Inventing the AIDS Virus
Inventing the AIDS Virus
Peter Duesberg and Kary Mullis
Make Public Comments CDC Meeting TODAY
nice of them to let the public know today about their meeting TODAY, make your comments, info below
Dr. Robert Malone mentioned Peter Duesberg in his recent interview with Joe Rogan.
The Detailed Story Of Peter Duesberg's Ruination By Anthony Fauci Soon Out On Kindle: "The Passion Of Peter Duesberg"
Celia Farber
Malone mentioned Peter Duesberg.
My good friend Peter Olsen wrote me on Facebook and said he had listened to the entire Malone interview. I asked him to report what he had heard and he listed many explosive subjects Malone had touched on.
“He also goes back in time and testifies his respect for your old friend Peter Duesberg.”
…Peter Duesberg’s name, the name they (Fauci Inc) worked so violently and diligently to erase for decades, comes back now, emerges like a full moon between the trees.
I have a sense that people are standing beneath this Duesberg Moon, feeling a yearning and a remorse, like a great love they didn’t know to appreciate at the time. It got away.
People want to pay their respects to him. And I can help with this!
The greatest form of respect is to listen to another’s story, just to know it and care.
My article “The Passion Of Peter Duesberg” was written (2003-2006) in the last age of long form journalism, for Harper’s, but not published as it was written, because it got collapsed into a longer, very different article.
…About a year ago, or more, a few friends and I actually got around to obtaining an electronic version of my out-of print book, containing this chapter, as Chapter One. Then my friend Alex Hatch took a photo I once took on a throwaway camera, in Milan in 2001, of Peter Duesberg and Kary Mullis, and made a cover in a few minutes, which I thought was perfect. A somewhat boozy photo, admittedly—not the usual boring science cover. They’re looking at the sky.
Tonight, my goal is to publish this chapter as a first chapter on Amazon Kindle Direct Publishing. With our somewhat experimental cover, which I am non-negotiable about: It’s the cover.
So, here’s the plan: I’m publishing my old book again, one chapter at a time on Kindle. (For now.)
While we are under a Duesberg Moon.
The Passion Of Peter Duesberg
How Anthony Fauci And His AIDS Industry Sacrificed One Of America's Greatest Cancer Scientists [Chapter One]
Celia Farmer
We know that to err is human, but the HIV/AIDS hypothesis is one hell of a mistake. I say this rather strongly as a warning. Duesberg has been saying it for a long time. Read this book. --Kary B. Mullis, Nobel Prize in Chemistry, 1993
AIDS And The AZT Scandal
Celia Farber’s book, Serious Adverse Events: An Uncensored History of AIDS (14) – an exposé of the epidemic’s ethically questionable history – contains an interesting appendix authored by Rodney Richards. Richards – who helped to develop the first ELISA test for HIV – outlines the “evolution” of CDC’s stances regarding the role of antibodies, infection, and HIV tests. First, the CDC aligned itself with the traditional view of antibodies signaling past/prior infection (as evidenced in the quote above, from 1984). In 1986, the CDC moved toward a qualified claim, stating:
… patients with repeatedly reactive screening tests for HTLV-III/LAV antibody … in whom antibody is also identified by the use of supplemental tests (e.g., WB, immunofluorescence assay) should be considered both infected and infective [(15), p. 334].
“The HIV/AIDS hypothesis is one hell of a mistake”, wrote Kary Mullis in 1996 [(1), p. 14]. Mullis – Nobel Laureate in Chemistry, 1993 – and other distinguished scientists have claimed the HIV-causes-AIDS hypothesis is false, unproductive, and unethical. They have done so since 1984, when the hypothesis was proposed.
Thirty years after countless studies, resources, and attempts to cure have been poured into the HIV-AIDS hypothesis, it may be fruitful to ask: What happened to those views and voices that once disagreed? Have the past three decades, with their scientific, technological, and public health developments, been sufficient to convince critics of the hypothesis’ value? Have these advances been able to silence the questioning?
Inventing the AIDS Virus Hardcover – February 27, 1996
by Peter Duesberg (Author), Kary Mullis (Foreword)
This is the book every AIDS-watcher has been awaiting, in which the most prominent and persistent critic of HIV as the cause of AIDS presents his case most exhaustively and popularly. Duesberg, himself a virologist, stoutly maintains that HIV cannot cause AIDS because it fails to meet the rules by which a virus is implicated as disease-causing. He says that the causes of AIDS in First World countries most probably are overuse of toxic drugs--by legal prescription (e.g., AZT) as well as illicit use (e.g., the nitrite inhalants known as poppers that are used to enhance sexual capability)--and multiple and repeated infections with venereal diseases; in the Third World, they are malnutrition and maladies (e.g., tuberculosis) rare in wealthy nations but still prevalent in poor ones as well as, again, substance abuse.
