SPECIAL NEWS REPORT

1 66
2
3
4
The Duesberg Phenomenon 65
64
63
5 62
6 A Berkeley virologist and his supporters continue to argue that HIV is not the cause of AIDS. 61
7 A 3-month investigation by Science evaluates their claims 60
8 59
9 58
10 57
11 On 28 October, Robert Willner held a press tion known as the AIDS epidemic.” berg phenomenon has not gone away and 56
12 conference at a North Carolina hotel, during Although mainstream AIDS researchers may be growing, Science decided this was a good 55
13 which he jabbed his finger with a bloody dismiss Duesberg’s ideas as unsupportable, time to examine Duesberg’s main claims. In a 54
14 needle he had just stuck into a man who said his challenge to the conventional wisdom is 3-month investigation, Science interviewed 53
15 he was infected with HIV. Willner is a phy- still winning converts. The “Group for the more than 50 supporters and detractors, ex- 52
16 sician who recently had his medical license Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV/AIDS Hy- amined the AIDS literature, including Dues- 51
17 revoked in Florida for, among other infrac- pothesis,” a loose-knit coalition of which berg’s publications, and carried out corre- 50
18 tions, claiming to have cured an AIDS pa- Duesberg is a member, has organized an in- spondence and discussion with Duesberg. 49
19 tient with ozone infusions. He is also the ternational symposium to be held in Buenos This investigation reveals that although 48
20 author of a new book, Deadly Deception: The Aires in April. The London Sunday Times the Berkeley virologist raises provocative 47
21 Proof that SEX and HIV Absolutely DO NOT picked up Duesberg’s cause and has run a questions, few researchers find his basic con- 46
22 CAUSE AIDS. He insists that jabbing him- series of articles questioning HIV’s link to tention that HIV is not the cause of AIDS 45
23 self with the bloody needle, which he de- AIDS and calling the African AIDS epi- persuasive. Mainstream AIDS researchers 44
24 scribes as “an act of intelligence,” was not demic “a myth.” argue that Duesberg’s arguments are con- 43
25 meant to sell books. “I’m interested in prov- Kary Mullis, winner of the 1993 Nobel structed by selective reading of the scientific 42
26 ing to people that there isn’t one shred of Prize in chemistry for discovering the poly- literature, dismissing evidence that contra- 41
27 scientific evidence that HIV causes any dis- merase chain reaction, has joined in, saying dicts his theses, requiring impossibly defini- 40
28 ease,” Willner says. he has seen “no scientific evidence” proving tive proof, and dismissing outright studies 39
29 that HIV causes AIDS. In June, the Pacific marked by inconsequential weaknesses. 38
SCOTT HOFFMAN

30 Division of the American Association for The main conclusions of Science’s investi- 37
31 the Advancement of Science (publisher of gation are that: 36
32 Science) sponsored a daylong meeting at ■ In hemophiliacs (the group Duesberg 35
33 which the dissidents offered their points of acknowledges provides the best test case for 34
34 view. Duesberg was the guest editor of an the HIV hypothesis) there is abundant evi- 33
35 entire upcoming issue of the genetics journal dence that HIV causes disease and death (see 32
36 Genetica that will be devoted to alternative p. 1645). 31
37 AIDS hypotheses. A recent issue of Yale Sci- ■ According to some AIDS researchers, 30
38 entific, which is published by Yale under- HIV now fulfills the classic postulates of dis- 29
39 graduates in the sciences, carried a cover ease causation established by Robert Koch 28
40 story by mathematician Serge Lang titled (see p. 1647). 27
41 “HIV/AIDS: Have We Been Misled?” ■ The AIDS epidemic in Thailand, which 26
42 All this controversy confounds AIDS re- Duesberg has cited as confirmation of his 25
43 Making a point. Robert Willner (right) draws searchers who think HIV has been decisively theories, seems instead to confirm the role of 24
44 blood from a self-described HIV-positive man established as the cause of AIDS. Describing HIV (see p. 1647). 23
45 in preparation for Willner’s self-injection. HIV as harmless is “irresponsible, with terri- ■ AZT and illicit drugs, which Duesberg ar- 22
46 bly serious consequences,” says Warren gues can cause AIDS, don’t cause the im- 21
47 Willner’s unsettling self-injection is Winkelstein Jr., a Berkeley AIDS epidemi- mune deficiency characteristic of that dis- 20
48 among the more bizarre manifestations of a ologist who has known Duesberg for more ease (see p. 1648). 19
49 phenomenon that many in the AIDS re- than 20 years. Duesberg’s message, Winkel- 18
50 search and treatment community find in- stein and others say, undermines the value of From notable to notorious 17
