Peter Duesberg, a molecular biologist who presented compelling evidence that HIV doesn’t cause AIDS in the 1980s — but whose work has been suppressed by Anthony Fauci and the medical-industrial complex.
4,972 words
Part 2 of 2 (Part 1 here)
Anthony Fauci was appointed director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) in 1984, just in time for the AIDS epidemic. That same year, Robert Gallo, a researcher at the National Cancer Institute, announced that he had discovered the cause of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome, a disease primarily afflicting gay men and IV drug users. The cause, Gallo announced, was a retrovirus called HIV (Human Immunodeficiency Virus).
What Gallo did not mention was that the virus had originally come to his attention when he had appropriated, under false pretenses, a sample of HIV from the lab of French scientist Luc Montagnier. When he was accused of professional misconduct, Gallo tried to pretend that there were two different viruses. Among other things, this subterfuge delayed the development of a blood test for HIV by about a year, during which time thousands of hospital patients and hemophiliacs received tainted blood and became infected with the virus. Many years later, when Montagnier received the Nobel Prize for his discovery of HIV, Gallo was pointedly excluded — though it had become common by then, at least in the United States, to refer to the two as the “co-discoverers” of the virus.
Montagnier came to have doubts about the causal role of HIV in AIDS and theorized that HIV alone could not bring about the condition, and that a “co-factor” was necessary. It is worth noting that Montagnier provided one of the blurbs for The Real Anthony Fauci, and that it reads as follows:
Dr. Joseph Goebbels wrote that “A lie told once remains a lie, but a lie told a thousand times becomes the truth.” Tragically for humanity, there are many, many untruths emanating from Fauci and his minions. RFK, Jr. exposes the decades of lies.
While conventional histories now claim that Montagnier discovered HIV and Gallo proved that it causes AIDS, in fact Gallo did nothing of the kind. It is true that Gallo found traces — faint traces — of HIV in the bodies of patients diagnosed with AIDS. However, what we were not told is that though Gallo looked at 72 AIDS patients, he could find HIV in only 26 of them. Under normal circumstances, this would result in HIV being eliminated as a candidate for the cause of AIDS. But these were not normal circumstances.
Eager for glory, Gallo muddied the waters and claimed a causal link when in fact he had established none. But he found a receptive audience in the public health agencies and men like Fauci, who were always eager to find a new epidemic to justify their existence and — as discussed in the last installment — fatten their wallets. And the gay community was only too happy to embrace a virus as culprit. If AIDS had been brought on by the vast quantities of illicit drugs, alcohol, and antibiotics consumed by gay men in the late 1970s and early ‘80s — as it almost certainly was — then gay AIDS patients were responsible for their own deaths. HIV absolved gay men of personal responsibility, since “anyone” can get a virus.
The problems with the HIV-AIDS hypothesis are numerous and devastating. It is important to note that Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. repeatedly states in his chapters on Fauci and AIDS that he is not taking a position on whether HIV causes AIDS. It is not, however, difficult to discern what his actual position is. Those wishing a detailed account of the difficulties with the HIV-AIDS hypothesis should read these chapters in RFK’s book, and especially Peter Duesberg’s 1998 book Inventing the AIDS Virus. Here I will offer only a few highlights.
German physician Robert Koch formulated four criteria in 1884 for establishing a causal connection between a microbe and a disease. Known today as “Koch’s Postulates,” these criteria are considered indispensable axioms of modern medicine. They are as follows:
- The microorganism must be found in abundance in all organisms suffering from the disease, but should not be found in healthy organisms.
- The microorganism must be isolated from a diseased organism and grown in pure culture.
- The cultured microorganism should cause disease when introduced into a healthy organism.
- The microorganism must be re-isolated from the inoculated, diseased experimental host and identified as being identical to the original specific causative agent.
The HIV-AIDS hypothesis violates each of these. Koch’s first postulate is violated by the fact that there have been numerous cases in which individuals have been diagnosed with AIDS but HIV cannot be found in their systems. This fact has been mostly concealed from the public. It is important to note that, as its full name clearly states, AIDS is a syndrome. That means that it is not a disease like the flu, which always produces the same set of symptoms. Instead, AIDS is a condition defined by the breakdown of a patient’s immune system, causing them to succumb to a wide variety of opportunistic infections. When we say that individuals have been diagnosed with AIDS but do not have HIV, what is meant is that these individuals were diagnosed as having all the features of the syndrome, but repeatedly tested negative for HIV.
If AIDS can occur with or without HIV, then either HIV is not the cause of AIDS, or it is only one cause among several. The likelihood, in fact, is that Peter Duesberg is correct when he theorizes that HIV is a consequence of AIDS, not a cause; i.e., it is one of many opportunistic infections that patients can contract when their immune systems break down. Gallo, Fauci, and the entire the medical establishment, it appears, have reversed cause and effect. When a brave Newsweek reporter broke the story of HIV without AIDS in the 1990s, Fauci was forced to address the issue. What he did was to claim that AIDS patients who test negative for HIV have “a different disease.”
You can buy Jef Costello’s The Importance of James Bond here
This was a completely arbitrary, ad hoc assertion to save the HIV-AIDS hypothesis, since those AIDS patients without HIV were symptomatically indistinguishable from AIDS patients with HIV. In other words, they had the exact same syndrome. You may be surprised to learn that no one has ever demonstrated exactly how HIV is supposed to cause AIDS. Early on, the hypothesis was that HIV killed T-cells, though this claim has now been abandoned. The most recent hypothesis is that somehow HIV tricks T-cells into committing mass suicide. Once again, however, this has not actually been demonstrated, and no retrovirus known to man seems capable of such a feat.
In violation of Koch’s second postulate, no one has ever isolated and grown HIV in pure culture. The virus also defies all expectations of an infectious agent. For example, all sorts of animals have been injected with HIV in laboratory settings, but none has ever developed AIDS. Further, in all other cases of infectious disease, large quantities of the microbe can be found in the bodies of the infected. HIV, however, is barely found in the bodies of AIDS patients, even in the final throes of illness. Viral load from HIV is actually greatest in the days immediately following infection. This ought to be the time when the virus makes patients quite sick — but it doesn’t. Instead, AIDS symptoms arrive — if they arrive at all — an average of 20 years after infection, when the amount of HIV in the patient is negligible.
