Damned Heretics

Condemned by the established, but very often right

I am Nicolaus Copernicus, and I approve of this blog

I am Richard Feynman and I approve of this blog

Qualified outsiders and maverick insiders are often right about the need to replace received wisdom in science and society, as the history of the Nobel prize shows. This blog exists to back the best of them in their uphill assault on the massively entrenched edifice of resistance to and prejudice against reviewing, let alone revising, ruling ideas. In support of such qualified dissenters and courageous heretics we search for scientific paradigms and other established beliefs which may be maintained only by the power and politics of the status quo, comparing them with academic research and the published experimental and investigative record.

We especially defend and support the funding of honest, accomplished, independent minded and often heroic scientists, inventors and other original thinkers and their right to free speech and publication against the censorship, mudslinging, false arguments, ad hominem propaganda, overwhelming crowd prejudice and internal science politics of the paradigm wars of cancer, AIDS, evolution, global warming, cosmology, particle physics, macroeconomics, health and medicine, diet and nutrition.


Henry Bauer, Peter Breggin , Harvey Bialy, Giordano Bruno, Erwin Chargaff, Nicolaus Copernicus, Francis Crick, Paul Crutzen, Marie Curie, Rebecca Culshaw, Freeman Dyson, Peter Duesberg, Albert Einstein, Richard Feynman, John Fewster, Galileo Galilei, Alec Gordon, James Hansen, Edward Jenner, Benjamin Jesty, Michio Kaku, Adrian Kent, Ernst Krebs, Thomas Kuhn, Serge Lang, John Lauritsen, Mark Leggett, Richard Lindzen, Lynn Margulis, Barbara McClintock, George Miklos, Marco Mamone Capria, Peter Medawar, Kary Mullis, Linus Pauling, Eric Penrose, Max Planck, Rainer Plaga, David Rasnick, Sherwood Rowland, Carl Sagan, Otto Rossler, Fred Singer, Thomas Szasz, Alfred Wegener, Edward O. Wilson, James Watson.

Many people would die rather than think – in fact, they do so. – Bertrand Russell.

Skepticism is dangerous. That’s exactly its function, in my view. It is the business of skepticism to be dangerous. And that’s why there is a great reluctance to teach it in schools. That’s why you don’t find a general fluency in skepticism in the media. On the other hand, how will we negotiate a very perilous future if we don’t have the elementary intellectual tools to ask searching questions of those nominally in charge, especially in a democracy? – Carl Sagan (The Burden of Skepticism, keynote address to CSICOP Annual Conference, Pasadena, April 3/4, 1982).

It is really important to underscore that everything we’re talking about tonight could be utter nonsense. – Brian Greene (NYU panel on Hidden Dimensions June 5 2010, World Science Festival)

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 ever interfered with my learning was my education. My name as you already perceive without a doubt is George Bernard Shaw, and I certainly approve of this blog, in that its guiding spirit appears to be blasphemous in regard to the High Church doctrines of science, and it flouts the censorship of the powers that be, and as I have famously remarked, all great truths begin as blasphemy, and the first duty of the truthteller is to fight censorship, and while I notice that its seriousness of purpose is often alleviated by a satirical irony which sometimes borders on the facetious, this is all to the good, for as I have also famously remarked, if you wish to be a dissenter, make certain that you frame your ideas in jest, otherwise they will seek to kill you.  My own method was always to take the utmost trouble to find the right thing to say, and then to say it with the utmost levity. (Photo by Alfred Eisenstaedt for Life magazine) One should as a rule respect public opinion in so far as is necessary to avoid starvation and to keep out of prison, but anything that goes beyond this is voluntary submission to an unnecessary tyranny, and is likely to interfere with happiness in all kinds of ways. – Bertrand Russell, Conquest of Happiness (1930) ch. 9

(Click for more Unusual Quotations on Science and Belief)

Expanded GUIDE TO SITE PURPOSE AND LAYOUT is in the lower blue section at the bottom of every home page.

Duesberg invited to the NIH—high alert for the AIDS gang

A couple of weeks ago a remarkable event in science took place, which may well bode the beginning of the end for those who maintain AIDS science in a state of exemption from any reexamination from within science or without.

Peter Duesberg was invited to speak at the NIH on his new work on cancer, which promises to replace what many scientists view as an entirely sterile dead end after twenty five years of lavish spending on the theory of oncogenes.

Political manoevring to head off the threat that Duesberg’s star may be rising into the heavens again can be expected by those with a stake in both current cancer theory and in current AIDS theory.