51 creasingly troubling: a vocal group of skep- campaigns for the use of condoms and clean Although Duesberg’s is the first name that 16
52 tics who continue to grab headlines with needles. What is more, says Helene Gayle, comes to mind when HIV skeptics are men- 15
53 their contention that HIV, the retrovirus associate director of the Centers for Disease tioned, he was not the first to question the 14
54 identified as the cause of AIDS more than a Control and Prevention (CDC) office in HIV/AIDS connection, as he acknowledges: 13
55 decade ago, doesn’t cause the disease. Like Washington, D.C., that message is “very “I’m generously now credited by lots of 12
56 almost all “HIV dissenters,” Willner relies damaging” in the attempt to persuade other people for hypotheses which I’m embarrassed 11
57 heavily on the ideas of Peter Duesberg, a nations to stem the spread of AIDS, because to admit are not my own,” says Duesberg. But 10
58 retrovirologist at the University of Califor- “people already want to deny” the presence unlike his predecessors, “Duesberg carries 9
59 nia, Berkeley, who in 1987 published a paper of HIV and AIDS in their countries. visible credentials,” as Robert Gallo of the 8
60 arguing that HIV is harmless. Duesberg has Yet although the scientific community National Cancer Institute (NCI), whose lab 7
61 gone on to argue that, rather than HIV, fac- seems concerned about the effects of Dues- was the first to offer convincing evidence 6
62 tors such as illicit drug use and AZT, the berg’s message, with few exceptions—such as that HIV causes AIDS, puts it. Duesberg is a 5
63 anti-HIV compound, actually cause the dis- Nature editor John Maddox, who took on the respected virologist and cancer researcher 4
64 ease. Willner dedicates his book to Duesberg London Sunday Times for its AIDS cover- who in 1985 was awarded a prestigious Out- 3
65 for the California virologist’s “courageous age—the scientific community has largely standing Investigator Grant by the NCI. The 2
66 exposé of the unconscionable deadly decep- ignored Peter Duesberg. But because the Dues- next year, Duesberg’s colleagues made him a 1
1642 SCIENCE • VOL. 266 • 9 DECEMBER 1994

1 member of the elite National Academy of
2 Sciences (NAS).
3 In addition to being an established scien-
4 tist, Duesberg had another important feature
5 that distinguished him from earlier skeptics
6 of the HIV-AIDS link: scientific combat ex-
7 perience. Duesberg’s views about the “AIDS
8 establishment” are strikingly parallel to argu- Epstein, a sociologist of science at the Uni-
9 ments he first leveled at cancer researchers.
10 In the early 1970s, Duesberg was among
11 the first to demonstrate the exis-
SPECIAL NEWS REPORT
Most AIDS researchers thought Duesberg AIDS other than HIV offers an upbeat out- 66
was exploiting uncertainties about the pre- look. “To some extent, going back to the 65
cise mechanism of disease causation to dis- beginning and looking for another cause pro- 64
count a mountain of compelling epidem- vides a hope for finding a cure and a vac- 63
iologic, laboratory, and animal data support- cine,” says Curran. 62
ing the conclusion that HIV causes AIDS. Duesberg’s hero’s welcome in the gay 61
But the press was less skeptical. Steven community quickly wore out when he began 60
espousing the theory that AIDS was the re- 59
versity of California, San Diego (UCSD), sult of lifestyle choices—in particular, illicit 58
who has charted how Duesberg’s initial Can- drug use—implying that people with AIDS 57
were in some sense responsible for 56

ROBERT HOLMGREN
12 tence of cancer-causing oncogenes their disease. But although this 55
13 by showing that animal viruses of message didn’t play well in the 54
14 the type called retroviruses carry Castro, says UCSD’s Epstein, it did 53
15 genes that can transform normal among some political conserva- 52
16 cells in culture into cancerous tives, including Bryan Ellison, a 51
17 ones. Ironically, by 1983, Duesberg Berkeley graduate student who be- 50
18 had turned against the field he came Duesberg’s main collabora- 49
19 helped to found, publishing an tor; conservative journalist Tom 48
20 eight-page paper in Nature savag- Bethell; and Charles Thomas Jr., a 47
21 ing the idea that the related proto- former Harvard University bio- 46
22 oncogenes in normal human cells, chemistry professor who has ar- 45
23 once activated, behave like retro- gued that AIDS is a “behavioral” 44
24 viral oncogenes and cause cancer. rather than an “infectious” disease. 43
25 Science ran a similar nine-page Epstein cautions that “political 42
26 Duesberg critique 2 years later. configurations in the Duesberg 41
27 In 1987, Duesberg upped the controversy are more complex 40