In violation of Koch’s third postulate, numerous individuals have been HIV positive for many years and show no signs of illness. Magic Johnson is perhaps the most famous example: He announced he had tested positive in 1991 and has been healthy ever since. Gallo, Fauci, et al. hypothesized early on that there was a “latency period” between HIV infection and full-blown AIDS. This has stretched over the years from months to decades, as more and more HIV positive individuals failed to get sick on schedule. The usual explanation for cases such as Magic Johnson is that the use of a “cocktail” of anti-retroviral drugs has staved off AIDS. HIV is thus claimed to be something that can now be “managed” in the long term. But the research on these drugs does not actually support their effectiveness, and predictably, the drugs can have serious adverse side-effects. But they are a major cash cow for Big Pharma: new on-patent regimens can cost up to $28,500 per patient, per year.
Of course, none of these problems with the HIV-AIDS hypothesis was known to the general public in the 1980s (and most of the public are still in the dark). Quite naturally, people thought that they could trust their government health officials, and felt they were in no position to second -guess the opinions of experts. Ordinary folks believed Fauci and his associates when they claimed that despite the fact that AIDS had been confined almost entirely to gay men and IV drug users, it was really a threat to everyone. And they believed the claim that as many as ten billion people could be infected with HIV by the year 2001 (in fact, by 2007 only an estimated 33.2 million people worldwide were HIV positive).
Fauci even falsely claimed that the virus could be spread by “casual contact” (e.g., shaking hands). All these claims were obvious ploys to secure greater public funding for NIAID and other agencies — and to increase Fauci’s fame and influence, RFK believes. It worked — and just as in the swine flu “epidemic” of 1976, mass panic ensued. Der Spiegel solemnly announced in 1985 that HIV might entirely exterminate the German nation by 1992. American news outfits made similar predictions. And anyone who questioned whether AIDS really was, in fact, a threat to heterosexuals was treated as a pariah. Questioning Fauci’s official line on AIDS, you see, was tantamount to murder. It was no picnic, by the way, growing up believing that sex can kill.
You may have heard that while AIDS in the US and Europe seems to now be “managed” effectively, it is still an enormous problem in Africa. What you have probably not heard, however, is that so-called “AIDS patients” in Africa are seldom if ever given HIV tests. Instead, if they present with any of the diseases known to occur in patients with compromised immune systems, they are officially declared to have AIDS. If you catch pneumonia in the US, for example, your diagnosis is pneumonia; if you catch pneumonia in Africa, your diagnosis is AIDS. This is quite obviously a ploy to inflate African AIDS statistics, and thus inflate foreign aid.
Furthermore, African AIDS looks like an entirely different animal from Western AIDS. In the West, as already noted, AIDS is primarily a disease of gay men and drug users. In the US and Europe, women make up only 19% of AIDS cases. In Africa, by contrast, 85% of AIDS cases occur among heterosexuals, and 59% of cases are women. As RFK puts it, “No one has ever explained how a disease largely confined to male homosexuals in the West is a female heterosexual disease in Africa.”
Believe it or not, Canadian AIDS is also quite different from American AIDS. In 1993, American medical authorities decided to classify anyone with a low T-cell count as having AIDS, even if they weren’t sick. (T-cell counts can fluctuate for a variety of reasons, sometimes on a daily basis.) As a result of this new way of defining AIDS, the number of US AIDS patients doubled in 1993. Canadian doctors, however, did not follow their American counterparts in this new system of classification. Thus, an American patient diagnosed with AIDS because of a low T-cell count would not have AIDS if he moved to Canada. Talk about magic dirt . . .
If you are old enough to remember the early days of AIDS, you may recall images of male patients with purple sores all over their bodies. This was a comparatively rare form of cancer known as Kaposi’s Sarcoma (KS), and it was attributed to HIV infection. The images of patients with KS, once seen, could not be unseen — and so many AIDS patients had KS it became virtually the defining feature of the disease. However, scientists never managed to find HIV DNA in KS tumor cells — just as they never found it in T-cells (which is one reason the “HIV kills T-cells” theory was abandoned).
So why, then, did all those men have KS? The most plausible theory is that it was caused by chronic use of amyl nitrite, colloquially known in the gay community as “poppers.” The abuse of poppers was nearly universal among gay men in the 1970s and ‘80s, the reason being that the drug, when inhaled, produces a powerful rush and relaxes the anal sphincter. But poppers are also highly mutagenic and carcinogenic. KS was also found, predictably, in gay men who showed no trace of HIV infection. By 1990, scientists had quietly admitted that HIV played no role in the KS exhibited by all those gay AIDS patients.
Almost from the beginning of the epidemic, Fauci was claiming that the solution was the development of a vaccine against HIV — a vaccine that has never, in fact, been produced. Indeed, there is an inherent problem with the very idea of an HIV vaccine, one that even intelligent laypeople can readily spot, once the facts are laid before them. If you get an HIV test — and the tests are highly unreliable, by the way — the testing kit is supposed to detect whether you are producing antibodies to HIV. If those antibodies are detected, you are said to be HIV positive, and it is projected that in time you will develop AIDS.
You can buy Jef Costello’s Heidegger in Chicago here
The trouble is that this is exactly the opposite of how any other infectious agent is treated. In all other cases of infection, if the body is producing antibodies to the microbe, then the body is understood to be well on its way to neutralizing the infection. But not in the case of HIV. Now, the problem with the idea of an HIV vaccine is that most vaccines operate by introducing a tiny, inert quantity of an infectious microbe into the body. This then stimulates the system to produce antibodies, which makes you resistant, from then on, to that particular infection. But if the presence of antibodies to HIV is as good as a death sentence, according to HIV testing protocols, how then would we evaluate a vaccine’s effectiveness?
This problem has never been addressed by Fauci and company. But it has not stopped him, and others, from repeatedly declaring over the course of more than 30 years that a vaccine is “just around the corner.” Consider the case of Dr. Robert Redfield, an Army medical officer who was one of the leaders of the military’s AIDS research in the 1980s and ‘90s. In 1992, Redfield published an article in the New England Journal of Medicine claiming that an HIV vaccine he had co-developed had been tested on patients at Walter Reed Hospital and proven effective. This was a lie.
That same year, an Air Force medical office took a look at Redfield’s research and accused him of engaging in “a systematic pattern of data manipulation, inappropriate statistical analysis and misleading data presentation in an apparent attempt to promote the usefulness of the GP160 AIDS vaccine.” In short, Redfield was accused of scientific fraud — and when threatened with court-martial, he admitted the fraud. Redfield was scheduled to speak at an upcoming AIDS conference and told his superiors that he would go there and publicly admit that his vaccine was worthless. But Redfield did nothing of the kind. Instead, in a stroke of diabolical genius, he simply repeated his fraudulent claims at the conference, then at two subsequent conferences, and even before the US Congress.