For the speaking invitation marks a breakthrough in re-acceptance for Duesberg, a scientist who not only trashed the whole reasoning and evidence behind the HIV-AIDS theory as early as 1987, but who had earlier renounced the theory of oncogenes, ie individual genes for individual cancers, a field of study he had himself inadvertently turned into a fasionable pork barrel for scientists by making the first discovery of an actual oncogene himself.

On his way to a Nobel for that discovery as the field burgeoned into one of the best funded fields of research in the eighties and nineties, Duesberg showed his mettle, his public spirit and his integrity by deciding that his discovery was to some extent a lab artefact and the theory that the individual mutation of particular genes found in every cell in the body was responsible for particular cancers —breast, prostate etc —in particular parts of the body didn’t make any sense, and saying so publicly, to the dismay, chagrin, alarm and enmity of the passengers in the bandwagon already rolling past any possibility of recall, just like HIV and AIDS.

Result: No oncogene Nobel, which went to others with feebler brains, spirits and achievements. Now, having identified and demonstrated a far more promising route to explaining and curing cancer in aneuploidy (the huge multiplication of chromosomes—up to double the normal number—in all precancerous cells) , Duesberg is suddenly in his sixties the golden boy all over again, finally being invited inside the thick walls of the scientific research castle of the NIH from whose creaking doors he was expelled many years ago and from whose parapets he has had manure catapulted at him ever since, though mostly from the tower labeled AIDS.

This sudden restoration to a high place in science with a theory widely admired by the heavies in all major institutions from the Karolinska to the NIH, some of whom are already trying to steal the credit and erase Duesberg’s watershed contribution in leading down this avenue of research, opens up a possibility that has the AIDS -HIV gang (if such a deprecating word can be fairly used about scientists occupying leading roles in the field equivalent to beribboned generals of the war against HIV) quaking in its military boots.

For a scientist of Duesberg’s calibre restored to his deserved stature as a pioneer whose own science has never been questioned, and who may now have started a whole field for the third time in his rollercoaster career, is likely to be a man not so easily dismissed as before as a “maverick”. Like a Nobel prize winner—which it is not impossible that Duesberg may yet be if his research provides the kind of breakthrough against cancer it promises—his view will be taken very seriously again, and that may mean that HIV=AIDS leaders may not be able to evade as easily as before a serious attempt by outsiders to resolve the twenty year failure of their science to provide a meaningful preventive or cure or even convincing scientific explanation let alone proof of their claim that HIV is causing any problem of any kind at all to human beings anywhere, except as a result of their ill concieved notions.

One Response to “Duesberg invited to the NIH—high alert for the AIDS gang”

  1. Robert Houston Says:

    It is gratifying to learn that Prof. Peter Duesberg was invited back into the NIH “castle”. Nearly 20 years earlier, he was invited to be the featured speaker at an NIH lab session hosted by Dr. Robert Gallo. It was at this 1986 meeting that Duesberg first openly criticised the HIV/AIDS theory, according to his book (p. 196). His formal critique was written in 1986 and published in the March 1, 1987 issue of Cancer Research (not in 1988). As you know, Truthseeker, Dr. Duesberg elucidated the genetic structure of several retroviruses and isolated the first oncogene. That research was valid and important. It is incorrect to state that “his discovery was a lab artefact,” as this suggests a spurious product of an improper procedure. In fact, his experimental work was well-known to be exquisitely meticulous and reliable. As a leader in the field, however, Duesberg had the profound integrity to question the relevence of retroviruses and viral oncogenes to the etiology of human cancer. He has opened a promising avenue of inquiry with his investigations of aneuploidy, the abnormal number of chromosomes (not a “huge multiplication”) which occurs frequently in cancerous and precancerous cell cultures (not “in all precancerous cells”). Dr. Harvey Bialy, the founding scientific editor of Nature Biotechnology, has noted in his extraordinary new book (Oncogenes, Aneuploidy, and AIDS – p. 62) that Duesberg worked with viruses “so impeccably that not a single experimental flaw was present in 120 peer reviewed scientific papers he authored” about them. Prof. Richard Strohman of Berkeley has written of Duesberg: “his brilliance as an experimental virologist was acknowledged around the world and his prizes for leadership work are many.” Two more prizes are long overdue for Duesberg: the Nobel Prize for his cancer research and the Nobel Prize for Peace in the global war on AIDS. –Robert Houston

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Bad Behavior has blocked 292 access attempts in the last 7 days.