There are Those Who Believe that HIV is Not the Cause of AIDS

NOV 1 ' 1:50F M ADARC F. 11
t J
The Aaron Diamond AIDS Research Center
For the City of New Ybrk
There are those who believe that HIV is not the cause of AIDS. They believe this
passionately, and no doubt have their reasons for doing so. Let us accept their premise
at face value: the inescapable conclusions are as follows. Either the thousands of
Litists worldwide are members of an enormous conspiracy designed to suck research
-Ars into our laboratories, or we have deluded ourselves into believing that what we
- doing is scientifically justified. A stark choice: we are either utterly evil, or we are
ifiorons. While I have no doubt that a few of my colleagues could be described as
moronic, I have never met anyone in AIDS research who could be described as evil. Is it
really plausible that we regularly meet in smoke-filled rooms to plan the next stage in
our grand design to fool the people of the planet? Conspiracy theories are awfully
attractive to the lay public and are a lot of fun to read in the pages of supermarket
tabloids, but they should not be aired in the pages of Nature. That HIV was created in
Russian (or American) germ-warfare labs was a popular tale a few years back, since
proven to have been spread by the CIA (or KOB); Nature did not feel moved to publish a
"Letter from Brezhnev" at the time. So do let's get away from the myth that AIDS
researchers perpetuate their views just to advance their careers; it's too cynical a view
of, in the most part, dedicated professionals.
Then we are left with the alternative that we are all deluded. This is again a sad view of
life. Why do scientists do research? In my case, to find out what I do not know (and
sadly, there is a lot). I did not, and do not, choose to work on HIV and AIDS just
because some important people in the field believed what they believe. Like most
intelligent people, I weighed up the evidence and made a conscious decision to find out
mote. We continuously reappraise the evidence and discuss things we do not
undera5 'A; we do not blindly do HIV research, we question facts we do not
cornprwetnd; we listen to our detractors, and finding their views wanting, we reject
them after careful consideration. Why would it be otherwise? We are scientists, rational
life-forms, not religious fanatics who blindly believe what they are told. So who is out of
step with reality, the majority or the iconoclasts?
The dissenters believe they have been censored and continue to be so. I find it hard to
agree. There can scarcely be an AIDS researcher alive who has not read Duesberg's
articles, both in learned journals and in the popular press. I would hazard a guess that
Duesberg has had as many column inches given to his views in newspapers and
popular science magazines as any other researcher in this field. Omni equated Duesberg
to Galileo, (a mistake; he doesn't even equate to Gallo in my eyes); the Sunday Times has
acted as Duesberg's mouthpiece for years, with serious effects in Britain and Africa.

And both Nature and PPNAS,, as well as a somewhat more obscure journal with a tame
editor, Bio-Technology, have printed articles from him and his acolytes. What would
another article achieve? It would delude a few more members of the public into
believing there was a controversy when there isn't one, the scientific issues being long
455 ST AVENUE, 7TH FLOOR * NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10016