Hi Dr. Duesberg,
Being Black, I've had to listen to the news media demonize us for the last 7 days (Actually, more than the last 7 years) based on the "World AIDS Day" event. I've seen reporters from CNN go to African villages and hand out boxes of condoms to tribes of people and then turn around and say: "But will they USE them?" - As if, Black people are idiotic animals who are spreading a deadly disease because they can't control themselves from having sex with other "diseased" Black people. The same thing is happening in America where African Americans are being blamed for being 70%, 80% and even 90% of all the new HIV cases.
I know you're extremely busy, but could you please find time to answer some questions I have?
I definitely would appreciate it...Brad
Why do you believe that HIV is not the cause of AIDS?
Brad, this is not
a matter of belief. In my profession I must test, whether the available
evidence fits a specific theory or hypothesis. If the hypothesis predicts
and explains all facts, I would conclude that the hypothesis is right and if it
does not it would be wrong.
In the case of
AIDS the prevailing hypothesis holds that the Human Immunodeficiency Virus
(HIV) causes the 26 plus infectious and non-infectious diseases that define
AIDS.
1) This hypothesis
predicts first and foremost that AIDS is a contagious disease.
But,
according to the peer-reviewed literature:
(i)
Not one doctor or nurse has ever contracted AIDS (not just HIV) from over
929,985 AIDS patients recorded in the US by 2004.
(ii)
Not one of the thousand HIV researchers has contracted AIDS from HIV.
(iii)
No wives of hemophiliacs have contracted AIDS from their husbands.
(iv) There
is no AIDS-epidemic in prostitutes.
Thus AIDS is not contagious.
2) The
hypothesis states that only 5 to 10 years after HIV has induced anti-HIV
antibodies, alias a "positive AIDS test", the virus causes fatal AIDS
diseases.
But,
all other viruses cause diseases within days or weeks after infection shortly
before they induce anti-viral immunity. As a result disease follows soon
after infection and is self-limiting via anti-viral immunity. The
anti-viral immunity ends the disease, because the virus is neutralized and can
no longer infect any cells. In rare cases immunity comes too late.
In these cases some viral diseases can be fatal also within weeks after
infection.
By
contrast the HIV-AIDS hypothesis says that HIV causes disease only after it is
neutralized by antibody and even then only 5 to 10 years later. This is a
total paradox, that 22 years of AIDS research for at least 100 billion $ have
not been able to resolve.
The effectiveness of the anti-HIV antibodies in "HIV-positives" is the
reason, why no free virus can be found, even in dying AIDS patients.
3) HIV
is said to cause immuno-deficiency by killing T-cells. But only 1 in 500 T-cells of AIDS
patients is ever infected, even in dying AIDS patients. Thus something
else must kill T-cells in AIDS patients.
By
contrast in all other viral diseases many more cells are infected than the body
can spare or regenerate during the course of the disease. And there
is plenty of virus, but no antibody to neutralize it during the early phase of
the disease.
4) All
conventional virus diseases are randomly distributed in the population.
They don't discriminate between heterosexuals and homosexuals or between blacks
and whites.
By
contrast AIDS is restricted in the US and Europe almost 100% to male homosexuals
using amphetamines, nitrite inhalants and other psychoactive drugs as
aphrodisiacs, and to intravenous drug users.
In
sum, this suggests that drugs, rather than a latent and neutralized virus, are
causing AIDS.
Could you please explain how AIDS is nothing more than
a group of old diseases with a HIV + label?
The Centers for
Disease Control has defined AIDS since 1985 as a collection of 26 old diseases
provided they occur in the presence of anti-body against HIV. This is a
circular definition: When tuberculosis is associated with anti-body
against HIV it is called AIDS and in the absence of antibody it is diagnosed by
its old name.
Robert Gallo is the so-called "discoverer"
of HIV who was later convicted of fraud and scientific misconduct. Could you
please give a little background on who Robert Gallo is and also explain why his
1984 press conference that declared that HIV = AIDS was called the biggest
scientific, medical blunder in the 20th century?
Unfortunately
Robert Gallo's HIV-AIDS hypothesis has subsequently failed all criteria of a
viral disease and has failed to produce any beneficial results: There is
no vaccine and the anti-viral medications developed by this hypothesis cause
AIDS by killing T-cells and other human cells as well.
Failure, however,
is the common fate of many hypothesis.