This strategy paid off handsomely. Redfield’s lies generated tremendous excitement and personal support. Congress appropriated $20 million for the military to fund Redfield’s research. Military prosecutors wanted to go ahead and court-martial Redfield. But this would now embarrass some very powerful people, who had been completely snookered by Redfield’s lies. Besides, Redfield had caused the military’s budget to be increased, and the brass did not want to give the money back. All charges against Redfield were subsequently dropped. What happened to the man? Redfield was promoted to Colonel and later wound up running the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) under Donald Trump.
And the search for the elusive HIV vaccine continues. In 2019, only a few months before the COVID pandemic, Fauci announced that he had finally developed an effective HIV vaccine. However, he added some important caveats. The vaccine would not stop transmission of HIV, but those who did catch the virus would find that when they got AIDS, their symptoms would be much less severe. Sound familiar?
No brief introduction to the scandal that is HIV-AIDS would be complete without at least some discussion of azidothymidine (AZT), the anti-AIDS drug that was pushed for years by Fauci and crew as the primary treatment for the disease. AZT was originally developed in the 1960s as cancer chemotherapy, but was shelved because the drug was more reliably deadly than cancer. AZT has the distinction of being the most toxic drug ever approved for long-term use. The scientist who developed AZT did not even initially bother to patent the drug, as it was so toxic he deemed it worthless as a treatment. AZT terminates DNA synthesis. In the words of one scientist quoted by RFK, “AZT is incompatible with life.”
When HIV was blamed for AIDS, scientists hunted around for some drug that could be repurposed to fight the virus. Someone had the bright idea of suggesting AZT, since it functions as an anti-retroviral. Given that it also eventually produces bone marrow toxicity, and thus shuts down the immune system, one might have thought that scientists would consider it a problematic treatment for a disease that causes immunodeficiency. But apparently not. Soon, AZT was not just being given to patients with full-blown AIDS, it was being given prophylactically. In other words, it was given to anyone who tested positive for HIV, even if they weren’t sick.
You can buy Greg Johnson’s The Year America Died here.
After taking AZT, however, these perfectly healthy individuals soon became quite sick indeed. Via AZT, the CDC in effect created the illusion that tens of thousands of Americans died from HIV-AIDS between the years 1986 and 1996. In fact, a great many of these individuals almost certainly died of AZT; how many we will never know. High-profile HIV positive individuals such as tennis player Arthur Ashe and ballet dancer Rudolf Nureyev — both personal acquaintances of RFK — were perfectly healthy until they started taking AZT. Nureyev’s physician tried to talk him out of taking the drug, but the dancer insisted. Soon after its administration, he became ill and subsequently died. The deaths of Ashe and Nureyev, and countless others, were attributed to HIV.
It is genuinely incredible that so many bright scientists could have been so blind to the obvious truth that AZT was mimicking the symptoms of AIDS. Some of this, at least, is attributable to simple human pigheadedness and conformity. Scientists were absolutely wedded to the thesis that HIV would inevitably cause AIDS and subsequent death. When they saw the signs of immune deficiency syndrome in AZT patients, it was therefore automatically attributed to HIV. And Fauci and company had produced studies that purported to establish AZT’s effectiveness as a treatment. Predictably, however, the studies were rigged. In one case, AZT patients suffered such severe adverse reactions they had to be given multiple blood transfusions just to keep them alive until the end of the study. In each instance, however, researchers checked off “no adverse reactions” on case report forms. Such bogus studies ensured that AZT was widely prescribed. At a fee of $10,000 per year per patient, it was one of the most expensive drugs in pharmaceutical history.
Scientists were also under considerable professional pressure not to question any of the official story about HIV-AIDS, or AZT. RFK quotes journalist Charles Ortleb saying that “[t]he First Amendment simply does not apply to Tony Fauci. Any scientist who disputes his official cosmology or any of the canons that promote the orthodoxy that HIV is the one and only cause of AIDS is dead in terms of the rewards and sustenance of science.” Fauci and the medical-industrial complex have systematically destroyed the careers of scientists who have expressed doubts about HIV-AIDS. The most famous example is Berkeley molecular biologist Peter Duesberg, a leading scientist in his field who did ground-breaking work on the genetic aspects of cancer.
Duesberg published an article in Cancer Research in 1987 that questioned the HIV-AIDS hypothesis. From that point on, Duesberg became persona non grata in the scientific community. He had received numerous National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants prior to 1987, and none of his applications had ever been rejected. Since 1987, Duesberg has written over 30 research proposals, most of them having nothing to do with HIV, and NIH has rejected every one of them. Fauci personally intervened in order to put pressure on television programs not to interview Duesberg. When President Reagan invited both Duesberg and Fauci to the White House for a “friendly debate,” Fauci threw a fit and refused to show up.
Fauci extended an olive branch to Duesberg in 1994. He dispatched high-ranking NIH geneticist Stephen O’Brien to California to meet with Duesberg. The two had crossed paths before, and, after chatting for a few minutes about old times, O’Brien produced an unpublished manuscript titled “HIV Causes AIDS: Koch’s Postulates Fulfilled.” Duesberg was told that if he agreed to have the article published under his name, all would be forgiven. He could have it all back, including the NIH grants. Duesberg refused, and several years later published an entire book debunking HIV-AIDS: Inventing the AIDS Virus.
RFK quotes journalist Celia Farber, who makes the plausible claim that Dr. Fauci may be the inventor of cancel culture:
What Fauci did was he made political correctness the new currency of his funding empire. Peter Duesberg was not “wrong” about HIV and AIDS, he was politically incorrect about it and that was how Fauci banished him — sentenced him to funding and reputation death, as though he had done something really bad by dissenting against HIV theory. . . . The real scientists were horrified. Suddenly a guillotine was present. A new and strange terror. People were “guilty” of thought crimes like “HIV denialism.” Fauci had made political correctness the new revolutionary language, see? And that meant if you were “bad,” if you didn’t push agenda driven science, everything was taken away from you. And the media cheered. And anybody who didn’t was destroyed, vilified, harassed, fired, in a word, cancelled.
You know you’re really onto something when they call you a “denialist.”
Similar tactics are, of course, now being employed against scientists who decline to join the climate cult. Fauci and company had plenty of reasons to crush dissent. First, many of them had a financial stake in the HIV-AIDS hypothesis — which generates billions of dollars in profits each year for pharma and the scientists in bed with pharma; profits on HIV testing kits and anti-retroviral drugs, for example. HIV had also been an enormous boon to Fauci’s NIAID. His prediction that HIV would spread to the general population and cause billions of deaths had led to substantial budget increases. Finally, there was the fear that should the truth about HIV-AIDS ever become widely known, it would destroy the public’s faith in the medical-industrial complex.
