To Fund or Not to Fund, that is the Question: Proposed Experiments on the Drug-AIDS Hypothesis

DUESBERG FUNDING

current prevalent dogma on HIV and AIDS, but cannot get funded. I
added the comment that an appropriate news report in Science about
these events would be especially relevant because Science's own editor
urged the funding.
Following my letter, Science reporter Jon Cohen contacted Duesberg
on the phone, and also wrote him on 8 February that he was interested
in doing a story about the rejected grant proposal. Jon Cohen stated:
"The main question I have is this: Are the reviewers' criticisms
unjustified?...Any story I might do I'm sure would hinge on that
question." In response, Duesberg submitted the names of four
toxicologists whom Cohen might contact to get their views.
On 21 March 1994, Jon Cohen wrote back to Duesberg that he contacted
six "researchers" about the grant proposal, and that three wrote back.
Cohen enclosed their signed comments. Cohen also stated that two
others told him verbally of "problems" they had with the proposal,
and the sixth did not reply. According to Duesberg, Cohen gave him
the names of all six (including Gallo, who was one of the two expressing
his "problems" only verbally). Four out of the six were retrovirologists.
Duesberg commented that he would consider "none of these
retrovirologists appropriate for reviewing a toxicology proposal such
as" the one he presented. Duesberg's list of four toxicologists was
recommended to him by Harry Haverkos or by Otto Raabe. Cohen
chose only one of them. In any case, the "researchers" consulted by
Cohen effectively became reviewers for Science.
On the basis of the reviews he got, Cohen wrote to Duesberg that he
"did not see a story for Science about the NIH not funding" the
proposal. Cohen's letter to Duesberg was under a SCIENCE letterhead.
The comments of the one "researcher" who had been recommended by
Duesberg, say Reviewer R1, were mostly favorable, although
mentioning "deficiencies in detail". As mentioned previously,
Reviewer R1 is a toxicologist. The overall conclusion from reviewer R1
was as follows:
Reviewer R1. Conclusions. I think it is important that NE be
tested for carcinogenicity in animals with and without infection
with a retrovirus. I think the investigators could perform these
tests if they did some preliminary studies and if they first
answered the criticisms in a future revised application. Hence, I