Peter H. Duesberg, Ph.D. is a professor of Molecular and Cell Biology at the University of California, Berkeley. Almost two decades of unprecedented efforts in research costing US taxpayers over $50 billion have failed to defeat Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) and have failed to explain the chronology and epidemiology of AIDS in America and Europe. The failure to cure AIDS is so complete that the largest American AIDS foundation is even exploiting it for fundraising: 'Latest AIDS statistics 0,000,000 cured. Support a cure, support AMFAR.' The scientific basis of all these unsuccessful efforts has been the hypothesis that AIDS is caused by a sexually transmitted virus, termed Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), and that this viral immunodeficiency manifests in 30 previously known microbial and non-microbial AIDS diseases.
On the basis of his experience with retroviruses, Duesberg has challenged the virus-AIDS hypothesis in the pages of such journals as Cancer Research, Lancet, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Science, Nature, Journal of AIDS, AIDS Forschung, Biomedicine and Pharmacotherapeutics, New England Journal of Medicine and Research in Immunology. He has instead proposed the hypothesis that the various American/European AIDS diseases are brought on by the long-term consumption of recreational drugs and/or AZT itself, which is prescribed to prevent or treat AIDS.
14 comments:
(1) AIDS is not contagious. For example, not even one health care worker has contracted AIDS from over 800,000 AIDS patients in America and Europe.
(2) AIDS is highly non-random with regard to sex (86% male); sexual persuasion (over 60% homosexual); and age (85% are 25-49 years old).
(3) From its beginning in 1980, the AIDS epidemic progressed non-exponentially, just like lifestyle diseases.
(4) The epidemic is fragmented into distinct subepidemics with exclusive AIDS-defining diseases. For example, only homosexual males have Kaposi's sarcoma.
(5) Patients do not have any one of 30 AIDS-defining diseases, nor even immunodeficiency, in common. For example, Kaposi's sarcoma, dementia, and weight loss may occur without immunodeficiency. Thus, there is no AIDS-specific disease.
(6) AIDS patients have antibody against HIV in common only by definition-not by natural coincidence. AIDS-defining diseases of HIV-free patients are called by their old names.
(7) Recreational drug use is a common denominator for over 95% of all American and European AIDS patients, including male homosexuals.
(8) Lifetime prescriptions of inevitably toxic anti-HIV drugs, such as the DNA chain-terminator AZT, are another common denominator of AIDS patients.
(9) HIV proves to be an ideal surrogate marker for recreational and anti-HIV drug use. Since the virus is very rare (< 0.3%) in the US/European population and very hard to transmit sexually, only those who inject street drugs or, have over 1,000 typically drug-mediated sexual contacts are likely to become positive.
(10) The huge AIDS literature cannot offer even one statistically significant group of drug-free AIDS patients from America and Europe.
Your statistics are all wrong. Deusberg is a douchebag who has researched cancer genes but has not done research on the HIV virion for himself. Like I said before he also firmly believes that some 'races' are smarter than others. He has absolutely NULL SET credibility!
As to your last contention, um what about hemophiliacs who died early in the epidemic? Many of them were CHILDREN who did not use illicit drugs.
Hey, it makes sense to question orthodoxies and if you would choose another poster child for questioning our knowledge of HIV disease, I could see it. But you have a guy up there who has absolutely no pot to piss in and has been known to be wrong before!
OK Mahndisa.
He's wrong.
I'm wrong.
He is a "cancer" expert not a 'HIV' expert and he believes some races are smarter than others, he eats pizza with anchovies and he votes Republican. So what.
We get "who" is wrong.
What ... exactly is wrong, pray tell?
(1) AIDS is not contagious. For example, not even one health care worker has contracted AIDS from over 800,000 AIDS patients in America and Europe.
(2) AIDS is highly non-random with regard to sex (86% male); sexual persuasion (over 60% homosexual); and age (85% are 25-49 years old).
(3) From its beginning in 1980, the AIDS epidemic progressed non-exponentially, just like lifestyle diseases.
(4) The epidemic is fragmented into distinct subepidemics with exclusive AIDS-defining diseases. For example, only homosexual males have Kaposi's sarcoma.