RFK quotes molecular biologist Harvey Bialy:
The scientific and medical communities have a great deal of face to lose. It is not much of an exaggeration to state that when the HIV/AIDS hypothesis is finally recognized as wrong, the entire institution of science will lose the public’s trust, and science itself will experience fundamental, profound, and long-lasting changes. The scientific community has risked its credibility by standing by the HIV theory for so long a period. This is why doubting the HIV hypothesis is now tantamount to doubting science itself, and this is why dissidents face excommunication.
We can expect that the medical-industrial complex will enforce HIV conformity even more vigorously in the years to come, given the serious damage already done to their reputations by their handling of COVID, especially the fraudulent vaccines. The truth about HIV has been relatively easy to hide from the general public. Since AIDS mostly remained “someone else’s disease,” there was little incentive for most people to go digging and to question what they were being told.
We may pause here to address a question that may have occurred to my readers, especially those for whom most of the above information is new: “If HIV is not the cause of AIDS, what is?” A number of theories have been advanced by scientists who have questioned the orthodoxy. In my view, the most plausible theory is offered by Duesberg, and I have already alluded to it. He suggests that the AIDS cases of the 1980s were caused by gay men abusing massive amounts of drugs, alcohol, and antibiotics (often taken prophylactically prior to an evening on the town). In truth, the amount of substance abuse going on in the gay community in the 1970s and ‘80s was truly epic. To say nothing of the promiscuity: It was not uncommon for urban gay men to have close to a thousand sexual partners in a single year.
These serial sexual encounters, plus the substance abuse, exacted an enormous toll on the immune systems of many gay men. It is also noteworthy that the other group in which AIDS was typically found was drug addicts. Once AIDS was blamed on HIV, Duesberg theorizes, a second cause of AIDS was introduced: AZT. As we’ve already seen, administration of AZT actually produced acquired immune deficiency syndrome in healthy individuals. Eventually, the early AIDS patients — including those whose AIDS was due to AZT — died off, the gay community became slightly less promiscuous and less drug happy, and AZT was prescribed a lot less often. You may have noticed that you haven’t heard a whole lot about AIDS since then.
There’s so much more in The Real Anthony Fauci that is worth discussing — too much, indeed, to discuss in this already-overlong review. But I cannot resist mentioning just one more thing: Fauci tested HIV drugs on orphans and foster children. The Incarnation Children’s Center in New York City, once a foster care boarding home, was remunerated by NIAID for supplying children for drug experiments. The claim was made that all these children had HIV, but in fact experiments were performed on many of them without actual proof of HIV infection. The drugs given to the children were highly toxic. Among other things, they caused genetic mutation and organ failure.
If the children began to refuse the drugs, they were held down and force fed. Particularly recalcitrant children had a tube surgically inserted into their sides so that the drugs could be squirted directly into their stomachs. Many of them died. Naturally, those deaths were attributed to HIV. An intrepid BBC journalist broke this story in 2004 (odd that you’ve never heard of it before, isn’t it?). Among other things, she literally uncovered a mass grave in Hawthorne, New York where Fauci’s young victims had been hastily buried. What’s all the fuss about Dr. Mengele when Anthony Fauci is alive and well and living in DC?
Just after recounting the tale of a Fauci-sponsored “study” in which dogs were bitten to death by flies, RFK finally loses it:
From what moral wilderness did the monsters who devised and condoned these experiments descend upon our idealistic country? How have they lately come to exercise such tyrannical power over our citizens? What sort of nation are we if we allow them to continue? . . . Could these same dark alchemists justify a strategy of prioritizing their $48 billion vaccine project ahead of public health and human life?
Indeed, they could. Much of the above information about AIDS was not new to me when I read RFK’s book, for I had read Duesberg’s Inventing the AIDS Virus in the late 1990s. At the time, I was struck by the fact that some of the principal players, especially Big Pharma, had to have known that they were supporting bogus medical claims purely for financial gain — and that this was killing people. I found it difficult to fathom how anyone could be that evil — yet the evidence was there before me. It caused me to rethink many things I had believed for years. If something this big can be a complete lie, I thought to myself, what else are they lying about? And down the rabbit hole I went.
No matter how much I’ve learned, however, I’ve never ceased to find the evil shocking. Make no mistake about the fact that ours really is a battle against evil. We are up against an establishment — a medical-industrial establishment, a political establishment, a military-industrial establishment, a financial establishment (all these being intertwined) — that is rotten to the core, and that attracts people with literally no moral scruples. Folks, it’s all got to come down, every last bit of it.
I can’t recommend The Real Anthony Fauci highly enough. Although it’s not without its flaws. RFK tries to pack too much into this book. I’ve said nothing at all, for example, about the chapters in which he blows the lid off Bill Gates’ supposed “humanitarianism.” RFK should really have saved this for another book. This one is a whopping 449 pages — with small print and the tiniest of margins. Still, it is by no means a slog. In fact, it’s a page-turner. And for some, it will be a life-changer — a book with the potential to change minds about many things, not just about little Tony Fauci.
* * *
Like all journals of dissident ideas, Counter-Currents depends on the support of readers like you. Help us compete with the censors of the Left and the violent accelerationists of the Right with a donation today. (The easiest way to help is with an e-check donation. All you need is your checkbook.)
For other ways to donate, click here.
33 comments
I had a friend turn me on to the Deusberg book many years ago. It is a tour de force. It is good to see this surface, and interesting to see how Fauci’s line intersects it and Covid.
I myself did not lead a depleting life style, never took drugs, sexual contacts were quite limited and I had a STD once. Yet I developed AIDS. The combination therapy of three different anti-HIV pills had just been introduced, however. I recovered and for years I continued anti-viral therapy. Then I heard of Duesberg. I was convinced and stopped taking the pills. Everything went ok for about 1.5 years. Then I got PCP, a lung disease caused by a fungus. In people with a healthy immune system this fungus is easily dealt with. In the first years of the AIDS epidemic, it was the number one killer, however. Fortunately they had learned to treat it better and I recovered. I started anti-viral therapy again, and since then I have had no further problems. My doctor had studied the book of Duesberg, but said that his clinical practice convinced him that the anti-viral therapy did indeed work. Regarding my stopping therapy he said wisely that at least I had lived 1.5 years with the wonderful conviction that I was not ill after all. That was also worth something, he said.
In a year and a half, you caught a lung disease and recovered. How many sicknesses do average people get in a year and a half? What makes you think that your immune system was compromised, then? Since you went back on the antivirals, have you gotten sick?
Pneumocystis Carinii pneumonia is an opportunistic fungal lung infection found only in patients with impaired T-cell lympocyte-mediated immunity. In non-AIDS patients it is is usually seen in those on high-dose corticosteroids for treatment of lymphoma or chronic autoimmune diseases. This testimony is exactly concordant with HIV infection being the major etiological factor in AIDS.