28 ante in a 22-page article in Cancer than simple labels can suggest.” 39
29 Research. In it, Duesberg argued that Yet he also concludes that “the 38
30 the mainstream cancer research particular appeal of Duesberg’s 37
31 community was wrong about retro- views to conservatives—certainly 36
32 viruses (the group to which HIV including those with little sympa- 35
33 belongs). Some of those viruses, he thy for the gay movement—can- 34
34 wrote, which were being thought of not be denied.” 33
35 as “evil,” were, in fact, harmless A willingness to attribute AIDS 32
36 creatures that were incapable of His own slant on things. Virologist Peter Duesberg. to specific lifestyle choices wasn’t 31
37 causing cancer. At first, cancer re- the only reason Duesberg’s mes- 30
38 searchers tried to persuade Duesberg that he cer Research article wound its way through sage found receptive audiences outside the 29
39 was wrong. But soon they began to ignore the media, says “What seems to gives this scientific community. Another is that his at- 28
40 him. In doing so, they were motivated by two controversy a lot of its motive force and its tacks on AIDS researchers as greedy self-in- 27
41 factors. One was the large and growing body peculiar twists and turns is the way in which terested mythmakers clicked into a growing 26
42 of evidence that Duesberg was wrong: Muta- it’s enacted in very public arenas.” disenchantment with the medical establish- 25
43 tions in proto-oncogenes do contribute to Through the press, Duesberg found en- ment. Don Des Jarlais of New York’s Beth 24
44 some cancers. The second factor was frustra- thusiastic audience for his attack on an Israel Hospital, who works with users of in- 23
45 tion with Duesberg’s style, which was widely “AIDS establishment” that he depicted as jectable drugs, suggests Duesberg’s theses 22
46 perceived as inflexible in the face of data that pushing a false theory. In Epstein’s study, he meet many people’s “emotional needs” to 21
47 didn’t support his views. But because the is- describes how the San Francisco Sentinel, a make the establishment look bad. “You’re 20
48 sue was highly technical and the public gay newsweekly, reported that when Dues- not going to argue people out of those [needs] 19
49 health implications indirect, the debate re- berg attended an AIDS forum held in the based on footnotes,” says Des Jarlais. Harold 18
50 mained in the pages of technical journals. city’s largely gay Castro District in January Jaffe, head of the CDC’s Division of HIV/ 17
51 1988, he “received a hero’s welcome.” AIDS, also senses disenchantment with the 16
52 In the public arena It isn’t difficult to understand why people established order. “In the beginning, it may 15
53 That wasn’t what happened with AIDS. at high risk of AIDS might be sympathetic to have represented honest scientific argument,” 14
54 When Duesberg turned his attention to his revisionist views. Not only are there un- says Jaffe. “Now it has assumed some kind of 13
55 HIV, his objections quickly became a pub- certainties about the pathogenesis—the pre- cult status. It’s attractive to people who be- 12
56 lic cause. In the same 1987 Cancer Research cise way HIV causes disease and death—but lieve the establishment is always wrong. This 11
57 paper, he made his first strike against the also there isn’t yet a cure or a vaccine. As would be the biggest example of all.” 10
58 theory that HIV causes AIDS. His conclu- virologist Joseph Sodroski of the Dana- 9
59 sion: HIV was nothing more than a benign Farber Cancer Institute in Boston acknowl- The battle for credibility 8
60 “passenger virus.” Much of the substance of edges, “the ways for dealing with the virus Duesberg’s followers not only suggest that 7
61 his argument was derived from the fact that haven’t worked that well. … Affected people the “AIDS establishment” is wrong about 6
62 there were many unknowns about how HIV think maybe science, with all its powers, the cause of the disease; they also argue that 5
63 causes AIDS—a gap in knowledge that still hasn’t been able to solve it” because the mainstream researchers have suppressed 4
64 holds true and still fuels the support theory’s wrong. AIDS epidemiologist James Duesberg’s search for the truth. The conten- 3
65 Duesberg receives outside the community of Curran, who coordinates the CDC’s AIDS tion of censorship has been given credibility 2
66 AIDS researchers. programs, adds that thinking about causes of by a half-dozen prominent scientists who 1
SCIENCE • VOL. 266 • 9 DECEMBER 1994 1643
 1 maintain that AIDS researchers have be-
2 haved like an establishment, treating
3 Duesberg shabbily for challenging conven-
4 tional wisdom.
