What if everything we’ve been told about AIDS is a lie?  I read the book “Inventing the AIDS Virus” by Dr. Peter Duesberg and it brings up some critical points and questions.  Duesberg is a professor of Molecular and Cell Biology, isolated the first cancer gene through his work on retroviruses in 1970, and has mapped out the genetic structure of these retroviruses.  He doesn’t seem to be a nutcase.  

Some of the points he documents are:

- There has not been a definitive, scientific linking of the virus called HIV to causing the condition known as AIDS.  It's an assumption that has become dogma.

- There have been people diagnosed with AIDS who do not carry the HIV virus.  If HIV is not present, where did the AIDS come from?

- There are people who carry the HIV virus who live perfectly normal, healthy lives (Not all viruses cause diseases.  This is an indicator that the virus called HIV may be a harmless “passenger virus”).

- Healthy people identified as carrying the HIV virus who are given a “preventative” regimen of “anti-AIDS” drugs tend to get sick, deteriorate, and die.  These drugs are highly toxic.  AZT was originally developed for chemotherapy and was shelved during clinical trials because it did more damage to the subjects than the cancer they were trying to treat.

- Otherwise healthy people with the HIV virus who have taken these drugs and gotten sick returned to normal health when they stopped taking these chemicals.

- The condition known as AIDS is a collection of some 30 diseases that have been with us all along.  Duesberg has collected evidence that strongly indicates that the weakening of the immune system resulting in the onset of these diseases could be mainly caused by malnutrition and/or drug abuse.  Thus, we see high incidents of these conditions in places such as Africa & Haiti, and among drug addicts and homosexuals (Who commonly use drugs in conjunction with their sexual activity).

- The CDC and other organizations with a stake in the AIDS industry refuse to debate Duesberg on this.  They are locked into the HIV-AIDS route and do not tolerate other possibilities

- If Duesberg’s ideas are proven correct, the multi-billion dollar AIDS industry would collapse overnight.  Thus, the pharmaceutical companies and research organizations that depend on grant funding would be in a financially difficult situation to say the least.  However, if Duesberg is right these organizations are sentencing thousands, if not millions, to death as they chase a red herring.  It’s all about the Benjamins.


Spend some time at his website and see if what he says makes sense to you: [url]http://www.duesberg.com/[/url]


Here’s an interesting article he wrote on African AIDS: [url]http://www.duesberg.com/subject/africa2.html[/url]

i agree

it's all a scam, so here's hoping the .gov will realize this and never spend another penny on aids research

I just recently heard a report that 20% of the population of Africa is supposed to have AIDS... ( I do not remember the source, I think it was on the radio)

Anyhow, gloom-and-doom statistics are always put forth with this 'disease'.  Could it be a cash grab?

Come on, Brohawk, old buddy!  You ought to know better than this.

You can find some crackpot to espouse any silly theory.  I could point you to web sites that say that the earth is flat and that we never actually went to the moon.

Just because someone says something, doesn't make it true.  Millions of deaths due to AIDS and millions of cases of blood or blood products transfer, is a pretty strong case.

Yup.  African countries get lots of attention by inflating AIDS statistics.  This way the UN sends more money to them for AIDS relief.  Most of those countries are dirt poor, so that extra UN money makes it lucrative to have lots of "AIDS Cases."

Some more on this book (as well as efforts to suppress its publication) can be found here:
[url]http://www.webleyweb.com/tle/le951103.html[/url]

and here [url]http://www.webleyweb.com/tle/le951101.html[/url]

-Nick Viejo.

Howdy, Old Painless,

If it was just opinion without documentation I would have dismissed the guy as a kook.  Um, not trying to be nitpicky, but "millions of cases of...blood products transfer" could fall under the umbrella of your above statement.

Like I said above:

- AIDS is a collection of some 30 diseases that have been with us all along.  There's no question that people are dying from these.

- The main point is whether HIV is the cause (Remember those people who get diagnosed with AIDS but don't carry HIV?) or if there are other causes (such as the weakening of the immune system by malnutrition or dru abuse).

I'm not qualified to give an absolute statement whether Duesberg is right or not.  I'm just saying he brings up some points that I think should be seriously investigated.

Edited to add: Check out his research and see if what he says makes sense to you.  As Neal says, "Don't take my word for anything.  Check it out for yourself."

Duesberg makes a valid point that is worth the debate, but it is lost on the AIDS propaganda.  I have a friend who is an AIDS HIV counciler.  I mentioned Duesberg and he said he is universally dispised in the AIDS HIV and gay communities.  They say he is a moralizing right wing crack pot, and not to listened to.  I thought he was a scientist with a different opinion.

