HIV-AIDS

Fighting a closed, dogmatic, dictatorial mindset that hates free thinkers, protesters, dissenters, heretics.

Over four years ago a number of individuals failed in their attempt to have the following four sentence letter published in a number of prominent scientific journals:

It is widely believed by the general public that a retrovirus called HIV causes the group of diseases called AIDS. Many biomedical scientists now question this hypothesis. We propose that a thorough reappraisal of the existing evidence for and against this hypothesis be conducted by a suitable independent group. We further propose that critical epidemiological studies be devised and undertaken.

This resulted in the formation of The Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV/AIDS Hypothesis. Molecular biologist, Professor Peter Duesberg, of the University of California at Berkeley, propelled this group of international scientists, writers, publicists and actionists into prominence with his claim that AIDS is a recreational drug use problem, i.e. a life-style issue.

Paul Philpott, editor of the Reappraising AIDS newsletter, has his own story to tell

Hi. My name is Paul Philpott and I am one of those 'AIDS heretics' referred to in one of your discussion threads ( on Internet). I was fired from my job as a graduate research assistant in the biology department at Florida State University for publicly expressing my view that the medical literature overwhelmingly supports the following assertions:

1. 'AIDS' is a phoney construct. People united by this diagnosis share no common pathological process, no common active microbial infection (including HIV!), and no common disease-causing factor. 'AIDS' is officially defined as the appearance of any of about 29 different diseases in people who are HIV positive. Gay men who get Kaposi's sarcoma from snorting 'poppers' are not called 'AIDS' if they are HIV-negative, although their health is identical to HIV-positive KS patients who have consumed similar amounts of 'poppers'. The same is true of crack-heads who develop pneumonia, etc. The 29 'AIDS' diseases are not related by any single factor. The many opportunistic infections of course are related to immune deficiency, but what about the two specific cancers (KS and lymphoma)? How can wiping out the immune system (leading to a variety of OIs) also lead to only two specific cancers? Also, wasting and dementia in the absence of OIs in the intestines or brain, respectively, are 'AIDS' conditions that have nothing at all to do with immune deficiency. Clearly, immune deficiency explains some, but not all, of what constitutes 'AIDS'. That means that a virus which theoretically destroys the immune system can not account for 'AIDS'.

2. HIV can not possibly be the cause of any serious illness. HIV fails every criteria of a disease-causing virus. It has never even been isolated, few 'AIDS' patients ever have active HIV infections during the time leading up to the appearance of their 'AIDS-defining' conditions, HIV-infected cells do not die in the process of producing new virus, and the disease it is said to cause - 'AIDS' occurs only after neutralizing antibodies have been produced. Hepatitis viruses, for example, can cause hepatitis before or even years after being neutralized by antibodies. But the worse and most frequent cases of hepatitis ( or herpes, or 'mono') occur immediately after acquisition of the virus, not years after the immune system has defeated it with antibodies. People who test 'HIV-positive' seldom have active HIV infections. This is proof-positive that the immune system has successfully defeated the virus, which can not break out of dormancy unless something else suppresses the immune system. And since active HIV infections can not kill host cells anyway, HIV is irrelevant even when some other factor ( such as drug use) has suppressed the immune system.

3. HIV positiveness is no more prevalent among 'AIDS' patients than is positiveness for many disease-causing viruses, such as those that cause herpes, hepatitis, and 'mononucleosis'; HIV positiveness is no more prevalent among 'AIDS' patients than is a history of recreational drug use. Factors such as chronic exposure to pathological microbes, the pharmaceuticals used to combat them, and recreational drugs are - alone or in combination - better candidates for degenerative disease causation than is HIV. In Africa, 'AIDS' is nothing more than the old diseases of chronic malnutrition and poor sanitation that have been renamed because many of these people are 'HIV positive' just as many are positive for any other germ you care to test them for.

4. The early cases of 'AIDS' were all due to such factors as recreational drug use or underlying health problems associated with haemophilia and those conditions requiring blood transfusions. Today, most US cases are probably due to the consumption of AZT, which is a cancer chemotherapy that destroys the immune system. Since 1992, AZT has been recommended for all HIV-positive people, even those with no symptoms who have no history of exposure to such pathalogical factors as recreational drug use. Half of all 'AIDS' patients today in the USA develop their symptoms only after consuming AZT. In such cases, the 'side effects' of this cancer chemotherapy are attributed to the harmless HIV, and used as 'proof' that 'HIV causes AIDS'"

5. There is no "heterosexual epidemic of 'AIDS'". To date, 56% of all identified 'AIDS' patients in the US are gay men, 93-100% of whom admit to a history of using such recreational drugs as poppers, speed, and cocaine. Another 34% are people who admit to injecting drugs. Another 4% are people who admit to knowingly having had sex with a drug injector, suggesting strongly that these people have a history of drug use as well ( although the CDC refuses to ask them about non-injected drug use). Altogether, that's 94% of the total 'AIDS' cases. Another 3% are people with such extraordinary experiences as clotting factor injections or blood transfusions, for a combined total of 97%. The remaining 3% include people who lied about their status as gay men or drug injectors, people outside of the risk groups who developed 'AIDS' only after taking AZT, and non-injection drug users who do not belong to the official risk groups. Thus 15 years after 'AIDS' was first described in the literature, the hypothesis that this condition - assuming that it is a single condition - is contagious has been convincingly falsified.

6. 'AIDS babies' are really just crack and heroin babies renamed if their mothers happen to be HIV positive.

7. HIV is so difficult to transmit via vaginal intercourse that it does not qualify by any honest definition as a sexually transmitted germ. Where true venereal germs transmit about once every four unprotected contacts, the transmission rate for HIV is only about one in a thousand.

8. By the CDC's own statistics, new cases of 'AIDS' were down in 1994 for all groups: men, women, blacks, whites, gay, straight, young, old rural, and urban. The claims you've heard about 'AIDS' growing among women, teenagers, non-whites are based on logic games. For example, there were fewer new cases of female 'AIDS' in 1994 than in 1993; however, the drop in male cases was greater, meaning that females accounted for a larger piece of a smaller pie. It is this increase that the CDC is referring to.

There are even more reasons to reject the HIV theory of 'AIDS'. Peter Duesberg, the molecular biologist at Berkeley, hardly stands alone in his dissension. Most, however, will not admit their support in public because this would mean losing grants and promotions. 'AIDS' research is the largest funding source for biological-related sciences, and is so only because the tax-paying public thinks that the diseases of drug-using gay men are contagious. When I was quoted in Tallahassee newspapers as supporting Duesberg, it created a great scandal in the biology department at Florida State University. Due to pressure from his colleagues, my professor had to fire me from my job as a lab tech and informed me that my tentatively-approved graduate school application would not even be considered. But none of that matters. Science is not a popularity contest. If you bother to hit the library stacks for yourself, I am sure that you will agree with the Duesberg position as well. I suggest that interested people start with the 1995 'Special Issue' of Genetica ( a genetics journal) that is devoted to the dissident view. Duesberg is not the only scientist contributing to this issue.

See: Duesberg, Peter H.,1995, Infectious AIDS: Have We Been Misled? A collection of thirteen articles originally published in scientific journals that call into question the dogma of infectious AIDS. ISBN 1-55643-204-6.

source:
http://www.adelaideinstitute.org/newsletters/news52.html