[Letter to Colleagues from Peter Duesberg]

NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES
2101 Constitution Avenue Washington, D.C. 20418
PROCEEDINGS OFFICE LAWRENCE BOCORAD
TELEPHONE [phone] CHAIRMAN, EDITORIAL BOARD
TELEFAX [phone] HARVARD UNIVERSITY
16 Divinity Avenue
Cambridge, MA 02138
December 4, 1991
Prof. Harry Rubin
University of California, Berkeley
Department of Molecular and Cell Biology
c/o Stanley/Donner
Administrative Services Unit
299 Stanley Hall
Berkeley, CA 94720
Dear Dr. Rubin:
Thank you for communicating to the PROCEEDINGS the paper entitled "The Role
of Drugs in the Origin of AIDS" on behalf of Peter H. Duesberg.
As you know from our Information for Contributors, "as authorized by the
Council of the Academy, the Editorial Board reserves the right to subject
manuscripts to further review when necessary and to reject those that do not meet
the general criteria for publication or are regarded as inappropriate in some
significant way." I am under particular instructions from the Editorial Board
to move aside for review and advice regarding publication those contributed or
communicated papers that deal with cures for diseases and related problems.
Accordingly, I have solicited the advice of three experts regarding publication
of this paper. Their comments and reviews are enclosed.
As you can see, these reviews provide no support for publishing this paper.
Indeed, all three reviewers advise strongly against doing so. number of errors
of fact and logic are pointed out in these reviews. However, tr prbZ6'es
not appear to be the presence ofa few correctable errors, misquotes, etc. nor
of a f e _i fi 'i ms of f formation. ["th: eviewer n1 cone udes
that Dr. Duesberg's "argument is no tihtly reasoned and in this reviewer's
opinion is not sustainable". Reviewer #2 states that "Whatever may be the
validity of Dr. Duesberg's contention that HIV is not the cause of AIDS, the case
for drugs as the cause is poorly advanced in this paper" - - this reviewer goes
on to state that "The present paper is, I believe, totally lacking in cogency and
contains a number of errors of fact and of logic." And, Reviewer # concE1udes
that "this manuscript does not reflect a sufficient level of critical scientific