In order to get an idea of what happens in the “research” it is necessary to briefly describe the organization of one of the crucial aspects of “science”, especially “medicine”: the publication of articles, through which the discoveries and outcomes of experiments are made known. Thanks to qualified magazines such as: The lancet, The British Medical Journal, New England Journal of medicine, JAMA, to quote just a few of the most authoritative, the doctors of the whole world are informed on the most innovative results of medicine and pharmacology.

The publication however has also another vital role for science: “it represents the most critical test for a scientific theory or a datum, which are submitted to the judgement of the final court: the scientific community and public, as explained by prof. P.Duesberg, professor of Molecular Biology at the University of California, AIDS expert of world wide fame.

Who has the task of establishing whether or not a work is worth publishing? The evaluation is made within the so-called "peer-review process". This process provides that the articles submitted to a magazine are examined by some "referees", that is experts of a particular medical division, to whom the magazine director asks to evaluate the quality, scientifical accuracy and originality of the works. Basically they give their technical opinion based on which the director decides to publish the article or not.

In order to ensure transparency and objectivity of the judgements, the authors of the articles should not know the names of the referees and viceversa. This is how it should be. As a matter of fact, says DUESBERG, the peer-review is a form of CENSORSHIP with some ambiguous aspects. Positive, when scientists who do not have a conflict of interests (very few, admittedly) may eliminate publications based on non scientific evidences or suppositions already refuted. Negative because the scientific ideology uses the peer-review mainly to eliminate those innovations which threaten the orthodoxy’s suppositions and investments.

Duesberg speaks from experience: considered a luminary in point of AIDS and Cancer, having isolated the first gene considered responsible for inducing cancers and having mapped the retroviruses’ genetic structure, (which brought him in 1986 to be elected in the most important American scientific association, the National Academy of Science) Duesberg has jeopardized a very promising profession by opposing what he calls the " Hiv dogma", that is the most credited theory on the causes of AIDS, according to which it is the Hiv retrovirus that induces immunodeficiency.

According to Duesberg there is no scientifically ascertained link between the virus and the desease and anti-retrovirus drugs not only are useless, but in some cases they accelerate the DEATH of patients, as it is the case of AZT by GLAXO.

And this is not everything. Writes Flavia Bruno, from “Centro Studi comunicazione sul farmaco, Facoltà di farmacia, Università di Milano, " In a society living out of deep complexities such as ours, the lack of scientific knowledge leads (or should lead) to a principle of caution, based on which one should not delay effective measures to prevent serious damages and the possible consequences on collective health”. But this is an illusion. Not only the falsity of almost all scientific publications has been proven, but if this is valid for the habitual readers of scientific magazines, what should we say of the large majority of the Italians graduated in medicine who DO NOT READ ANYTHING AT ALL?

To what, to whom do they believe? The answer is obvious: to the shabbiest publications provided by the Industry. And it is absolutely useless to talk about the PRINCIPLE OF CAUTION formulated by the European Community two years ago, since in Italy, not only it is unkown, but it is not applicable either, inasmuch our country has not yet acknowledged the relevant Directive in question. And in case it was acknowledged, it would be a huge worry to succeed in obliging the relevant public entities to apply it within the medical context.