Duesberg massively documents and cogently argues these positions but not before laying out the historic and political reasons why most members of his profession and related medical specialists seized on a viral causation for AIDS. Basically, virologists wanted another success like that with polio and, frustrated by complete failure to find viral causes for cancer, took up AIDS as the perfect challenge as well as, once HIV was discovered, a ticket for prolonging their first-class ride on the medical research gravy train. Strong stuff, but Duesberg has never been alone in this analysis or in his scientific arguments. He has never before gathered his case together and presented it to the general public, though, so regard this book as a milestone essential to any collection concerned with AIDS. Ray Olson
A Pharmacist Speaks, Remembering Fauci's AZT Putsch In The 1980s "I Had To Dispense This Poison And Watch These Young Men Die"
He Tried To Warn Them, But Fauci's "Good Daddy" Spell Was Too Powerful. Was This Mass Ritual Sacrifice?
Celia Farber
Hi Celia! Your piece on Peter Duesberg brought back the frustration, pain and anger I experienced as a Registered Pharmacist and a member of the gay community in the 80’s when I first heard the “news releases” from Gallo and Fauci and Ho claiming that testing positive for HIV Antibodies guaranteed a persons “death from AIDS,” when of course all previous knowledge in the immunology field said that having the antibodies conveyed immunity!
I would scream at the TV as they twisted science around their little fingers to drive the gay community and then the World crazy with fear and loathing! When AZT came into the store where I worked in West Los Angeles with a “Skull and Crossbones” on the package insert warning the pharmacists not to open the bottles nor touch the capsules for fear of acute poisoning, my heart sank. I had to dispense this poison prescribed by the AIDS Quacks and watch these young men die. Usually it took 2 to 3 months as it destroyed their bone marrow and vital organs! This became “The AIDS Epidemic” or “AIDS by Prescription” as Neville Hodgkinson wrote. Many of these young men were friends who I tried to warn against AZT but most thought I was crazy and I would watch them die with them believing they had AIDS instead of being poisoned to death! I would go to gay bars and try to tell anyone I would meet about what was going on but end up in an argument with them being abusive and became an outcast.
…When I saw Trump hand Fauci the microphone I knew we were in BIG TROUBLE.. I actually called Peter in his lab once jusf to hear his voice and offer encouragement and he was very kind and deferential and reminded me of some of my professors at Purdue University when I was there in the Sixties. I later joined the Committee for the Reappraisal of HIV/AIDS and any other similar group. It was about that Time I think I read your article in Rolling Stone too!
Dennis Kinnane
(Submitted as a comment.)
Link To More History:
https://www.davidpratt.info/aids.htm
Fauci and HIV/AIDS
From Dr. Pamela Popper
The information provided here is drawn from a book Dr. Popper co-authored with Shane Prier, COVID Operation: What Happened, Why It Happened, and What’s Next; research they conducted on HIV/AIDS in the early 1990s; and some recent research into Fauci’s performance during his long tenure as head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease (NIAID).
Fauci began his career with the National Institutes of Health in 1968 and by 1977 he had risen to deputy clinical director of the NIAID. He had never practiced medicine, was not known as a great scientist or researcher, and had never managed a large agency. He did, however, have a lot of ambition and the HIV/AIDS crisis presented a great opportunity for him to gain political power.
In 1985 NIAID received a small amount of funding for HIV/AIDS, but over time this grew to billions of dollars of funding, and was a significant percentage of the total budget for the NIH. Fauci’s hypothesis was that all AIDS cases were caused by HIV infection, and that his agency should focus on the development of a vaccine.
Unfortunately for Fauci, inconvenient data began to surface which showed that not all people with AIDS were infected with HIV. When confronted with the fact that 4621 clinically diagnosed AIDS patients were HIV-negative, Fauci, in conjunction with the CDC, renamed these cases as "idiopathic CD-4 lymphcytopenia (ICL).
Fauci also chose to ignore the fact that HIV /AIDS did not share common characteristics of infectious diseases, which do not discriminate based on sex. This is true of all known infectious diseases including flu, polio, hepatitis, tuberculosis, and pneumonia. AIDS, on the other hand, developed in a few high-risk groups such as intravenous drug users and gay males using recreational drugs, occurred in ten times as many men as women, and preferred gay over straight men.
Another issue is that infectious diseases spread exponentially, but AIDS did not follow this pattern either. It steadily increased from a few dozen cases in 1981 to tens of thousands over a long period of time. It did not explode and become widely spread, nor did it decline which is typical as a population gains herd immunity.
In other words, Fauci ignored a growing body of evidence showing that his hypothesis was incorrect, but would not change his mind, his focus, or the activities of his agency. But that’s not all.
AZT stands for azidothymidine, a drug originally developed as a treatment for cancer. The drug was not only ineffective for treating cancer, but almost all experimental mice treated with it died of extreme toxicity. The drug performed so badly that Burroughs-Wellcome did not even bother to patent it. In spite of this, the company proposed using it to treat AIDS patients based on its ability to prevent HIV from multiplying in a test tube.
