Inventing the AIDS Virus

How anyone with an open mind can come away from this book still believing the HIV hypothesis of AIDS is beyond me. Although Duesberg doesn't continue much into the politcs of AIDS, it's clear that many groups benefit from the HIV hypothesis including NIH sponsored researchers, drug companies and now most of all the governments/dictators of third world countries looking for funds. African AIDS is just a redefinition of all the maladies caused by malnutrition, poor public sewer and water infrastructure along with the many germ caused diseases that have all been lumped together and called AIDS. This was one of the most important books of the late 20th century and will be seen as such within a decade. By the way, those who accuse Duesberg of being some sort of right-wing fanatic due to the fact that Regnery published this are way off base. Drug companies are one of the obvious villians in this story and as far as I can tell, left wingers everywhere love to hate the drug companies so they should be applauding this book. This is not a conservative vs liberal issue. It's a search for truth.

Most people tend to forget that HIV causation of AIDS is just a theory.. A good theory should have the ability to explain current and historical data and predict future events. Well, is the official HIV theory of AIDS a good one?. The answer is NO according to Dr. Peter Duesberg. Systemically, he exposed the major flaws within the HIV theory of AIDS. His major arguments were: 1. Infectious diseases are not gender specific and they tend to spread exponentially in unprotected populations. Neither has applied to the AIDS epidemic to date. The incidence of AIDS in the Western world has not increased since it peaked in the late 80's . The disease seemed confined to the original risk groups(male homosexuals, long term drug abusers and some hemophiliacs) and have up to this point, affected mostly males. The explosion of heterosexual AIDS predicted by the HIV theory never materialized.2. According to Dr. Duesberg , an eminent retrovirologist in his own rite, the class of virus that HIV belongs to has never been shown to cause disease processes in humans. HIV has NEVER been shown in vivo or in vitro to destroy T-cells. Dr. Duesberg claims that HIV is essentially one of the many types passenger viruses that normally exist in humans without any harmful effects and has been with us a long long time.3. Koch's postulates have been the gold standard for proving causation of a disease by a potential infectious agent. Duesberg tested the evidence behind HIV against these postulates and proved how HIV failed them miserably.The book can be loosely divided into four parts. In the early chapters, Duesberg presented the historical background leading up to the so-called discovery of HIV. Duesberg provided evidence that overzealous virologists, after failing miserably to prove a viral link to cancer, were desperately looking for an epidemic to bolster their collective dwindling fortune and reputations. AIDS filled the bill nicely and Gallo was able to pin a virus (at that called the HLTVIII or AIDS virus) to the disease. The section on Gallo was especially illuminating as it questioned the scientific integrity of Gallo, who was the first one to lay claim to the discovery of the virus that caused AIDS.In the second part, Duesberg gave the definition of AIDS and showed how CDC has tried to manipulate the statistics of AIDS by continually amending the criteria. He also presented his major arguments and supporting evidence against the HIV theory. The third part dealt with the drugs used to treat AIDS. The only drugs available up to the point of writing of this book were the DNA chain terminators which included AZT, ddI and ddC. Unbeknownst to most people who thought AZT was a new miracle drug at the time of its approval, this drug in fact was a failed chemotherapeutic agent abandoned in the early 60's due to its excessive toxicity. One has to remember that a chemotherapeutic agent is only meant for short term use, while AIDS drugs are supposed to taken for the re

Silence=Death. That's what the Act Up movement has been screaming for years. Then why the effort to silence Duesberg, who is only asking for scientific review of the "evidence" that HIV causes AIDS? It is the effort to silence Duesberg that actually adds to his credibility, the massive effort to keep his thoughts, questions and ideas from the mass of individuals who might start asking their own questions. Aren't we taught to ask questions of our doctors? Aren't we taught that we have to take responsibility for our own well being? Why is it that Duesberg is considered such a threat to the medical establishment? Who benefits by his silence? Who loses if the truth comes out?From the first chapter: "our leading scientists and policymakers cannot demonstrate that their efforts have saved a single life." Who benefits from testing and "treating" the "high risk" communities who are, more likely, dying from the "treatment" that is *not* saving their lives? "AIDS itself has not yet affected larger numbers of women nor has it entered the heterosexual population outside of drug addicts: nine out of ten AIDS patients is still male, and more than 95 percent still fall into the same risk categories: homosexual (men), heroin addicts, or, in a few cases, hemophiliacs. All other sexually transmitted diseases are equally distributed between the sexes. AIDS has not exploded into the heterosexual population, as do all other sexually transmitted diseases. Yet, the cry rings out for all pregnant women (especially women of color) to be tested, to receive treatment *even if they are not sick*, to transmit AZT to their unborn children, *to save their lives." This, while expectant mothers will be arrested if they take cocaine or drink alcohol, and will be lectured if they take so much as an aspirin. What is wrong with this picture?David Ho, director of the Aaron Diamond AIDS Research Center of New York, recently gave the key to long-term survival with HIV: "None had received antiretroviral therapy." The chilling news is that instead of preventing AIDS, the drugs help to bring it on. The mortality of AZT recipients is 25 percent higher than that of those in untreated control groups. The drug, originally developed for cancer chemotherapy, efficiently destroys the immune system and causes symptoms largely indistinguishable from "AIDS" itself. Even the AIDS establishment is admitting the problems with AZT today.The anger pointed at Duesberg is easily understood as he uncovers much of the dirty politics behind the American scientific establishment: something that can only ring very familiar bells as the beginning of the epidemic and the confusion around "who discovered the virus," come to mind, and the press conference that *announced* the cause of the "epidemic" as Secretary of Health and Human Services Margaret Heckler was ushered, quickly and quietly, out of the country. Freedom of speech and scientific inquiry hav