So it is not only found in AIDS patients. Let’s hear from our commenter. Was he being given corticosteroids?
In reply to Greg Johnson: No I never was given corticosteroids. My immune system in terms of CD4 cells has recovered, but whereas before the count was about 700, it is now around 300.
I thought Duesberg’s book was brilliant too.
To me, the most striking part was the discussion of Pellegra, which the medical establishment believed fervently to be an infectious disease, even though it did not behave like one. Eventually, it was proven to be caused by a vitamin deficiency. But the medical establishment fiercely resisted that conclusion. It revealed a pig-headedness and arrogance about the medical profession that we later saw during AIDS and COVID. These people are ferociously opposed to admitting their own mistakes. They would rather let people die than admit that they have erred. That is a very dangerous and unethical ethos for any profession.
Another brilliant aspect of the book, which appealed to me because of my philosophy background, are Duesberg’s arguments that the HIV-AIDS hypothesis fails John Stuart Mill’s canons of inductive reasoning. I read the book more than 20 years ago, so apologies if the details are a bit fuzzy:
1. The Method of Agreement holds that if you have a group of patients exhibiting similar sets of symptoms, and if they have some additional factor in common, that factor is a good candidate for the cause. Duesberg noted that in the 1980s, gay men, hemophiliacs, IV drug users, and chemotherapy patients were all dying in similar ways. What did they have in common? Not all of them tested positive for a retrovirus called HIV, but all of them were taking drugs which cause the immune system to break down. (Hemophiliacs receive routine blood transfusions which themselves cause immune suppression, but on top of that, those who were testing positive for HIV were given the highly toxic chemotherapy drug AZT. When they sickened and died, the doctors simply said, “If only we put them on AZT sooner!”) Therefore, HIV is not the cause of AIDS.
2. The Method of Difference holds that if two individuals have something in common, but differ in one important way, the cause of the difference will be present in one and absent in the other. Duesberg noticed that individuals who test HIV positive sometimes remain completely healthy and other times get AIDS. What explains the difference? Duesberg claimed that the healthy individuals did not use illegal drugs or take AZT, whereas the sick individuals did use illegal drugs and/or AZT. Therefore, the common element (HIV) did not explain the different outcomes (AIDS or lack thereof). Therefore, HIV is not the cause of AIDS.
3. The Method of Residue holds that if you have a complex set of effects (and a syndrome is a complex set of effects) and a set of likely causes, and you can explain effect 1 with known cause A, and effect 2 with known cause B, etc., and you arrive at an unexplained residue, effect 3, you are then entitled to introduce a novel cause, C, to explain it. In effect, Duesberg uses a negative version of the Method of Residue, arguing that all traits of AIDS can be explained by known causes, so that there is no warrant for introducing a novel cause, HIV, a retrovirus to which are ascribed extraordinary properties not found in any other retrovirus, a veritable magic bullet of viruses. Therefore, HIV is not the cause of AIDS.
4. The Method of Concomitant Variation holds that if two factors are causally connected, they will vary concomitantly. Duesberg pointed out that HIV levels in blood and tissue samples going back decades before the AIDS epidemic are basically the same as during the epidemic, whereas if HIV caused AIDs, you would expect the HIV infection rate to be higher during the epidemic than before. Therefore, HIV is not the cause of AIDS.
There were some very technical responses to this post. The medical establishment suffers from some ills that Greg Johnson mentions. It also suffer from psychopaths like Carol Baker. You know people who want to do so much good like force everyone to get every vaccine, that you just get rid of an entire race of people who you claim constitute the “refusers.” (https://www.bitchute.com/video/M3eN3qA2IHiZ/)
That same mentality permeated the Covid response. Given Baker’s prominent position within the CDC it probably isn’t inconsequential. It is almost as if a bunch of people with grand, messianic ambitions feel them thwarted by the plebs and their problematic common sense and desire for sovereignty and sense of self to stand up for it. But hey, those colored sub-plebs don’t complain. We offer them status and help and they’ll do whatever we want. Baker’s talk that I referenced had every hallmark of the Covid response in it. It is as if they developed a hatred that metastasized over the years and it all came spilling out.
I am another supporter that is an ardent defender of The West. One respondent mentioned a list of fields/disciplines. I don’t believe those fields are unique to The West. What is distinctive to Occidental Man and his civilization are thinker/philosopher/practitioners like Hippocrates. The genius, embedded in the three words, Do No Harm, encapsulate and summarize the wisdom of eons of learning into the rarest and most sublime of ethical thought and practice. It is not our technical disciplines alone that we are defending and preserving to perpetuate once again. What we are fighting for is our people’s genius for understanding and pursuit of the highest good in all of our fields of endeavor.
How many doctors give puberty blockers and mutilating surgery to kids? How many perform abortions? What percentage of doctors and surgeons in particular are sociopaths?
Ad hominem attack on issues where there is no consensus… (and plenty of doctors opt to not do abortions and avoid specialties where that is the job). Aren’t the same attacks levied against anyone who suggests White identity ought have equity with Latino, Asian or Black identity?
I attacked nobody. I did provide a link to Carol Baker saying point blank, that, “we oughtta just get rid of all white Americans”, since they exercise bodily sovereignty. Her desire, expressed in the subtext, is that Hispanics will willingly take whatever injections she tells them too.
I also pointed out that this tyrannical mindset and attitude was prevalent within the bureaucracies that put Carol Baker into top leadership positions. The examples are numerous. One such example was the explicit policy to introduce racial preferences in treatment for Covid-19. Federal and state guidelines were enacted that specifically aimed to put non-whites at the head of the line for care ahead of European, Heritage Americans based on nothing but racial preferences.
I ended with a statement that The West established things like The Hippocratic Oath. Baker’s advocacy for the genocide of European Heritage Americans is beyond an egregious violation of that oath and the oaths that are sworn to care for everyone. The fact that she was never reprimanded, stripped of her licenses and in fact has been rewarded for advocating genocide, is not an ad hominem attack, rather clear proof that the institutions agree with her – given that she is placed in leadership positions by them.
There are innumerable holes and semantic games RFK is spinning. The Montagnier quote about Fauci is telling. Montagnier doesn’t like Fauci, but he’s not denying HIV causes AIDS. And if we totally delete Fauci from the history of HIV, the conclusions are the same as they have been so thoroughly replicated.