Executives from Burroughs lobbied the FDA to begin clinical trials immediately. While clinical trials are supposed to be double-blind and placebo controlled, everyone soon knew which patients were taking AZT due to the horrific side effects of the drug. But the FDA approved AZT for the treatment of AIDS patients anyway, in part due to public pressure to find a cure.
Even with the known side effects of the drug, NIAID, under Fauci’s direction, decided to conduct a clinical trial of AZT on pregnant mothers with HIV who were also addicted to intravenous drugs. The trial was ended early when Fauci and his collaborators announced that they had reduced HIV transmission by two thirds – from 25% to 8% with AZT treatment.[5] The data showed that 13 out of 180 babies born to AZT-treated mothers were HIV-positive as compared to 40 out of 184 babies born to mothers given a placebo.
Fauci seemed to ignore the fact that most babies were not born HIV positive in the placebo group, and to save 27 babies, 180 mothers and 153 of their unborn babies were given a toxic drug with significant side effects. The early termination of the clinical trial meant that AZT treatment for HIV positive pregnant mothers would become a standard of care without any long-term follow-up concerning the effect on the mothers or their babies. By this time Fauci knew that HIV was not the cause of AIDS, which made the promotion of this treatment appear even more careless.
In the book Good Intentions,: How Big Business and the Medical Establishment are corrupting the Fight Against AIDS, published in 1991, Bruce Nussbaum described Fauci as a "lackluster scientist" who "found his true vocation – empire building" when he finagled himself to the head of NIAID. He wrote, "Tony Fauci’s managerial incompetence had exacted a staggering cost. By 1987, more than a million Americans were infected by the AIDS virus. Not a single drug treatment had come out of the government’s enormous biomedical research system. At the end, Fauci barely survived by handing over control of the government’s only AIDS drug trial program [to a pharmaceutical company.
In 2008, after squandering billions of dollars on HIV vaccine research, and authorizing a questionable clinical trial on pregnant women, Fauci admitted that little was known about HIV. He said that out of the tens of millions of people who had been infected with HIV, there was not one documented case of a person who was infected and cleared the virus. This, according to Fauci, meant that "…we don’t even know if the body is capable of eliciting a protective immune response." He also acknowledged that there were many people referred to as "long-term non-progressors" who are somehow able to live for a long time with the virus.
Dr. Kary Mullis – the scientist who won the 1993 Nobel Prize for inventing the PCR test and whose quote introduced this article (Table
1) – has strongly opposed using the technique for determining the amount of virus circulating in plasma. Lauritsen explains:
Kary Mullis … is thoroughly convinced that HIV is not the cause of AIDS. With regard to the viral-load tests, which attempt to use PCR for counting viruses, Mullis has stated: “Quantitative PCR is an oxymoron.” PCR is intended to identify substances qualitatively, but by its very nature is unsuited for estimating numbers. Although there is a common misimpression that the viral-load tests actually count the number of viruses in the blood, these tests cannot detect free, infectious viruses at all; they can only detect proteins that are believed, in some cases wrongly, to be unique to HIV. The tests can detect genetic sequences of viruses, but not viruses themselves [(29), p. 3].
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4172096/
The gutsy honest inventor of that PCR diagnostic tool just so happened to die of what was said to be pneumonia, August 2019, just before the launch of the biggest global psychological operation of all time.
The inventor of the PCR Test, Kary Mullis, Phd., accuses in the video below, the current issuer of decrees in my country, some bureaucrat named Fauci, of mass murder.
His case against Fauci is that a psychological operation was launched saying that homosexuals and intravenous drug users were contracting an illness called AIDS in great numbers.
Mullis says in the video below that he believes those two groups were chosen so the public wouldn’t raise a fuss when they died in great numbers.
HIV was said to cause AIDS. Mullis could not find anywhere in the data about who came up with the finding that that HIV causes AIDS.
A scientist named Dr. Peter Duesberg says that he formed the hypothesis that the symptoms associated with AIDS were really caused by drugs. If Dr. Duesberg is correct, that means that we were all lied to about AIDS by major media and the government. That means that people who were told they have AIDS were treated by the immune system wrecking drug AZT needlessly. AZT is probably what killed so many of AIDS.
If this all sounds similar to what’s happening today, then there’s a reason for that.
How Dr. Fauci and Other Officials Withheld Information on China's Coronavirus Experiments
Attorney General Document
Send a certified copy return receipt requested to your state’s Attorney General.
via Dr. David Martin
Interview with Kary Mullis
Kary Mullis explains why his PCR test is not a diagnostic test
https://www.thetanster.com/blog/2021/8/30/yl557tskk1nyhh3gvbl9cznsqf2myn