Bilster

Those are not mutually exclusive postions

Bilster: You mean the didn't factually, rationally disprove his points, but just called him names?  How shocking!  How typical!  How blind!

People in high risk groups have been dying from the same diseases for ages. If a person has that disease and tests positive for HIV it's now labelled AIDS.

The false positive rate among both the ELISA and Western Blot tests for non high risk groups is greater than 90%.

False positives can be caused by dozens of common illnesses including the common cold.

EVERYONE will test positive for AIDS using the Western Blot test unless the blood sample is diluted. The dilution amount varies from nation to nation so a person who tests positive in Africa might not test positive in the US.

Non high risk group individuals who test positive for HIV and receive treatment die at the same rate as high risk HIV positive individuals. Non high risk group HIV positive individuals who refuse treatment die at the same rate as the general population.


So what constitutes a high risk individual?

Typically an intravenous drug abuser or a promiscuous gay male. However TV ads for home testing kits show fresh faced white females who have almost no chance of contracting AIDS. Of course if you don't scare the shit out of the general population and they realize that, for the most part, the only people who contract clinical AIDS are junkies and indiscriminate bone smugglers, how willing do you think the US public would be to have the governmenet spend billions of their tax dollars for research, cure, vaccine, etc?

I think that AIDS is real, and that HIV is, at the very least, a helpful link in diagnosis.
Having said that I think there is a huge mass of overblown statistics and popular myth associated with the disease.

During the time I was a medical resident (early 90's), about 20% of the hospitalizations at the county hospital were AIDS related. I NEVER saw a case that did not involve at least one of the following scenarios:
1. Homosexual intercourse
2. Prostitution, homo or hetero
3. IV drug use

A lot of time and effort have been spent on promoting AIDS as a disease which strikes all portions of the population equally. This was done solely to sell it to the great unwashed. Problem is, it ain't true! Nearly 100% of the cases are associated with high risk behavior. The incidence of AIDS has remained statistically the same since the disease was formally named. It is far from an epidemic.

I can see why they despise him.  AIDS research and treatment is a multibillion dollar a year industry supported by both private and government benefactors.  Were his theories to prove true, their cash cows would disappear! But, you won't see 60 minutes looking into this.  This will make a great movie when it all plays out.

I hear that they've started using lawyers instead of white mice for AIDS research. It turns out that there are three reasons why:

1. The researchers don't become emotionally attached to the lawyers.

2. They found out that there are more lawyers than white mice.

3. There are some things that a white mouse just won't do!

[size=4]Show me the money![/size=4]

The AIDS research rally cry.

TWIRE, what is the corelation between the first two items listed, and hard drug use (Harder than mary jane)?  I bet it is exceedingly high.

And another thought.  Awile back, I seem to remember that to increase the number of people who die from aids, they added some diseases that were listed to the "if you test positive for hiv, and die from one of these things, it is directly attributable to AIDS"

HorseHockey.

TXL

Are we talking US or would you say that it is not epidemic in Sub-Saharan Africa also?  I'm under the impression it is an epidemic in Africa for some cultural/ social reasons.

From one of the articles I referenced above:


Maybe there really are lots of AIDS cases in Africa, but those points quoted above are hard to ignore.

-Nick Viejo.

Edit to ask: The nurse said, "If people die of herpes, it's called AIDS."  Can herpes be a fatal condition?  I always thought it was more of an annoyance, with the cold sores and all.

Herpes encephalitis is often fatal.

I get the picture.  It's similar to when my dad was dying and they shipped him to a convalescent hospital so he was likely not a negative statistic at the operating hospital.  Perceptions.

On the blood product transmission thought, [i]IF[/i]

- HIV is actually a harmless passenger virus, and

- it is passed on to another person via blood products, and

- the person is then discovered to be carrying the virus, and

- he is placed on a "preventative" regimen of toxic "anti-AIDS" drugs, and

- he becomes ill and the doses are increased, and

- he becomes sicker and eventually dies, what did he die of?  Every person diagnosed with HIV/AIDS who dies is classified as an AIDS death, even if it was the toxic chemicals administered by a well-meaning doctor that caused the breakdown in the immune system.

IMHO, this is going to continue chasing its tail until they get outside of their current paradigm in research.  But the, billion in funding is at stake.

Patients with advanced AIDS cannot fight infections as well as you or I...hence the name (Acquired ImmunoDeficiency Syndrome). Advanced AIDS patients can die from simple infections (herpes being one of them) and they would attribute that death to AIDS.