Surely you have heard of plenty of people who were cured of cancer by some ‘miracle’ or prayer, etc. The miracle either happened, OR some doctor made a misdiagnosis. I remember my dad getting a chest X-ray. The doctor said, looks like pneumonia… or cancer. Fuck! Turned out to be pneumonia and granulomas… A miracle cure! So it is no surprise that in the 80s some people had AIDS type symptoms and but had something else. That’s not a violation of Koch’s postulate #1. Now that there are HIV tests, the definition of AIDS has tightened up. By definition, you don’t have AIDS unless you are proven to be HIV positive. If you are HIV negative, your diagnosis likely becomes drug/medication toxicity, or some sort of exotic bone marrow disorder. It’s a semantic game to say there are other causes of AIDS. It is not 1980 anymore and the AZT-only days are long gone. That was the best they had then. The HIV activists themselved demanded way more experimental treatments, ala Dallas Buyers Club.
Koch’s Postulate #2: You can detect HIV with PCR or antibodies. But like many viruses, it might not be possible to grow in culture dishes (which do not mimic a human body). The rhinoviruses of the common cold also cannot be grown in culture, so they violate that part of Koch postulate #2, along with many others. Who would have thought that a postulate from 1890 could have so many holes! No animal model for HIV? That’s true for innumerable diseases. Many viruses won’t infect other creatures because of the specificity with which viruses dock upon their hosts. You won’t catch Feline Leukemia Virus from your cat.
Koch’s Postulate 3 is whether an organism causes disease when introduced to a healthy organism. Back in the day, Peter Duesberg was very theatrical… give him an Emmy award, demanding that he be allowed to inject HIV to himself and then wait 10-15 years to see if he got AIDS. Aside from the ethical quandary of this, Bradford-Hill criteria can also be used to establish causality. Consider just the biological mechanism and treatment side: HIV infects and harms CD4 cells (and other cells). There are some scientific squabbles if the CD4 cells die by necrosis, apoptosis, fail to replicate, get sick… a detail. The CD4 numbers drop and individuals start having difficulty mounting a strong immune response. Those with CD4 counts less than 200 start getting pneumocystis and coccidio infections, diseases that are rare except in those who are immune compromised. CD4 < 100 get Toxoplasmosis and cryptococcal meningitis. CD4 < 50 get MAI. This happens in children born to mothers with HIV, or straight people who contract HIV from transfusions. So it’s not gay sex or drug abuse. If you administer drugs that were rationally designed to specifically target HIV enzymes (e.g. triple therapy) people’s CD4 counts go up, viral loads go down, they stop getting opportunistic infections and extend their lifespan. It is totally wrong for RFK to suggest these drugs are not effective. Yeah, the drugs are expensive and they ought to be cheaper than 28k/year. But hospitals charge 2-4 thousand per day for a stay, and over 10k per day for the ICU. So pharma finagles getting to charge a lot if they make a case they are keeping people out of the hospital and saving money via treatment. Hey don’t fucking blame the messenger.
And the Canada AIDS definition vs. others? It’s a difference of opinion of whether to call it AIDS if your CD4 count is below 200 (and you are at risk of opportunistic infection), vs. already having had one of those infections. The debate likely has something to do with getting more insurance reimbursement for a more complex situation.
Koch’s Postulate #4 – requires experiments to inoculate humans with HIV and then show you can re-isolate HIV. No one is going to do that, so who can say if it violates Koch’s postulate or not. There wasn’t even an understanding of DNA back in Koch’s time, and his 4th postulate could not have envisioned that viruses like HIV, colds, flu…, can mutate and become slightly different when re-isolated, sometimes developing resistance to drugs or vaccines.
There is no HIV vaccine. Nor is there one for the common cold or malaria. These conditions have had multiple vaccine attempts that briefly got some news, then failed. If RFK wants to bash Fauci for being a megalomanic and wanting to prematurely claim mission accomplished, fine. But this happens all the time. Remember the guy who said resveratrol was going to make us all live to be 100? Or the guy who said angiogenesis inhibitors were going to beat cancer? That’s why you should wait for the replication studies. But HIV causing AIDS has been replicated many times over.
Yes there is a lot of HIV and AIDS in Africa and I don’t see the value of wanting to emulate their anti-western disbelief about HIV. There are a lot of reasons for their numbers… less safe sex, number of sex partners, and concepts like ‘dry sex’ (I don’t mean sex without some KY lube, but a practice of putting actual drying agents in a woman’s vagina).
Another semantic game: the HIV virus doesn’t kill someone. Yeah, but the opportunistic infections do. It’s like claiming smoking tobacco isn’t going to kill you. You might die of small cell lung cancer, but technically not from choking on cigarette smoke. The illness and death from HIV tracks with CD4 count, which takes years to decline and is faster in some people than others. Long term non-progressors are less than 5%, some remain a mystery but I know some have been shown to have mutations in cell receptors HIV uses to gain entry into cells. I wouldn’t advocate unprotected sex with them. Also, what are your chances of getting laid when you tell a woman, does it really matter if I have HIV or not? Let’s have a glass of wine and I’ll tell you all about this RFK book… Dismantling everything is pretty sexy, right? No pressure, but have you heard about ‘dry sex’?
RFK saying HIV has never been found in CD4 T cells. Totally false. On Kaposi’s sarcoma: false. Immunosuppressed people are vulnerable to infection with HHV-8, which causes Kaposi’s Sarcoma. HIV leads to CD4 depletion, leads to immunosuppression, vulnerability to HHV-8, then Kaposi’s. You get HHV-8 from kissing a lot of people, so it was more common in promiscuous types than children who got HIV from pregnant mothers. So no surprise Kaposi’s lesions have HHV-8 virus, but not HIV.
And yes, certain viruses cause cancer and Peter Duesberg was right on some of that stuff before he started being an HIV provocateur. To say he had ‘compelling’ evidence about AIDS not being related to HIV has not stood the test of time. I know some scientists and they frequently propose something wild even it is unlikely to be true. If they are right, they can claim they thought it first (becomes their ‘brand’). If wrong, they have already moved on to make the next claim. Generally there is no penalty for this if you are a cosmologist, some obscure area of physiology, you’re not constantly wrong on everything, and you carefully word your disclaimer. But if half baked ideas start influencing people to make bad medical decisions, Big Brother might step in.
Did Duesberg get strong armed and cancelled? Yes he did [So did the guy who would not shut up claiming that vaccines caused autism despite many contrary epidemiologic studies or the DNA mutations in brain genes found in autistic kids]. I believe in free speech and debate on the facts even when they are uncomfortable. When you outright silence someone, conspiracies and paranoia just pile up. Rather than cancelling them, they might just have to debate Bill Burr.
What’s my reason for provocation? I think Western thought is under assault, which includes Western medicine, art, science, music, philosophy, culture, ideology and so on. Sort of seems like what this website intends to defend… I hope.