(5) Patients do not have any one of 30 AIDS-defining diseases, nor even immunodeficiency, in common. For example, Kaposi's sarcoma, dementia, and weight loss may occur without immunodeficiency. Thus, there is no AIDS-specific disease.
(6) AIDS patients have antibody against HIV in common only by definition-not by natural coincidence. AIDS-defining diseases of HIV-free patients are called by their old names.
(7) Recreational drug use is a common denominator for over 95% of all American and European AIDS patients, including male homosexuals.
(8) Lifetime prescriptions of inevitably toxic anti-HIV drugs, such as the DNA chain-terminator AZT, are another common denominator of AIDS patients.
(9) HIV proves to be an ideal surrogate marker for recreational and anti-HIV drug use. Since the virus is very rare (< 0.3%) in the US/European population and very hard to transmit sexually, only those who inject street drugs or, have over 1,000 typically drug-mediated sexual contacts are likely to become positive.
(10) The huge AIDS literature cannot offer even one statistically significant group of drug-free AIDS patients from America and Europe.
?
?
?
?
what say you all about this dude? >>
http://www.boydgraves.com/timeline/
i saw an old (1990-ish) interview with him on "the right side" with armstrong williams, he seemed to present a strong case.
just curious.
I don't abt some of these claims DV,
(2) That is not neccessarily true. In America in the early '90's there were significant numbers of young pregnant women who were HIV+. And in the case in Eastern Europe where drug users and sex workers are high risk groups alongside homosexual males.
From Federal Service for Surveillance of Consumer Rights Protection and Human Well-Being of the Russian Federation and UNAIDS2008 on www.avert.org
"[For partners sex workers and drug users] Heterosexual contact, which accounts for nearly two-thirds of infections in women in Russia, accounts for an ever-growing proportion of new infections. In 2000, women comprised 20.6% of new infections; in 2003, this figure was 38.5%; and in 2007, the proportion had grown to 44% or 135,000."
(3) Not necessarily the case if you look at the US; being Black or Hispanic is not a lifestyle choice.
(4) Really? From what I know HIV-related Karposi's Sarcoma is known to affect heterosexual men too; at first it was primarily gay men but in the '80's there was an increasing rise in cases of straight men. And in Africa there are some cases of HIV-related Sarcoma in young African males.
(7) Not true. Drug users account for 22% of HIV positive people in the US, homosexuals 47% (not known if they are users or not).
(6) I don't understand that; plse explain.
In view of this, we propose that the long-term consumption of recreational drugs (such as cocaine, heroin, nitrite inhalants, and amphetamines) and prescriptions of DNA chain-terminating and other anti-HIV drugs, cause all AIDS diseases in America and Europe that exceed their long-established, national backgrounds, i.e. >95%. Chemically distinct drugs cause distinct AIDS-defining diseases; for example, nitrite inhalants cause Kaposi's sarcoma, cocaine causes weight loss, and AZT causes immunodeficiency, lymphoma, muscle atrophy, and dementia. The drug hypothesis predicts that AIDS:
(1)
is non-contagious;
(2) is non-random, because 85% of AIDS causing drugs are used by males, particularly sexually active homosexuals between 25 and 49 years of age, and
(3) would follow the drug epidemics chronologically.
Indeed, AIDS has increased from negligible numbers in the early 1980s to about 80,000 annual cases in the early '90s and has since declined to about 50,000 cases (US figures). In the same period, recreational drug users have increased from negligible numbers to millions by the late 1980s, and have since decreased possibly twofold. However, AIDS has declined less because since 1987 increasing numbers of mostly healthy, HIV-positive people, currently about 200,000, use anti-HIV drugs that cause AIDS and other diseases. At least 64 scientific studies, government legislation, and non-scientific reports document that recreational drugs cause AIDS and other diseases. Likewise, the AIDS literature, the drug manufacturers, and non-scientific reports confirm that anti-HIV drugs cause AIDS and other diseases in humans and animals. In sum, the AIDS dilemma could be solved by banning anti-HIV drugs, and by pointing out that drugs cause AIDS –modeled on the successful anti-smoking campaign.