5 Although AIDS researchers have chal-
6 lenged Duesberg’s arguments in scientific
7 journals, public forums, and the media, these
8 rebuttals by and large have been breezy. The
9 consensus strategy has been benign neglect.
10 Duesberg’s 76-page AIDS opus published 2
11 years ago in Pharmacology and Therapeutics
12 made nary a ripple in the scientific commu-
13 nity. When the mainstream AIDS commu-
14 nity does reply, the responses sometimes
15 have an ad hominem edge. In a 1988 Science
16 article, Gallo compared Duesberg to “a little
17 dog that won’t let go”; Nobel laureate David
18 Baltimore called his ideas “pernicious.”
19 Journals have also had difficulty dealing
20 with Duesberg’s unconventional theories. In
21 1989 and 1991 the Proceedings of the National
22 Academy of Sciences subjected his AIDS pa-
23 pers to unusual multilayered peer reviews,
24 although the journal did ultimately publish
25 them. In 1993, NCI decided not to renew
26 his Outstanding Investigator
27 Grant, an act Duesberg claims
28 was politically motivated. NCI
29 officials strongly disagree. “The
30 NCI makes decisions based on
31 scientific merit,” says Marvin
32 Kalt, head of NCI’s extramu-
33 ral activities. In addition,
34 Duesberg has been turned
35 down by funding agencies on
36 several new proposals to study
37 both AIDS and cancer. Dues-
38 berg paints himself as a man
39 paying the price for holding
40 unpopular views. “I would like
41 to do experiments, but I can’t do them any-
42 more because I won’t get a grant anymore.”
43 In the eyes of sociologist Epstein, these
44 struggles are largely over a very precious
45 commodity: credibility. “Some of the most
46 powerful weapons available to the defenders
47 of the dominant position in scientific con-
48 troversies are the sanctions they can exercise
49 against dissidents,” Epstein suggests.
50 But Duesberg has his own resources for
51 sustaining credibility—including some prom-
52 inent scientists who have circled the wagons
53 around him. In the popular press, these sci-
54 entists are often cited as Duesberg supporters.
55 But that description overlooks some crucial
56 distinctions. Some of Duesberg’s sympathizers
57 strongly support his contention that HIV
58 does not cause AIDS, among them Nobelist
59 Mullis and self-injector Willner.
60 But others seem equally, if not more, con-
61 cerned about the treatment Duesberg has re-
62 ceived at the hands of the establishment.
63 Former Harvard biochemist Thomas orga-
64 nized the Group for the Scientific Reap-
65 praisal of the HIV/AIDS Hypothesis. “When
66 I read his paper in 1987, I came to the conclu-
1644
sion that the evidence [about HIV causing wrote Koshland, who has been critical of his 66
AIDS] was dubious,” says Thomas, who stud- Berkeley colleague for not doing experimen- 65
ies molecular biology at his own research tal work in AIDS. “But his willingness to do 64
foundation, Helicon, in San Diego. Just as this experiment is important.” 63
troublesome, says Thomas, “nobody was But as he’s garnered support from those 62
coming to his rescue. Everybody turned their notables, Duesberg has begun losing support 61
backs on him. I figured, hell, if no one else from some early allies, including Robert 60
will talk to him, I will. He kind of fell into my Root-Bernstein, a physiologist at Michigan 59
arms. He didn’t have too many friends in State University, and New York AIDS clini- 58
those days.” cian Joseph Sonnabend, who both criticize 57
And some researchers who are frequently Duesberg for being too inflexible in his asser- 56
cited as Duesberg supporters are not per- tions that HIV isn’t the cause of AIDS. 55
suaded he’s correct about HIV and AIDS— Whatever the opinions of others, Dues- 54
berg says he will persevere—despite personal 53
losses. “The one thing I’m doing here is al- 52
most destroying my own reputation by ques- 51