“Now that there are HIV tests, the definition of AIDS has tightened up. By definition, you don’t have AIDS unless you are proven to be HIV positive. If you are HIV negative, your diagnosis likely becomes drug/medication toxicity, or some sort of exotic bone marrow disorder. It’s a semantic game to say there are other causes of AIDS.”
Actually, you are the one playing semantic games here. If you define AIDS as involving HIV then of course people who are diagnosed with AIDS but test negative for HIV must have “something else.” But the point RFK makes, and I repeated, is: why define AIDS as involving HIV? Patients were diagnosed (and continue to be diagnosed) as having AIDS — as having ALL the characteristics of the syndrome (and remember, please, what this means) — but tested negative for HIV. This means that it is possible to have acquired immune deficiency syndrome without HIV. And this poses a huge problem for the HIV-AIDS link. To simply stipulate that if HIV is not present then patients have “some other disease (we’ll make up a name for it later)” is purely arbitrary if in fact the syndrome is indistinguishable in AIDS patients with HIV, and AIDS patients without. This is a semantic move to essentially dismiss the entire problem of HIV-less AIDS by defining it out of existence: “we just won’t call it AIDS if no HIV is found.” It is exactly the sort of thing Thomas Kuhn describes as part of what he calls “normal science” within a scientific paradigm: rather than question the dominant paradigm, scientists will explain away or dismiss anomalous findings by making ad hoc claims that “save the paradigm.” I’m shocked that you would think that somehow the introduction of HIV tests (which have been around for more than three decades) has somehow “tightened up” the definition of AIDS. HIV tests detect the presence of what scientists are already looking for, and believe to be the cause of AIDS. So wedded are they to this paradigm that if the test is negative then no matter how wrecked your immune system is, no matter clearly you have all the characteristics of the syndrome, they will say that you have “something else” other than AIDS. What does testing prove?
Really it’s not some sort of cover-up. It’s about precision. The diagnosis name implies a specific treatment. It is worth splitting off “Secondary High Blood pressure” from “High blood pressure”. If your high blood pressure is ‘secondary to’ (caused by) a kidney problem it’s appropriate to have a different category as it implies different treatments.
When it appeared HIV was a major cause of immune deficiency, some committee decided that AIDS would be the sequelae of HIV. If someone if HIV negative and has an immunodeficiency, I’m not aware that they exist in any substantial number where the cause is not identifiable. Duesberg was picked as the a key figure on Thabo Mbeki’s South African Presidential Committee on HIV. Things have not turned out well there. I personally find Public Heath Experts to be overly paternalistic, but I could not look them in the eye and suggest, let’s go more in the direction of African policy.
https://www.csis.org/analysis/worlds-largest-hiv-epidemic-crisis-hiv-south-africa
The article you link seems to use “HIV” and “AIDS” interchangeably. You should be very cautious about claims concerning African AIDS. As I point out in the article, standards for the AIDS diagnosis are quite different in Africa. Much looser, and often do not involve an HIV test. The statistics cited in the piece are also baffling. Why is AIDS a heterosexual female disease in Africa but a gay male disease everywhere else in the world?
Because of male promiscuity. The typical African alpha male keeps a harem of women.
In the ’80s and early ’90s there was a debate between Western NGOs and the Catholic Church about the distribution of condoms in Africa. The Church objected, and insisted on preaching monogamy. The NGOs, and Western liberal media in general, called the Pope a mass murderer. Then leading Harvard researcher Edward C. Green came out in support of the Church position. He said the main method of HIV spreading in African societies was through connected “sexual networks”, and the solution to the problem is pretty much what the Church preaches. The better-governed African nations adopted the monogamy policy and had good results. There wasn’t much of an AIDS epidemic in North African — Muslim — societies.
Generally speaking, these issues should be settled among scientists. We are not qualified to have an opinion on these matters. 19th century dissident scientist Semmelweis wasn’t trying to convert the general population to his handwashing theory — he was addressing his own colleagues in Vienna, at one of the most prestigious universities at the time.
Politicians and informed citizens should have opinions not about science but about the political implications of science, and decide whether to follow or, for the sake of a higher good, ignore the recommendations of the medical establishment. It is also a politician’s job to ensure that science is done in an environment more or less free of the influence of big business and entrenched lobby groups. Unfortunately we can’t have a panacea for the damage caused by inflated egos. We just have to wait it out until some other member of the scientific community with good conscience (or an equally big ego) comes forward and clears the scene.
Jef Costello wrote:
Because the females are having sex (often including sodomy) with “men who have sex with men” (MSM). Plus, there are a lot of contributing factors like rampant secondary STDs.
The medical research literature does not even use the term homosexual but MSM instead. When they say MSM, they essentially mean butt-sex.
Exclusive Lesbians who aren’t sharing needles or prostituting themselves with men are not getting AIDS.
Exclusively-heterosexual men do not usually get AIDS either unless they visit a bad blood bank or share needles.
They don’t market PrEP (pre-exposure prophylaxis) on late-night TV for Straights unless a pregnant woman is at substantial risk of HIV infection (e.g., from sex with African men who have sex with men).
AIDS isn’t “heterosexual” in Africa. That is a misinterpretation of what is happening ─ although Black females there are getting the disease. Blacks tend not to pigeonhole themselves with Western (some say Freudian) categories like homosexual/heterosexual anyway.
Also, since the mid-1980s, medical pundits have been keen to backpedal from GRIDS and to define sex (including sodomy) as just sex like any other ─ and also to emphasize that HIV is not spread easily, so as not to scare the Straights into political reaction against the Gays.
Arguably, the Gays were publicly not discouraged from donating blood while Fauci worked on a magic bullet AIDS vaccine. Obnoxious Jewish Gay activist Larry Kramer wailed to Fauci to “stop giving us this shit” (AZT).
In 1991, Magic Johnson claimed to have become HIV+ by visiting naughty girls ─ not rent boys. I found his story a little suspect but we were assured by the experts that it was possible (if far less probable). And around then less toxic antivirals became available, so he is still alive today.
🙂
[291 words]
I had a look earlier too. There isn’t much about it on pubmed at all. I wonder if non-HIV AIDS was just a kind of artifact of diagnostic bias and interpretation, rather than “AIDS” that then became popular lore.
There are people with compromised immune systems through a route other than HIV, and perhaps these got lumped into the model during the early AIDS frenzy. And so 30-40 years afterwards, critics of HIV=AIDS are still incorrectly fighting this battle over who was initially included as “AIDS”. It’s seems to me a precarious argument over definitions and words from this side.
Then there’s the simian version (SIV) from which HIV is said to derive. It can cause an AIDS-like illness in some other primates I read, although it doesn’t usually in the wild.
