The article titled 230 Publication Of AIDS Article Spurs Debate Over Peer Review” (The Scientist, April 3, 1989, page 1), described the scrutiny that my thesis—that HIV is not the cause of AIDS— was subjected to prior to its publication in PNAS (86:755-64, 1989). This report was accurate, fair, and open. However, I was disappointed to read that retrovirologists Howard Temin and Harold Ginsberg stated to The Scientist that my article “still contained errors,” despite seven reviews, including three anonymous ones. Since I like nothing more than to correct my own errors—particularly when they concern such an important subject as AIDS—I have written to both Temin and Ginsberg, asking them to please identify these errors. Temin responded to the two letters I sent him by saying he had no time to identify these errors, and Ginsberg did not reply at all. I herein repeat my request that Temin and Ginsberg ...
Duesburg Appeals
The article titled 230 Publication Of AIDS Article Spurs Debate Over Peer Review” (The Scientist, April 3, 1989, page 1), described the scrutiny that my thesis—that HIV is not the cause of AIDS— was subjected to prior to its publication in PNAS (86:755-64, 1989). This report was accurate, fair, and open. However, I was disappointed to read that retrovirologists Howard Temin and Harold Ginsberg stated to The Scientist that my article “still contained errors,” despite
Written byPeter Duesberg
| 1 min read
Register for free to listen to this article
Listen with Speechify
0:00
1:00
Share
Interested in reading more?
Become a Member of
Receive full access to digital editions of The Scientist, as well as TS Digest, feature stories, more than 35 years of archives, and much more!
Already a member? Login Here
