Confessions of a Subversive Grad. Student

I entered graduate school in molecular biology in the spring of 2005. My thesis research concerns the molecular and genetic composition of human immunological responses, with a particular focus on those of "HIV infected" individuals. 

As an undergraduate, I became interested in the relationship between HIV and its "disease", AIDS, because several family members and friends were diagnosed as HIV positive. My cousin - the only of them to “ survive his diagnosis" - influenced me to review the scientific literature. Stan is also the only one to get off the HAART, an act that was immediately followed by significant improvements to his health – the exact opposite of what was occurring in the other "positives" I knew.

Thanks to Stan, I was introduced to Dr. Peter Duesberg’s reviews of the HIV/AIDS hypothesis. Like many who read them, I was shocked, and in an act of rage I reviewed as much of the HIV literature as I could. Conclusion: My rage at Duesberg turned to anger and disbelief at the orthodoxy he was challenging and  I concluded the reviled Berkeley professor had a more correct view by far than his orthodox opponents who had all the money, and all the fame, and all the ears of all the media.

This discovery was my motivation to make a difference in the way HIV research was conducted. Yeah, I know, naive me. I didn't have to wait long to have my eyes opened, however, because I attempted to do my undergraduate honors project on the relationship between classical behavioral conditioning and the effects of HAART regimens, and of course ran right into the wall of AIDS politics. Although I may have culled a few rethinkers in my crusade to conduct the research project, I was ultimately shot down. It was ruled, by the head administrators, that this project would reflect badly on the college and the supervising professor. They also claimed it would ruin my career before it got started – a fate they did not want to see for the top student in their program, a holder of a 4.0 GPA, and a three time winner of highly competitive, government grants. 

In fact, they collectively claimed the question of HIV’s role in AIDS had been definitively answered.  Their proof?  HIV positive mothers who give birth to HIV positive kids who get sick and die. I argued against them, but it was to no avail. Apparently the fact that essentially all documented pre-AZT AIDS babies were from drug addict mothers was not important.

Dejected, I conducted my honors project on the behavior of several laboratory animals (who were not my advisers). I let it be known, however, that I had not been silenced, and determined to take a different approach to making a difference. I registered to conduct graduate studies in an orthodox HIV laboratory, and committed myself to overtly expressing an orthodox perspective while in this environment. This was not an easy task, and has only become more difficult. I felt, however, that it was necessary. The rethinkers were not bringing down the Church of AIDS from the outside (even though they were presenting the better arguments), so I thought it was time to infiltrate.

Although I am overtly orthodox during my time in the lab, I often attempt to stimulate conversations about the AIDS dissident movement and Duesberg’s reviews. Some of the comments I receive are memorable and worth quoting:

“ Those guys should spend time in Africa and observe the death.”  - From an individual who had never been to Africa herself.

“ Mullis is crazy, and should not be taken seriously. He was lucky.”  - From a biology professor.

“ It should be considered unethical to even discuss this topic!”  - Fellow student.

“ I have not read Duesberg’s work, but I have heard that it is no longer relevant, if it was relevant at all.” – My supervisor.

Change, however, is possible. I recently gave Harvey Bialy’s book (Oncogenes, Aneuploidy and AIDS) to two people in our lab. It was surprising and encouraging to observe the results. One of them, a technician, no longer accepts the claim that HIV causes AIDS. The other, a fellow grad. student, now vocally argues the need for open scientific debate.

And real change is coming. Paradoxical as it might sound, it is time for more subversives to do experimental HIV research, and place ourselves in positions were we can publish and force a review of the HIV-AIDS hypothesis. We can create the conditions under which those who were the first to challenge the Church are vindicated, and finally end a whole lot of unnecessary suffering.      

Grad. Student studies B-cell immunology at a well known university that is not in Australia. He has previously contributed first-hand reports from the Toronto AIDS show, and we are very happy he now joins "You Bet Your Life" as a regular, irregular contributor. (Hank)        

Comments

[Mouth of the Yellow River]

Ni Hao! Kannichi Wa!

This guy has guts and deserves congratulations and support. This new generation of scientists and the rare individuals with ability to perceive together with personal courage is our hope of changing the course of the current giant scientific industry of waste and on the roadmap to nowhere particularly concerning AIDS and cancer research.

Given what happens to a senior scientist with the stature and track record of Duesberg regarding funding, ostracization and direct smear campaign, just think what happens to a beginning graduate student, postdoc or junior researcher with novel insight.

The problem is severe and pervasive from the top policy administrators down to those whose jobs depend on documenting trivia related to the twin dogmas that will be fundable and solidify their jobs, funding and careers..

From grad students and other research personnel serving the dogma of their PI’s, the PI’s serving the dogma by documenting their trivia related to it in order to please reviewers of papers and funding review panels (peers in particularly), there is little hope of support for any novel ideas in the near future by those best able to carry them out.

A dogma testing proposal in either the AIDS or cancer arena in a current NIH study section in the USA has the chance of a snowball in hell. Not so much because of the political correctness, agenda or bias of peer reviewers, but because of their ignorance, narrow background and training in the dogma.

Such is generally true of any innovative ideas but particularly in the areas of AIDS and cancer as Duesberg has brought to attention of the industry.

This story does give us hope for the future however resistant the problem.

MOTYR

[George]

Grad. Student,

I can only join the Mouth of the Yellow River in wishing you more benzene for your engines and wind to your sails.

You give jaded and cynical 'ole me some hope as well.

George

[Dan]

Hank,
you appear to be turning up the volume here lately. Good work!!

[Henry H. Bauer]

Grad student:

Right on. Get yourself graduated and a tenured position before you openly attack the powers that be.