AIDS Inc. -- Part 3
There was such a response to the previous CN (CN 7.23) on the
banning in the United States of the book *Why We Will Never Win
the War on AIDS* by Bryan Ellison and Peter Duesberg, that I
thought I would re-post the following. It is my synopsis of Jon
Rappoport's book, *AIDS Inc.* Because Rappoport covers Dr.
Duesberg's challenge to official AIDS dogma, they may be banning
his book next! (Or, late breaking, thanks to Rep. Schumer and his
proposed H.R. 2580 -- outlawing discussion of what he calls
"baseless conspiracy theories" -- they may be banning Conspiracy
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
The average researcher will tell you it has been proven that HIV
causes AIDS. The apparent correlation between the new disease of
AIDS and the new virus, HIV, is a compelling image. "But the
truth is, a new disease-condition has not demonstrably sprung up
all over the world. Hundreds of causes for immune-system collapse
and ensuing infection, the so-called AIDS pattern, already exist.
There is nothing magical about the ideas of AIDS. It is merely
immune-collapse followed by opportunistic infection."
"In an effort to defend a viral AIDS scenario, in which AIDS has
mainly been confined to IV drug users and male homosexuals...
researchers have attempted to discover odd routes of viral
transmission... [i.e.] anal sex among gays which because of
bleeding leads to semen-blood transmission; and sharing of
needles among junkies."
But according to the author, this effort is misguided. Among the
reasons he gives are:
1) No virus selects lopsidedly the cultural groups it will reside
2) Heterosexuals have been practicing anal sex for centuries.
3) Semen to blood transmission, which has been attributed to anal
sex as the reason HIV spreads, is also a fact in hetero vaginal
If HIV were "causing a single disease-entity called AIDS, two
circumstances in America would have conspired to send AIDS widely
beyond the current risk-groups... [1970s era bisexual swing
clubs, which were prevalent in New York at that time,] played
host to every sex act imaginable and a consequent exchange of
bodily fluids among men and women. A perfect situation for viral
spread into the hetero community. [By and large,] it didn't
"Today  out of the 55,000 reported AIDS cases in the U.S.,
91% are men, and 9% are women... Such preference [for men over
women] is unheard of."
During the 1970s, "gay men from cities and towns all over America
visited and vacationed in San Francisco, New York, and L.A., the
centers of diagnosed AIDS cases in the U.S. They visited gay
bathhouses and had sex. Carrying home with them the HIV virus,
they would have spread AIDS into many, many towns and cities of
the U.S. This did not occur..."
"Trying to confirm that HIV causes AIDS by showing it spreads in
culturally prejudiced fashion, through odd routes, in very
limited fashion, is absurd."
"It isn't really surprising that the AIDS research establishment
in America is arrogant, when you look at the thesis about AIDS
which they have built. Their arrogance is hiding an extremely
weak brand of science..."
The author declares that AIDS is only an artificial label tagged
onto a condition that already existed before the "discovery" of
AIDS. "We've known about fifteen or twenty medical reasons and
hundreds of environmental causes for immune-deficiency, and we've
known about them for decades."
What is especially shocking is that the establishment AIDS
scenario "is not only scientifically absurd, it also keeps help
for dying and ill people, true help, from taking place. It keeps
prevention from taking place. So the AIDS theory isn't just
stupid, it's vicious."
There are many different infections and diseases, all lumped
together under the heading of "AIDS." The one thing that had
seemed to tie together this plenum was the HIV virus. But "it is
much more probable that what is being called AIDS, in most cases,
is the far end of an arc of immunosuppression, which takes some
time to build up in a person."
"From various factors, the immunosuppression gains in influence,
and then, long after the person should have reversed his habits,
or should have been fed, or should have been taken from a field
where he was working in the presence of pesticides, etc., he
becomes really sick, and *then* maybe he sees a doctor. The
doctor looks at his opportunistic infection, clucks, [and]
The patient's symptoms are first seen when he finally decides to
go see a doctor -- at the end of the arc of immunosuppression.
"All attention is focused there. It is named AIDS, it is
packaged, and what is concealed is the long approach that led to
this moment. Prevention and reversal would have been much easier
during that earlier period."
The author speaks of what he calls the myth of pneumocystis
carinii pneumonia as a primary so-called AIDS symptom. The myth
is that 1) pneumocystis was extremely rare before AIDS and 2) if
two people have pneumocystis, they both developed it from the
same cause. According to the author, "This is preposterous."
"The pneumocystis protozoa is found in 70-85% of healthy people.
It causes no harm. It is one of those germs which establish an
easy relationship with the host. However, when immunosuppression
becomes severe enough, it can come to the fore."