TBH it’s not very clear.
The claim that ART drugs do nothing is a huge claim, and reads like a shoulder shrugging gesture to me. Such a huge claim would need fleshing out by the author of this article.
Dismissing AIDS without HIV strikes me as an attempt to shore up the HIV hypothesis by dismissing data that it cannot explain, a failure that should have led to the hypothesis being discarded decades ago.
What data? No one seems to be able to show any of this data. Where are the patients with AIDS who are HIV negative? RFK is talking about a zoo of confusion 30-40 years ago at best with numbers in the hundreds. The modern data is many millions. Are we in the tradition of western enlightenment or druids? As the druids left little written accounts perhaps they can tell RFK where the HIV negative AIDS patients are.
At this point, I think you are both just grandstanding. Kennedy and Duesberg provide ample data. Do some reading then report back here.
The book is old, from the Stone Age of HIV. There are countless summaries of the refutations (ex. ‘Denying to the Grave’). But fine, instead if it being this book vs that book, go to primary sources. In the past 10-20 years where these HIV-negative patients with AIDS? There is no medical conspiracy to hide them. Even if there was, then you would have to imagine that all the gay interest groups would be quiet about this (we all heard about Monkeypox). Ironic that Duesberg told the Pellagra story, because he is analogous to the last holdout, insisting there are alternative explanations to the consensus on niacin as the cause.
“There is no medical conspiracy to hide them.”
You are assuming that the medical-industrial complex is being honest about AIDS. That is an unwarranted assumption.
Seriously, I have not heard of “HIV negative AIDS” since the 1980s. If anyone has a link of a reputable analysis that is not some guy on a podcast, lets see it.
Interesting 1986 pamphlet on relationship between poppers & AIDS: http://paganpressbooks.com/jpl/POPBOOK.PDF
That said, poppers were widely used in early 90s rave scene, which was replete with poly-drug use and dancing until well past dawn, and AIDS never took off in that context, perhaps because rave was a strangely asexual phenomenon?
And surely today’s drugs, in particular the “tranq” about which Mr Goad recently wrote, are far more destructive of immune systems than the drugs of the 70s, 80s, 90s, and yet no new AIDS epidemic?
If these druggies test positive for HIV, you can bet that their ravaged immune systems will be called AIDS rather than generic junkie ravaged immune systems.
Junkies prone to IV use and skin popping may show up with festering wounds down to the bone… yet their immune system is not only intact but mounting an elevated white blood count (which makes pus). With the exception of cancer chemotherapy, only a small fraction of drugs will ravage the immune system.
That is simply not true RE street drugs and immune suppression.
Pointing to drug users before their immune systems collapse is not a proof.
AZT is a chemotherapy drug.
Street drugs act on the brain, not the immune system. They are not causing immune collapse. No one just trust a posting, but consult a medical text, talk to any physician or nurse or someone who reads lab results for druggies in an emergency department. They are not immunosuppressed, they generally have elevated white cell counts if HIV negative and not in liver or other organ failure. Anyones marrow can shut down when at deaths door (ex. septic shock), but that not AIDS and is a syndrome that long predates it. But the immune system at best only contains and not cures some infections (tuberculosis, abscesses, osteomyelitis). A druggie without HIV doesn’t get the same infectious diseases like someone with AIDS (see elsewhere in this thread). If someone has Pneumocystis, usually easily handled by the immune system, it’s a sign of immunosuppression. Staph, MRSA, pseudomonas, clostridium et al, the rest of still need to be careful.
Yes AZT is chemotherapy drug, see above and below. Things improving amazingly when it was replaced by combinations of the better, rationally designed drugs, largely created by the west.
Your first statement is a breathtaking falsehood. Street drugs absolutely do wreak havoc with the immune system.
I know someone who walked into an emergency room with drug induced bone-marrow toxicity, and the doctor asked him, “How long have you had AIDS?” So if druggies are suffering from liver and other organ failures or bone marrow toxicity, then their immune systems are shutting down, which means susceptibility to a host of opportunistic infections.
As the great debauch of the 60s and 70s was taking its toll, there were a lot of cases like this appearing, and doctors started trying to explain them. One hypothesis is that it was a retrovirus with novel traits. But that hypothesis fails as an explanation by Mill’s canons of induction. It has stuck around because it serves a host of interests: economic, bureaucratic, and political.
Not a falsehood. Any person can have a reaction to a drug, but are they in the numbers you allege? You know one person, but talk to someone who works in an ER a they will tell you about hundreds who have an intact immune system so long as not in organ failure. if you don’t trust healthcare fine. But patients and their families are consumers. If they aren’t showing up for vaccines you think they are somehow magically convinced to stay on HIV meds if they aren’t getting results (while way better than AZT can still have side effects). Any how if this debate can go on forever, it illustrates that white identitarians are not clones in the issues they support and at the end of the day drink together (in moderation)…
I believe there are several errors in this account; anyone with a basic knowledge of immunology and access to PubMed will be able to uncover them. For example, the absence of HIV from KS tumour cells is cited: but HIV does not directly cause the tumour, rather it suppresses immune surveillance of neoplasms, so that KS is able to progress. Secondly it is not true that the ‘hypothesis’ that HIV kills CD4+ T-Cells has been ‘abandoned’. In fact HIV has been observed to kill CD4+ in vitro, and several mechanisms including ‘cell suicide’ apoptosis (which is a perfectly normal cellular response to viral shedding or genomic instability) have been studied. The characterisation of the adaptive immune response to HIV is also in error: antibodies to the virus are produced soon after initial exposure, but HIV’s genome can be reverse-transcribed into cellular DNA in many types of cell (not just CD4+) around the body. In this latent state HIV will not express protein and so antibodies fall to undetectable levels. However it is not ‘all or nothing’: the CD4+ population is being slowly eroded. When, after months or years, a threshold is breached, the immune system can no longer control certain tumours and opportunistic infections: that is when AIDS supervenes. With regard to AZT, a PubMed search will locate recent trials in which HAART prolonged survival of HIV infected persons. Generally the arguments the article advances (from Duesberg et al.) are over two decades old, from a time when HIV, as a comparatively novel and indirect disease-causing entity, was less well understood. Medicine is not Physics: there are invariably puzzling cases, anomalies and miracles. Foul play and fraud are as rife in science as in any other human endeavour. From all this a tapestry of doubt can be woven. Yet the weight of repeated clinical findings overwhelmingly supports HIV as the cause of AIDS.
What I find most shocking is how they are blaming heart attacks and blood clots on ‘long covid’ by some unknown mechanism when it is clearly the vaccine responsible! The vaccine is responsible for many of the ‘excess deaths.’
Comments are closed.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.