An unflinching determination to take the whole evidence into account is the only method
of preservation against the fluctuating extremes of fashionable opinion.
Alfred North Whitehead (1861-1947)
(Whitehead, 1967).
To date, over 225,000 African Americans have died of AIDS - nearly 40% of total deaths - and of the more than 1 million people living with HIV in the United States of America today, around half are black. And yet, as a racial group, African Americans represent just 13% of the US population. The estimated lifetime risk of becoming infected with HIV is 1 in 16 for black males, and 1 in 30 for black females, a far higher risk than for white males (1 in 104) and white females (1 in 588). (www.avert.org)
In other words African Americans so disproportionately affected by AIDS in America.
The '95% recreational lifestyle as cause of infection' statistic is a myth. Bra, 5/10 of Duesberg's claims are incorrect.
Kaaaaay Duuuuub ...
You really missing this one Sista. And I think that when you finally come around, you are going to see a path out of this Biological Booby Trap they have set for our people.
HIV & "Having AIDS" are two different things.
The HIV "test" is not even standardized.
The Western Blot Test is pure QUACKERY.
England for example dropped the Western Blot test as confirmation of HIV while the practice continued in Scotland.
Results? Tremendous conflicts in results which meant there were thousands of "False Positives & False Diagnosis".
What happens to people falsely diagnosed with HIV?
They get HIV / AIDS Drugs (AZT)
What happens to people on HIV / AIDS Drugs?
They get AIDS symptoms and die.
African Americans & Africans are more often FALSELY DIAGNOSED WITH HIV / AIDS and railroaded to a medicated death.
It's fuckin' murder.
The faster our BEST & BRIGHTEST see through this HIV / AIDS charade the more lives we can save.
We've been TOLD HIV was synonymous with AIDS for so long that we cannot even imagine anything else.
AIDS is a damaged immune system.
Do you REALLY THINK the only thing that can damage an immune system is a tiny particular virus no one has e ever really isolated? Never even seen it?
You might as well believe in the boogy man.
Come now KW.
I thought you would be the first to see this, step up and accept the truth.
(Mahndisa you dragging your feet too.)
What's good DV,
So I'm really missing this one huh? Ok, lemme start from the top and you point out to where I lose it. The basic premise of your boy Duesberg is comprised of TWO different things:
1a. That HIV/AIDS in North America & Europe is primarily bec of recreactional drugs - no?
But in the US alone AIDS related deaths are majority homosexual males (47%), drug users (both males and female) are 22% etc, as I said upthread.
b.In Duesberg's ramblings he says AIDS affects mainly male homosexuals and drugusers - who I presume are mainly male, and this leads him to conclude that HIV/AIDS is primarily a druggie n homo's illness - rite?
But err what about African Americans (among African American males its one of the top 5 cause of deaths) and Hispanics in the US and Easter European female prostitutes who comprise high risk groups?
And let's make things even more complicated and compare the rates in Central and South America where drug use rates are high but HIV/AIDS rates is primarily because of sexual activity.
So what does that tell us about HIV/AIDS then? Perhaps that non-random disease is not so non-random. Or non-random describes something else other than gender and ethnicity, maybe?
2. That AIDS drugs may be the cause and exacerbator of HIV because HIV does not cause AIDS.
That is a completely different strand to what you argued upthread yesterday and that is something that we can talk about seperately. It is not the same as saying AIDS is non-random and an illness primarily affecting drug-users.
By that token, Black, Hispanic and Eastern European female AIDS-related deaths and deaths among haemophilliacs (as Mahndisa said) are ALL non-significant stats & deaths among these groups tell us NOTHING of significance abt the disease.
Umm ok, if that's point then I'm quite happy to miss the point.
"So what does that tell us about HIV/AIDS then?" KW
Kay Dub you are proving Duesberg correct.
"What We CALL AIDS ... is several DIFFERENT things."
Just like what we call "THE Flu" more often than not has nothing to do with "Influenza".
A 24 year old, 72 lb., Brother in Botswana slowly dying on a cot in the back of some hospital 60 miles outside of Gaborne ... is TOLD he is dying of AIDS.