The problem with
the Gallo hypothesis is that it was endorsed by his employer, the US government,
before it was published and tested. Since it became a US government
program and was advanced by government-funded researchers and propaganda,
it could no longer be scientifically challenged for political
reasons. The US government is supposed to be infallible and likewise American mainstream AIDS
scientists funded by up to 10 billion $ per year are not supposed to be
fallible.
Once the
government had endorsed Gallo's hypothesis and funded 1000s of scientists to
study it, AIDS science became as big and affluent as the Titanic. But it
could no longer turn even in face of an iceberg. It had "to stay the
course". As a result 100 thousands died un-necessarily and many of
those were even poisoned by anti-viral drugs, like AZT, originally developed 40
years ago to kill human cells for chemotherapy.
Are HIV tests even relevant since HIV is said not to be the AIDS virus?
Based on 22 years of failures to prove the HIV-AIDS hypothesis, these tests are irrelevant to AIDS.
This is maybe a
reason why president Bush just suspended on Dec. 2 unexpectedly the former
travel restrictions to the US
based on positive-HIV tests. Apparently even Bush and his advisors are no
longer sure that anti-bodies against (!) HIV are a serious health threat to
Americans.
You were in the documentary "HIV/AIDS: Fact or Fiction" where they mentioned a study that was done where 25 HIV positive men contributed 1 million sperm cells each and out of 25 million sperm cells, only one virus blueprint was found. Can you please explain what you think of HIV/AIDS with regards to it being labeled as a sexually transmitted disease?
The experiment you just described gives a
very clear answer to your question: AIDS is not sexually transmitted.
If it were, AIDS would have long ago become a heterosexual epidemic, exactly as
Gallo, the NIH and all other HIV-AIDS researchers erroneously predicted for
decades.
After all about
4.5 million babies are generated per year in the US
by conventional "unsafe" sex, but there is no heterosexual AIDS
epidemic in America!
The origin of AIDS is something that has constantly been blamed on Africa. The mainstream media has even gone so far as to
say that Africans ate monkeys or had sex with monkeys and thats how AIDS came
into existence. We are at the point now where African Americans are being
blamed for having HIV and spreading HIV at rates that are much higher than
other races. If HIV doesn't cause AIDS, why are Africans and African Americans
alike being blamed for HIV/AIDS?
This is a
non-scientific question and I can only speculate on the answer. Since
Gallo and rival HIV discoverers in Europe wanted to sell their discovery as a
new virus causing a new disease, they had to come up with an origin that was
"new" to America and Europe.
For that scenario
the African jungle is still a "paradise", nobody has relatives with
phone numbers to call there, the movie and TV industry have cultivated jungle
monsters for decades both real and imaginary from King Kong (spelling?) to wild
Gorillas mating damsels in distress, alligators, cannibals, voodoo men, Ebola viruses, killer bees, and now a new
AIDS virus - that oddly first struck male homosexuals in bathhouses and discos
of New York, San Francisco and Los Angeles - years before it became a
heterosexual AIDS epidemic in Africa!! Cute All-American and European
science fiction.
But very credible
on American and European TV shows and in science journals and - as
everybody understands - a bit more difficult to prove, like all other theories
on evolution.
Is it true that in Africa they label almost every disease and every illness as AIDS?
Perhaps not every
disease.
But it is true
that AIDS in Africa is clinically very different from AIDS in the US. Most
African AIDS cases are tuberculosis, weight loss, fever and diarrhea -
classical diseases of poverty, malnutrition and poor sanitation.
These diseases are
now diagnosed as AIDS without HIV-tests, because HIV tests are too expensive in Africa. Accordingly the American Centers
for Disease Control and the World Health Organization accept
"presumptive" AIDS diagnoses from Africa without evidence for HIV.
This in turn helps
both Africans, who get funded and foreign aid based on AIDS quotas, and
HIV-AIDS researchers in America and Europe, who must defend their new sexually
transmitted AIDS epidemics against declining case numbers at home to their
government funding agencies.
Hope these answers are useful to you. With kind regards - Peter D.
Peter Duesberg is a
professor in the department of molecular and cell biology at the University of
California (Berkeley), and a member of the United States National Academy of
Sciences.
Brad, here are two really enlightening articles about the West's fabricated HIV social catastrophe in Africa.
Humanitarian crisis in Africa (notAIDS!)
Is HIV in Africa a bluff? (notAIDS!)
Posted by: Kirk | December 15, 2006 at 02:12 PM