Menus Subscribe Search

Follow us


ps-Duesberg

Peter Duesberg, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley. (Timothy Archibald)

Cancer Wars: An Outcast Researcher’s New Theory

• April 27, 2012 • 1:30 PM

Peter Duesberg, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley. (Timothy Archibald)

The scientific community disowned Professor Peter Duesberg for denying that HIV causes AIDS. But is there something to his new theory on cancer?

Compact and white-haired at 75, Peter Duesberg has wide-set blue eyes magnified by corrective lenses as thick as his German accent. He is the picture of a courtly Old World scientist. But Duesberg is given to through-the-looking-glass scientific theories, the most recent of which, about the origins of cancer, could turn an accepted truth of molecular biology on its head. Viruses like hepatitis C don’t cause cancer, he says, and neither do collections of mutated genes — as nearly every other scientist believes. Instead, he argues, cancer arises when the number and appearance of a cell’s chromosomes become disrupted, leading to a tumor that has, in effect, evolved into a parasitic new species.

Some scientists think he could have a point. “There is something to what Peter Duesberg says,” says Mark David Vincent, a Canadian researcher and oncologist whose own unconventional theories about cancer overlap with Duesberg’s. But most others are skeptical. One reason may be that Duesberg is a pariah for his​ tenaciously held theory that HIV does not cause AIDS.

Duesberg works in a shabby laboratory on the campus of the University of California, Berkeley. He runs his experiments virtually alone. He has no graduate students and little staff support, and virtually no research budget, apart from some limited private funding. Duesberg acknowledges that if he weren’t a tenured full professor, he probably would have been gone long ago.

Duesberg once was highly respected by his peers. After arriving at Berkeley in 1964 with a doctorate in chemistry from the University of Frankfurt, he, in short order, extracted the RNA of the Rous sarcoma virus, shown to cause tumors in chickens, and in 1970 co-discovered a viral gene that seemed to promote cancer. He also helped plot the retroviral genome and won election to the National Academy of Sciences. “For a while I was the blue-eyed boy,” he says. “Now I’m the traitor from within.”

Duesberg’s career took a turn in March 1987, when he published a paper in Cancer Research that made two sensational claims: One was that retroviruses did not activate cancer-promoting genes; the other was that the newly identified HIV retrovirus did not cause AIDS. It did cause minor mononucleosis-like illness, he conceded, but not the lethal AIDS symptoms. As he explains it, “These questions were lingering in my mind. Why do we say these retroviruses are so bad when they’re found everywhere and hardly anyone ever gets sick?”

He would subsequently argue that gay men were dying as a result of their allegedly prodigious drug use rather than AIDS. Later, as the HIV genome was sequenced and antiretroviral drugs were introduced, he contended that the drugs themselves were causing the symptoms attributed to AIDS. Hemophiliacs who became infected through blood transfusions were already sick, he argued, and in sub-Saharan Africa, where AIDS was spreading among heterosexuals, malnutrition and parasites were the real culprits.

These ideas were discarded as further research supported the HIV hypothesis. But Duesberg seemed immune to the evidence, raising ever-flimsier objections to each new finding. He argues, for example, that Africa’s population wouldn’t have continued growing over the past few decades if AIDS really is a lethal communicable disease. Other scientists stopped taking him seriously. His government research funding dried up, and, for many years, most peer-reviewed scientific journals refused to publish his papers. So he took his case to the public, publishing a book and developing a small but devoted following, particularly among conspiracy theorists.

One of those followers was South Africa’s President Thabo Mbeki, who, in 2000, invited Duesberg, among other HIV skeptics, to serve as a consultant in shaping his government’s AIDS policies. Over the next few years, government officials cited Duesberg when refusing to promote the use of antiretroviral drugs. A 2008 study by two Harvard School of Public Health researchers, Pride Chigwedere and Max Essex, estimated that more than 330,000 South Africans had lost their lives to HIV/AIDS between 2000 and 2005 because of these policies, and it mentioned Duesberg by name. “The science behind Mbeki was Duesberg and other denialists,” Chigwedere and Essex wrote in a 2010 follow-up article.

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Duesberg remains unrepentant. And he’s been equally stubborn about his radical theories on the origins of cancer.

His research in the 1970s had focused on tumor viruses because they were thought to alter human genes, thereby causing cancer. But as other scientists found evidence that humans carried genes that could mutate and drive cancer, Duesberg grew skeptical. For one thing, an ever-growing number of mutations seemed to be needed — dozens, in some cases — which he found implausible. Meanwhile, in Duesberg’s view, the mutation theory was further undermined by studies showing that many known carcinogens did not cause gene mutations in the first place.

Billions had been spent on the war on cancer, yet scientists had made little progress toward a cure. Could the research establishment be on the wrong track? “Nobody asks these questions,” Duesberg says. “People are so well trained not to ask negative questions.”