For the HIV skeptics tioning whether HIV is the cause of AIDS.” 50
If he had accepted the HIV argument, he 49
“going back to the says, “I would not have to worry about a grant 48
beginning and looking for a second; the lab would be humming; I 47
would be in the Journal of AIDS. … I would 46
for another cause have a tremendous life, and I will see my 30 45
provides a hope for years of retrovirus work had paid off hand- 44
somely after all.” He insists that if he read a 43
finding a cure. …” single scientific article that suggested to him 42
—James Curran he was wrong, he would alter his views. “I’m 41
looking for that article,” he says. “I would 40
love to see it.” But for now, nothing he’s seen 39
but do support his right to dis- has changed his mind. 38
sent and to be taken seriously by –Jon Cohen 37
the scientific mainstream. Harry 36
Rubin, a Berkeley retrovirolo- 35
Additional Reading
gist and member of NAS who M. Ascher et al., “Does drug use cause
34
shared Duesberg’s misgivings in AIDS?” Nature 362, 103 (1993). 33
the cancer debate, says he W. Blattner et al., “HIV/AIDS in laboratory 32
“doesn’t deny” that HIV could workers infected with HTLV-IIIB,” IXth Interna- 31
play a role in AIDS. Rubin even tional Conference on AIDS, PO-B01-0876 30
cites a recent paper dismissing (1993). 29
W. Blattner, R. C. Gallo, H. M. Temin, “HIV
the drugs–AIDS hypothesis that causes AIDS,” Science 241, 515 (1988).
28
he calls “fairly convincing.” Yet T. Chorba et al., “Changes in longevity and 27
Rubin supports Duesberg’s right to voice his causes of death among persons with hemo- 26
scientific opinion. “I respect what he’s done philia A,” American Journal of Hematology 45, 25
and what he stands for,” says Rubin. 112 (1994). 24
Berkeley’s Richard Strohman, a professor P. Duesberg, “Retroviruses as carcinogens 23
and pathogens: Expectations and reality,” Can-
emeritus of cell biology, has doubts about cer Research 47, 1199 (1987).
22
HIV’s role in AIDS but stops short of endors- P. Duesberg, “HIV is not the cause of 21
ing Duesberg’s view that it can’t cause dis- AIDS,” Science 241, 514 (1988). 20
ease and that drugs and AZT do. Instead, P. Duesberg, “AIDS epidemiology: Inconsis- 19
Strohman says his main interest in the de- tencies with human immunodeficiency virus and 18
bate has been supporting Duesberg’s right to with infectious disease,” Proceedings of the 17
National Academy of Sciences 88, 1575 (1991).
dissent. Nobel laureate Walter Gilbert, a P. Duesberg, “AIDS acquired by drug con-
16
Harvard molecular biologist, has taken a sumption and other noncontagious risk factors,” 15
similar stance. Pharmacology and Therapeutics 55, 201 (1992). 14
Also unpersuaded of Duesberg’s ideas— A. Evans, “Does HIV cause AIDS? An his- 13
but persuaded he shouldn’t be shut out of torical perspective,” Journal of AIDS 2, 107 12
scientific resources—is Daniel Koshland Jr., (1989). 11
J. Hassett et al., “Effect on lymphocyte sub-
editor-in-chief of Science, who has written sets of clotting factor therapy in Human Immu-
10
letters to the National Institute on Drug nodeficiency Virus-1 negative congenital clot- 9
Abuse supporting Duesberg’s recent grant ting disorders,” Blood 82, 1351 (1993). 8
proposals. Those proposals focus on animal R. Kurth, “Does HIV cause AIDS?” Intervir- 7
tests of Duesberg’s hypothesis that drugs—in ology 31, 301 (1990). 6
this case, nitrite inhalants like the “poppers” M. Schechter et al., “HIV-1 and the aetiol- 5
ogy of AIDS,” The Lancet 341, 658 (1993).
sometimes used by gay men—cause AIDS. R. Weiss and H. Jaffe, “Duesberg, HIV and
4
“[Duesberg] has been considered far-out be- AIDS,” Nature 345, 659 (1990). 3
cause of his insistent denunciation of the B. Weniger, “The epidemiology of HIV infec- 2
general conclusion in regard to AIDS,” tions and AIDS in Thailand,” AIDS 5, S71 (1991). 1
SCIENCE • VOL. 266 • 9 DECEMBER 1994