr. Peter H. Duesberg, overheads and partnerships, the "peer review system", The chemical bases of AIDS epidemics
I’ll begin (and end) this post by quoting in full the epilogue to a study by Peter Duesberg, Claus Koehnlein and David Rasnick, and titled, “The chemical bases of the various AIDS epidemics: recreational drugs, anti-viral chemotherapy and malnutrition:”
5.1 Why is AIDS research not free to investigate non-HIV hypotheses?
The probable answer to the question, why HIV-AIDS researchers do not study or fund non-HIV-AIDS theories, lays in the structure of the large, government-sponsored research programs that dominate academic research since World War II (Duesberg 1996b). Such programs favour individual investigators who contribute to the establishment a maximum of data and a minimum of controversy. However, if individual researchers move into new directions, that threaten the scientific and commercial investments of the establishment, the establishment can impose various sanctions via the “peer review system”. [Norm’s emphasis] The most powerful of these are denial of funding and of publication.
The peer review system derives its power from the little known practice of governments to deputize their authority to distribute funds for research to committees of “experts”. These experts are academic researchers distinguished by outstanding contributions to the current establishment. They alone review the merits of research applications from their peers, and they have the right to elect each other to review committees. Outwardly, this “peer review system” appears to the unsuspecting government and taxpayer as the equivalent of a jury system – free of all conflicts of interest. But, in view of the many professional and commercial investments in and benefits from their expertise, and even of the rewards from their universities and institutions for the corresponding overheads and partnerships – all legal in the US since president Reagan – ”peer reviewers” do not fund applications that challenge their own interests [Norm’s emphasis] (Duesberg 1996b; Lang 1998; Zuger 2001). Since “peer review” is protected by anonymity, does not allow the applicant personal representation or an independent representative, nor a say or even a veto in the selection of the “jury”, and does not allow an appeal, its powers to defend the orthodoxy are unlimited. [Norm’s emphasis] The corporate equivalent of academia’s [“]peer review system” would be to give General Motors and Ford the authority to review and veto all innovations by less established carmakers competing for the consumer.
Even the professional journals and the science writers of the public media comply with the interests of government-funded majorities because they depend on their monthly “scientific breakthroughs”, the lucrative advertisements from their companies, and the opinion of their subscribers. For example, an early precursor of this article was written in response to an open invitation from a pharmacology-journal over 3 years ago. But, after considerable pressure on the journal from anonymous “AIDS experts”, the editor requested a reduced article, which was neither accepted nor rejected. Instead, the editor simply dropped all further correspondence. Subsequently, the editor of a prestigious German-based science journal invited another precursor of this article 2 years ago, which received two favourable reviews in short order. But before the manuscript could be revised, the editor informed us that the publisher was concerned about losing subscribers if our paper were published and ceased all further correspondence. It is this passive resistance that can grind down even the most determined truth seeker.
However, the mere potential to resolve the agony of AIDS by alternative hypotheses, such as ours, should be sufficient reason to replace the medieval “peer review system” by a modern jury system without conflicts of interest and with rights for representation and appeals of the applicant. If the current, unproductive AIDS establishment objects, because AIDS-science is too complex to be understood by non-HIV-AIDS scientists, funding should be withheld until the AIDS establishment finds ways to explain the complexity and merits of its expertise to other scientists.
On the off chance that I have now piqued your curiosity and you would like to find out more, you can go and read “Duesberg et al.” for yourself and make up your mind about what you will find.
For even more information on what has been purposely buried on this particular topic, you can find Dr. Peter H. Duesberg’s website here: Duesberg on Aids
Peter H. Duesberg, Ph.D. is a professor of Molecular and Cell Biology at the University of California, Berkeley. Biographical Sketch