His focus shifted to the abnormal number of chromosomes that virtually every cancer tumor has — an observation first made by German scientist Theodor Boveri in the early 20th century. Most human cells have 23 pairs of matched chromosomes, half inherited from each parent, for a total of 46. This pattern is preserved each time the trillions of cells in our body divide and replicate. But in cancer cells something goes awry: there might be three or four chromosomes where there should be a single pair, or the chromosomes might be abnormally foreshortened. Such cells are described as “aneuploid.”

In a paper he published last summer in the journal Cell Cycle, Duesberg theorized that carcinogens might cause chromosomes to divide abnormally during cell division, creating extra copies of thousands of genes and disrupting the cellular machinery — an idea with parallels to a theory floated by Julian Huxley in 1956. These aneuploid cells usually die, but every so often the new genetic arrangement — called the karyotype — might enhance a cell’s ability to survive and clone itself. As these clones multiply, a tumor can emerge with a new, stable karyotype. The way Duesberg sees it, that tumor would essentially be a unique species, a parasite that feeds off its host.

Duesberg’s model resembles ideas advanced by some other researchers, including Henry H.Q. Heng, a molecular geneticist at Wayne State University, as well as Mark David Vincent, who treats lung cancer patients at the London Health Sciences Centre in Ontario, Canada. Vincent, who has referenced Duesberg’s theory in his own papers, believes that cancerous cells exploit an ancient survival mechanism, reverting to the form of protozoa-like organisms from before the time when single cells began cooperating to create multicellular organisms like us. “It became clear to me that the process of carcinogenesis involved a form of life emerging that was different from the host,” Vincent says. “We sort of converged on the same thing but from a somewhat different perspective.” Vincent sides with mainstream researchers in believing that genetic mutations are one of the things that initially turn normal cells cancerous. But he agrees with Duesberg that aneuploidy, which can entail a rapid reshuffling of genes, likely helps drive the growth and spread of tumors.

Vincent, who says people have warned him that Duesberg is “radioactive,” disagrees with the Berkeley scientist’s HIV/AIDS claims. But, he adds, those ideas don’t make Duesberg’s cancer theories wrong. “Anybody who thinks courageously outside the box and in a different way is an extraordinarily important resource,” he says. Besides, whatever the error of Duesberg’s views, “we should not censor people intellectually.”

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Duesberg sometimes seems to relish his status as an outsider, portraying himself as a victim of groupthink who has been persecuted for daring to question the status quo. Other times, he sounds almost wistful. “I was immensely popular,” he says of the days when he found the first cancer-causing oncogene in the Rous sarcoma virus. “I would have been served so much better if I had stayed with oncogenes as the cause of cancer.”

Now, he says, even his Berkeley colleagues largely shun him. As recently as 2010, he says, the university investigated complaints that he had published a paper containing false claims—a response of sorts to the Chigwedere and Essex findings — in a non-peer-reviewed publication. A university spokesman says no action was taken because tenured faculty members are guaranteed academic freedom to advance their theories — with the peer-review process serving to safeguard accuracy.

He hasn’t trained any graduate students in 15 years and only recently was permitted to begin teaching an undergraduate course called “The Cancer Karyotype: What It Is and What It Does.” He runs a few experiments in his lab, almost single-handedly (sometimes with help from an undergraduate student or two), but it’s evident the fall has been painful.

“I think I was even close to a Nobel,” Duesberg says. “If I had just shut up, I would have been much better off.”

Without prompting, he ticks off the names of scientists who’ve won Nobel Prizes for contributing to the standard mutation model of cancer genetics. “All the sheep think the same thing: mutations cause cancer, and HIV causes AIDS,” he says. But he maintains that in his acid skepticism he’s upholding the purity of the scientific method. “Science is absolute,” he says. “You question things that you were taught or were told by your priest, your führer, or your teacher — or anyone.” Whenever a scientist worries about what others will think or the moral implications of his work, “it’s not good science anymore,” he asserts. “It should be amoral — without morals.”

This article appeared in the May-June issue of Pacific Standard under the title “The Heretic.”

Michael Haederle
Michael Haederle lives in New Mexico. He has written for the Los Angeles Times, People Magazine, Tricycle: The Buddhist Review and many other publications. He has also taught at Syracuse University's S.I. Newhouse School of Public Communications and is a Zen lay monk.

More From Michael Haederle

A weekly roundup of the best of Pacific Standard and PSmag.com, delivered straight to your inbox.

Recent Posts

December 19 • 4:00 AM

Food for Thought: WIC Works

New research finds participation in the federal WIC program, which subsidizes healthy foods for young children, is linked with stronger cognitive development and higher test scores.


December 18 • 4:00 PM

How I Navigated Life as a Newly Sober Mom

Saying “no” to my kids was harder than saying “no” to alcohol. But for their sake and mine, I had to learn to put myself first sometimes.


December 18 • 2:00 PM

Women in Apocalyptic Fiction Shaving Their Armpits

Because our interest in realism apparently only goes so far.


