My Photo

Bulletin Board

December 2008

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31      


  • The NIH Keeps Up With The Times: 1, 2, 3. David Baltimore Has A Flashback: ***. The NY Times Keeps Up With Times: ***. The Faith of Anthony Fauci: ***. Anthony Fauci Explains How HIV Causes AIDS: ***. Robert Gallo on The Force of Ejaculation: ***, on HIV Theory: ***, Lectures in Marseilles: ***. David Ho Does The Math: ***. John Mellors Sets the Record Straight: ***. Bono, el Magnifico, Holds (Another) Press Conference: ***. Anthony Fauci Explains Journalism in the Age of AIDS: ***. Anthony Fauci and David Ho Disprove an Old Adage: ***. Anthony Fauci Explains ICL and AIDS: *** The CDC Can't Keep Up With The Times:*** The Method of the "Small Inquisitor" Moore:*** The Co-Discovery of a Nobel-Worthy Enzymatic Activity:*** The Revenge of the "Very" Minor Moriarty:*** Julie Gerberding and Anthony Fauci Learn Arithmetic:*** Osama Obama Has a Message for Africa:***

Bad Manners and Good Gossip

« Charles Stein: On Theogonies Old and New | Main | "RT" Magritte: Ceci n'est pas "The First Plane From Houston" »

April 13, 2007


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Harvey Bialy

A few people have noticed that at the end of the Sci Am article, the following appears, and have asked if I would make the reference available. Con gusto.


Debate Surges over the Origins of Genomic Defects in Cancer. Jean Marx in Science, Vol. 297, pages 544–546; July 26, 2002.

The Sigmoidal Curve of Cancer. Roberto P. Stock and Harvey Bialy in Nature Biotechnology, Vol. 21, pages 13–14; January 2003.

The Chromosomal Basis of Cancer. Peter Duesberg et al. in Cellular Oncology, Vol. 27, Nos. 5–6, pages 293–318; 2005.

Richard Strohman

I would like to take this opportunity to publicly congratulate my long time friend and colleague, Peter Duesberg, on this quite remarkable 'breakthrough' into completely mainstream recognition.

I would also like to point out that even the "Disclaimer" is to his credit. In much the same way as with the Rene Magritte painting that declares itself not to be a pipe, one cannot help but be caught on the horns of several logical and semantic dilemmas when encountering it.

The one that first comes to mind as particularly relevant to Peter and AIDS is that it does seem impossible that a man who might just be correct concerning something as complicated as the genetic basis of malignancy could be so totally wrong about something as straightforward as whether HIV kills T-cells.

Mouth of the Yellow River

Ni Hao!

Dear St. Peter. Do you think that God in Her infinite wisdom let Darwinian evolution create a mechanism whereby a random (minimum aneuploidy) +/-1 chromosome (independent of which one of the set) missegregation cannot occur in a daughter cell -- even though the daughter cell could survive the gene expression pattern alteration, evolve even into cancer?

If not, we are in deep doo-doo for treating and eradicating cancer. All is stochastic and treatment palliative for those who suffer the random error.

No wonder people fear what you say. It may require one to think in mind boggling multi-variate terms beyond current mental capabilities about the definition and evolution of the multi-variate dynamic called “life” in chemical terms.

When moronic single reductionist variable thinking concerning virus=cancer fizzled, moronic single variable cause and effect, virus=AIDS was invented.

What will single variable one gene=one life process, one mutation in gene=one disease aficionados invent when that fizzles?



I would greatly appreciate any article, symposia, panel discussions, references, where a direct discussion of both major models of carcinogenesis to metastases and prognoses/treatment data are presented jointly by their main proponents, in the last two years, Dr. Weinberg and Dr. Duesberg. Thank you.

Dr. Frank

Peter Mora,

Likely, no such symposia exists. The gene mutation theorists have the upper hand in funding and support, and, therefore, don't talk to the aneuploidy theorists.

This article in Sci Am in 2003 by Wayt Gibbs gives a good assessment of the competing theories.

Gibbs spoke at Duesberg's aneuploidy conference in January of 2008, but I don't know if the discussion and papers presented at the meeting has been published yet.

The comments to this entry are closed.


  • Comments are regarded as letters to the editor. They are subject to the same policies as the NY Times and Nature, and are not published until after editorial review.
Blog powered by Typepad