I attended a lecture many years ago in La Jolla, California given by Peter H. Duesberg, Ph.D., a professor of molecular and cell biology from the University of California, Berkeley. The topic was Duesberg’s controversial view on AIDS, which is based on an alternate hypothesis to the dominant one that the medical establishment has pinned its hopes and put its money on.
Professor Duesberg isolated the first cancer gene through his work on retroviruses in 1970 and mapped the genetic structure of these genes. Because of this and further work in the field, Duesberg was elected to the National Academy of Sciences in 1986. In other words, he was and is no slouch. His constant questioning of the dominant theory, however, has cost him dearly. Friends and colleagues have frozen him out, he is no longer able to secure grants for his research; he has become a pariah in the eyes of most of his peers and associates.
Whether or not his hypotheses is correct remains to be seen (the details of which are beyond the scope of this post) but what interests me is to see him still, more than twenty years later, hard at it. I am reminded of Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis, who is now recognized as a pioneer of antiseptic procedures but who was vilified and ridiculed by his peers for his views during his lifetime. Semmelweis discovered that the incidence of puerperal fever, a form of septicemia also known as childbed fever, could be cut drastically if doctors washed their hands in a chlorine solution before gynecological examinations.
Science is in many ways an intellectual game that constrains to truth in the long run. History shows us that false ideas can persist for quite a long time, with loyal adherents vehemently supporting them while working assiduously to discredit or diminishing the reputation of those who proffer alternative views, but in the end – if if that end comes generations later – the truth prevails.
Breakthroughs tend to come from the outcasts of any large system, for their lives and livelihood are not bound up in the commonly-held dominant belief. They don’t have as much to lose, so they are not afraid to continue asking the questions which cut through the structure which metastasizes around false convictions which are held to be true by the majority.
The challenge with ostracism is that you lose the matrix of support provided by the “system.” The benefit, of course, is that you are not bound by its limiting assumptions and constrictive exigencies. You are free to move, intellectually-speaking, in directions that the orthodox views would not allow and you can ask the questions that the disciples of orthodoxy would not either dare to or think to ask.
Gregory Hake 
“The challenge with ostracism is that you lose the matrix of support provided by the “system.” Alas this is one of the biggest waste of many human beings lives. They withhold the encouragement, kindness, courage and creative pressure that could heal many of the sorrows we struggle with. I think many are truly coerced by fear and a few lead the charge as minions of hell. I can imagine what wonders are waiting to bless us should we freely give our open hearted confidence, faith and fortitude as our kindred venture into new territory. Wonderful post, Gregg. This opportunity is a daily occurrence for everyone!
LikeLike
Yes, in the long run the truth prevails. In considering the roots of medicine your post makes it apparent for the need to evaluate held beliefs and to consider if there is a better way to improve on or refine or take a new approach relative to a branch of this field. Thanks for the prompt to ask the questions that are needed for a continual true exploration and discovery relative to this field as well as others we may be engaged in.
LikeLike
I have noticed that many, if not most, of the great discoveries throughout history were treated in this way. It is for this reason that I do not pre-judge things like this that might seem out of the norm, and why I support the people that are doing this kind of research in whatever way I can. Humans do not know very much about the world. We surely know more than we used to, but there is more that is unknown than is known. We have very little idea about many of the basic processes of the universe! Knowing this (which most scientists do), and ridiculing something because it is a hypothesis outside of what is assumed to be true is the height of arrogance. They say that extraordinary hypotheses require extraordinary evidence, which is true in a sense, but it doesn’t mean that you have to work to actively block anything that is outside of the “hivemind” of the scientific community. We should work to support all research, as that is our best bet to finding the next amazing breakthrough.
Sadly, all of what I just said is true because of the inertia of the modern scientific community itself, and does not even approach the topic where monetary interests are involved. Those interest groups suppress research for entirely different reasons.
Scientists have a responsibility to always look for the truth. In this case, the truth is that the greatest breakthroughs in science have usually been dismissed outright and the researcher ridiculed. Don’t you think that in this case we should learn from our mistakes, and support these people and projects instead of squashing them? I do…
LikeLike
Absolutely! If history tells us anything it is that revolutions against orthodoxy open the door to fresh thought and hope, but given enough time the new crystallizes and hardens. The abused become the abusers, not consciously or deliberately perhaps, but because the change was I sufficiently deep, that is, it do not reconnect the mind of mind to the source of wisdom, the fountain of life.
LikeLike
As I read this post, I was wondering why men/women were vilified for breaking out of the herd, especially when it’s beneficial to other people’s lives (such as your example). Do men/women have such large ego’s the they can’t stand the genius in someone else? Does it put to much pressure on hardened systems that have built up around current thought? Not only in science, but also our educational system, the business world, religion and every aspect of society. Sadly enough, we also see this tendency (to disdain difference) in our children at an early age. We should all protect and support those around us who are brave enough to ask questions and care more for the truth than fitting into a fickle, unfaithful group in society!
LikeLike
Group consciousness always pulls us, and applies great force to an individual that we conform in whatever beliefs the larger group currently holds. That force can work for good, when there are enough thinking greater thoughts, but more often it is the lower thinking that prevails and is most common. We should be able to question our own thoughts, and well as predominantly and now often held world wide ones, in order to find new paths to follow. An individual who is willing to pay the price of not following group consciousness must be willing to risk all, in some cases even their lifes. But only by doing this, can humanity elevate itself from the current depths that it has reached.
LikeLike
Well put, Carmen! Most people, when faced with the discomfort of the process you outline, give in to the baser compulsions which tend to occupy the hearts and minds of those who have yet to discover their purpose in life. True purpose is never self-centered; instead, it is inherently radiant!
LikeLike
It is common (frustrating and sad too) to see especially in academia and the science what you describe happening to Dr. Deusberg. It is insane the death grip that individuals or communities can have on outdated models. Your post invites us to reevaluate our investments and whether they are aligned with the “truth”, which to me would indicate a living, breathing, exciting adventure in progress. That is why we are here, to bring it not to shut it down. I say bring it!
LikeLike
Few throughout history have been willing to invest in the truth in the way you describe, but those who do send a subtle yet inestimably influential shock wave deep into the consciousness of man.
LikeLike