December 18 • 12:00 PM

The Paradox of Choice, 10 Years Later

Paul Hiebert talks to psychologist Barry Schwartz about how modern trends—social media, FOMO, customer review sites—fit in with arguments he made a decade ago in his highly influential book, The Paradox of Choice: Why More Is Less.


December 18 • 10:00 AM

What It’s Like to Spend a Few Hours in the Church of Scientology

Wrestling with thetans, attempting to unlock a memory bank, and a personality test seemingly aimed at people with depression. This is Scientology’s “dissemination drill” for potential new members.


December 18 • 8:00 AM

Gendering #BlackLivesMatter: A Feminist Perspective

Black men are stereotyped as violent, while black women are rendered invisible. Here’s why the gendering of black lives matters.


December 18 • 7:06 AM

Apparently You Can Bring Your Religion to Work

New research says offices that encourage talk of religion actually make for happier workplaces.


December 18 • 6:00 AM

The Very Weak and Complicated Links Between Mental Illness and Gun Violence

Vanderbilt University’s Jonathan Metzl and Kenneth MacLeish address our anxieties and correct our assumptions.


December 18 • 4:00 AM

Should Movies Be Rated RD for Reckless Driving?

A new study finds a link between watching films featuring reckless driving and engaging in similar behavior years later.


December 17 • 4:00 PM

How to Run a Drug Dealing Network in Prison

People tend not to hear about the prison drug dealing operations that succeed. Substance.com asks a veteran of the game to explain his system.


December 17 • 2:00 PM

Gender Segregation of Toys Is on the Rise

Charting the use of “toys for boys” and “toys for girls” in American English.


December 17 • 12:41 PM

Why the College Football Playoff Is Terrible But Better Than Before

The sample size is still embarrassingly small, but at least there’s less room for the availability cascade.


December 17 • 11:06 AM

Canadian Kids Have a Serious Smoking Problem

Bootleg cigarette sales could be leading Canadian teens to more serious drugs, a recent study finds.


December 17 • 10:37 AM

A Public Lynching in Sproul Plaza

When photographs of lynching victims showed up on a hallowed site of democracy in action, a provocation was issued—but to whom, by whom, and why?


December 17 • 8:00 AM

What Was the Job?

This was the year the job broke, the year we accepted a re-interpretation of its fundamental bargain and bought in to the push to get us to all work for ourselves rather than each other.


December 17 • 6:00 AM

White Kids Will Be Kids

Even the “good” kids—bound for college, upwardly mobile—sometimes break the law. The difference? They don’t have much to fear. A professor of race and social movements reflects on her teenage years and faces some uncomfortable realities.



December 16 • 4:00 PM

How Fear of Occupy Wall Street Undermined the Red Cross’ Sandy Relief Effort

Red Cross responders say there was a ban on working with the widely praised Occupy Sandy relief group because it was seen as politically unpalatable.


December 16 • 3:30 PM

Murder! Mayhem! And That’s Just the Cartoons!

New research suggests deaths are common features of animated features aimed at children.


December 16 • 1:43 PM

In Tragedy, Empathy Still Dependent on Proximity

In spite of an increasingly connected world, in the face of adversity, a personal touch is most effective.


December 16 • 12:00 PM

The ‘New York Times’ Is Hooked on Drug du Jour Journalism

For the paper of record, addiction is always about this drug or that drug rather than the real causes.


December 16 • 10:00 AM

What Is the Point of Academic Books?

Ultimately, they’re meant to disseminate knowledge. But their narrow appeal makes them expensive to produce and harder to sell.


December 16 • 8:00 AM

Unjust and Unwell: The Racial Issues That Could Be Affecting Your Health Care

Physicians and medical students have the same problems with implicit bias as the rest of us.


December 16 • 6:00 AM

If You Get Confused Just Listen to the Music Play

Healing the brain with the Grateful Dead.


December 16 • 4:00 AM

Another Casualty of the Great Recession: Trust

Research from Britain finds people who were laid off from their jobs expressed lower levels of generalized trust.


Follow us


Apparently You Can Bring Your Religion to Work

New research says offices that encourage talk of religion actually make for happier workplaces.

Canadian Kids Have a Serious Smoking Problem

Bootleg cigarette sales could be leading Canadian teens to more serious drugs, a recent study finds.

The Hidden Psychology of the Home Ref

That old myth of home field bias isn’t a myth at all; it’s a statistical fact.

A Word of Caution to the Holiday Deal-Makers

Repeat customers—with higher return rates and real bargain-hunting prowess—can have negative effects on a company’s net earnings.

Crowdfunding Works for Science

Scientists just need to put forth some effort.

The Big One

One in two United States senators and two in five House members who left office between 1998 and 2004 became lobbyists. November/December 2014

Copyright © 2014 by Pacific Standard and The Miller-McCune Center for Research, Media, and Public Policy. All Rights Reserved.