Kay Dub, what makes you think he is dying of the same disease as a 36 year old homosexual meth addict 60 miles outside of San Francisco?
Oh ...
Because they both "test positive" for HIV?
Sister, Duesberg points out that the entire concept of "AIDS" as a unique, disease caused by ONE thing (HIV) is fundamentally flawed.
Not only is it wrong.
It is dangerous.
Billions of dollars and 3 decades have been wasted trying to protect people from "AIDS" ... by "Killing HIV".
Continuation on this insane path, this scientific quackery, this nonsense, is beyond criminal.
HIV /AIDS is a meme. An idea. An abstraction. A distraction.
It is NOT SCIENCE.
"HIV wherever it came from was a harmless retrovirus that was being used as a cover story to explain/conceal an emerging depopulation operation in the Third World. HIV was also a cover for other agendas outside the Third World. As long as AIDS is the target of WHO/UN "humanitarian" efforts, the actual causes which are easily reversible of death in Africa, Asia, and Latin America are allowed to remain and fester and expand."
Depopulation and HIV by Jon Rappoport
DV said
"Kay Dub you are proving Duesberg correct.
"What We CALL AIDS ... is several DIFFERENT things.""
No that's not the bit I'm answering - AIDS being different things relates to the second part of his argument and maybe even develops into a third. At that point I was refuting his 1st premise, not the 2nd or 3rd; the 1st which was straight trippin'.
DV said:
"A 24 year old, 72 lb., Brother in Botswana slowly dying on a cot in the back of some hospital 60 miles outside of Gaborne ... is TOLD he is dying of AIDS.
Kay Dub, what makes you think he is dying of the same disease as a 36 year old homosexual meth addict 60 miles outside of San Francisco?"
Well they're not. I'm sure you know about the different strains of HIV and the various subtypes that develop through mutations and recombinations. HIV is the general term of reference to refer to these varieties in everyday language, but within medical discourse those distinctions are made apparent as and when neccessary. (Even here, you yourself refer to AIDS and I know what you mean even though medically speaking AIDS is what the disease eventually develops into and one dies from an AIDS related cause rather than it being AIDS from the getgo to the deathbed - seen?) There's HIV 1 and its subtypes and HIV 2 found in specific parts of the world. HIV 2 is rare and is found in West Africa. In your example the homo would most likely have HIV 1 Subtype B which is common to homos and is also common to the US and Europe and the brother in Bots would have HIV Subtype C - common to Southern and East Africa and parts of South East Asia.
But how does this affect how the disease develops? HIV C is the subtype spread the fastest and develops within the body the fastest and there is an argument suggesting it's easier to transmit than the other subtypes. This together, with Africans being more susceptible to the virus bec of their genetic makeup, chances are the brother in Bots will die sooner than the fag in San Fran; forget ARVs and all that.
That HIV does not cause AIDS is something that's up for debate, I'm no medical expert (and those who know better can break it down better), but there are some persuasive arguments suggesting that HHV6 and HIV is what leads to full-blown AIDS.
HHV-6 foundation.org says, "HHV-6 by itself causes significant immunologic damage and dysregulation, the combination of active HIV and HHV-6 leads to more severe immunosuppression in AIDS patients, thereby enhancing the progression of the disease."
Kay Duub Kay Duub Kay Duuub ...
I'm going to have to lay off the organic carrots and goji berries ... because you seem to be proving this cat Duseberg right every time you call yourself refuting him.
Different "AIDS" in Africa than America ... Different AIDS for Homos vs. Normal people... HIV 1, HIV 2, HIV 3, HIV Turbo, HIV with the AMG kit ...
How about THEY HAVE NO FUCKING IDEA what causes AIDS.
Why must we fit the square peg of HIV into the round hole of AIDS?
Why must our analysis of this horrible condition always lead back to HIV?
That is not a scientific process.
You don't start with the answer .. and then ask questions, ignoring the answers that don't match your predetermined outcome.
What causes AIDS?
Obviously, judging by the millions of dead corpses, The Medical Establishment doesn't know.
Post a Comment