Some researchers "have pointed out that severe malnutrition can
underlie pneumocystis. As mentioned earlier, some full-time
junkies and alcoholics are known for their inability to pay for,
or their chronic disinterest in food. Today were, say, an
alcoholic to develop pneumocystis the diagnosis would be AIDS,
HIV, and the whole ball of wax -- not (correctly) pneumocystis
stemming from alcohol and malnutrition."
"Pneumocystis pneumonia has moved into new populations since
1977, but people have been dying of it, because of malnutrition,
since World War Two. In fact, following the War, epidemics were
seen in Europe, mainly in infants."
The author decries the fact that the multifactorial model for
AIDS has been largely ignored by the medical establishment.
"Although there is a long list of a) disease, b) malnutritive and
c) chemical factors which can make the immunosuppressive bed in
which pneumocystis will turn virulent, the CDC [Center for
Disease Control] has severely ignored these factors, instead
pushing HIV into the limelight as the 'new' agent."
"A good example of AIDS-related research which has not floated to
the top of the NIH [National Institute of Health] research ladder
is a paper by Peter Walzer et al, in the December 1984 *Infection
and Immunity*. Walzer explores the possibility, in rats, that
antibiotics can increase the disposition toward pneumocystis."
Walzer states, "Rats that were administered corticosteroids, a
low-protein diet, and tetracycline spontaneously developed P.
carinii pneumonia within ca. 8 weeks through a mechanism of
reactivation of latent infection."
"In the U.S. gay community, malnutrition, abuse of tetracycline
and corticosteroids are frequently found as partners."
Peter Duesberg is a molecular biologist at the University of
California at Berkeley. He was also a key researcher during the
war on cancer. In that capacity, he worked closely with people
who are now top AIDS investigators, including Robert Gallo, the
co-discoverer of HIV.
"Duesberg asserts that HIV is not the cause of AIDS."
"To understand the import of that conviction, one has to
understand that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) have
taken in several hundred million dollars in a quest to cure AIDS.
That money, the committment to a cure, all hang on the one
breakthrough the medical research establishment claims: The
discovery of the AIDS virus, HIV."
What follows are excerpts of several interviews with Professor
INTERVIEWER: In your paper, *Retroviruses as Carcinogens and
Pathogens: Expectation and Reality*, you say, "It is concluded
that AIDS virus is not sufficient to cause AIDS and that there is
no evidence, besides its presence in a latent form, that it is
necessary for AIDS." In other words, although the HIV virus is
present in a proportion of AIDS patients, Gallo and others have
not proved that it causes the disease.
DUESBERG: Many AIDS patients have the herpes virus too, but no
one is saying herpes causes AIDS.
INTERVIEWER: At the top of the AIDS research establishment, there
is a great deal of politics, at least in the sense that you have
to claim you have a major discovery like HIV and a cure on the
way, in order to justify millions of research dollars. That could
warp your scientific attitude.
DUESBERG: It's very hard to talk to a person who has a contract
with a drug company in his pocket. How do you know that he's
telling you the truth? Times have changed. This is high-stakes
......Koch and Pasteur, when they considered under what
conditions a germ could cause disease, couldn't, of course, know
anything about our present level of magnification. They would
never have been able to see HIV. Koch was looking at somebody who
was *loaded* with tuberculosis. Pasteur was looking at somebody
who was *loaded* with rabies virus. What researchers today can do
is great detective work (finding retroviruses), but it's
clinically absurd. But that's all they can do. That's their
skill. So they have to believe they're finding the cause of
INTERVIEWER: So you're saying, in amendment to Koch's postulates,
that a virus must be biochemically active.
DUESBERG: Yes. It must be infecting more cells than the host can
spare. Every month, half of your T-cells are new. So the HIV
virus would have to infect a couple percent of them every day. It
INTERVIEWER: In the July 6 *New York Native*, you said the
following about the drug, AZT: "...AZT is a poison. It is
cytotoxic. I think that giving it to people with AIDS is highly
irresponsible... the drug is only going to hurt you."
DUESBERG: That's right. And now they are giving it to people with
INTERVIEWER: AZT is a very sinister aspect of AIDS. That needs to
DUESBERG: I think AZT is the most sinister aspect of this whole
business. They're killing growing (normal) cells. That's what
they're doing. That's very serious business.......
......NIH is like a military place, you know. In its attitude.
They look at me, I'm from Berkeley, so they think I'm different.
Free speech, all that. I work at a university, I speak my mind.
At NIH, if you start asking questions in public about these
viruses, you're out of a job.
INTERVIEWER: When they are alone, these researchers, do you think
they express their doubts?
DUESBERG: Sure. They have questions. They just don't want the
public to know about these doubts.
[...to be continued...]