HIV and AIDS: Questions of Scientific and Journalistic Responsibility

38

HIV AND AIDS

and immunosuppression, with still no definitive proof after more
than 10 years. Meanwhile, there are some scientists, myself
included, calling for approaches to AIDS other than the nearmonolithic HIV theory. Perhaps other factors are involved;
goodness knows, there certainly is convincing evidence for cofactors, and for Peter Duesberg's theory that AIDS is caused by
drugs alone. The drugs he mentions most often are recreational
drugs taken by some, but not all, gay men, and intravenous drug
addicts. In addition, AZT, which is prescribed to deal with
bacterial and viral infections, is known to be cytotoxic to human
cells, and in itself could be the culprit.
My question, really for all of us, is the following. Why is it
necessary to insistently call on dissenters from the mainstream
theory to abandon their dissent and to join ranks with those who
believe that HIV, and only HIV, causes AIDS? You yourself issue
such a call in your recent Nature article (as quoted now in
newspapers all over the country; SF Chronicle of 3/11/93). This is
not how science is supposed to operate. It is supposed to be
pluralistic; it is historically best when dissent is open and wide;
results come more quickly when support is given not only to those
who follow the major paradigm, but also to those who have
reasoned the unpopular approaches...
Winkelstein answered Strohman's letter in The Daily Cal of 13 April
1993, stating in part:
Extract from Winkelstein's answer to Strohman. Your assertions
regarding alternative approaches and dissenting opinions is best
answered by quoting what we actually wrote in the Nature
commentary: "The main purpose of the cohort studies conducted in
San Francisco and elsewhere has been to look for associations of
environmental or behavioral factors with the development of
AIDS. Had any factor other than HIV infections been found,, it
would have been reported immediately...[elision by the Daily
Californian. In his reply, Winkelstein also repeated the
paragraph I have quoted from his article, about where the energies
of Duesberg and his followers could better be spent. He then added
the following:]
In a New York Times article reporting the content of our Nature
commentary, Dr. Jerome Groopman, a distinguished medical
scientist, is quoted as follows: "Science keeps an open mind at all
times, but there comes a time when you have to declare that the