Damned Heretics

Condemned by the established, but very often right

I am Nicolaus Copernicus, and I approve of this blog

I am Richard Feynman and I approve of this blog

Qualified outsiders and maverick insiders are often right about the need to replace received wisdom in science and society, as the history of the Nobel prize shows. This blog exists to back the best of them in their uphill assault on the massively entrenched edifice of resistance to and prejudice against reviewing, let alone revising, ruling ideas. In support of such qualified dissenters and courageous heretics we search for scientific paradigms and other established beliefs which may be maintained only by the power and politics of the status quo, comparing them with academic research and the published experimental and investigative record.

We especially defend and support the funding of honest, accomplished, independent minded and often heroic scientists, inventors and other original thinkers and their right to free speech and publication against the censorship, mudslinging, false arguments, ad hominem propaganda, overwhelming crowd prejudice and internal science politics of the paradigm wars of cancer, AIDS, evolution, global warming, cosmology, particle physics, macroeconomics, health and medicine, diet and nutrition.


Henry Bauer, Peter Breggin , Harvey Bialy, Giordano Bruno, Erwin Chargaff, Nicolaus Copernicus, Francis Crick, Paul Crutzen, Marie Curie, Rebecca Culshaw, Freeman Dyson, Peter Duesberg, Albert Einstein, Richard Feynman, John Fewster, Galileo Galilei, Alec Gordon, James Hansen, Edward Jenner, Benjamin Jesty, Michio Kaku, Adrian Kent, Ernst Krebs, Thomas Kuhn, Serge Lang, John Lauritsen, Mark Leggett, Richard Lindzen, Lynn Margulis, Barbara McClintock, George Miklos, Marco Mamone Capria, Peter Medawar, Kary Mullis, Linus Pauling, Eric Penrose, Max Planck, Rainer Plaga, David Rasnick, Sherwood Rowland, Carl Sagan, Otto Rossler, Fred Singer, Thomas Szasz, Alfred Wegener, Edward O. Wilson, James Watson.

Many people would die rather than think – in fact, they do so. – Bertrand Russell.

Skepticism is dangerous. That’s exactly its function, in my view. It is the business of skepticism to be dangerous. And that’s why there is a great reluctance to teach it in schools. That’s why you don’t find a general fluency in skepticism in the media. On the other hand, how will we negotiate a very perilous future if we don’t have the elementary intellectual tools to ask searching questions of those nominally in charge, especially in a democracy? – Carl Sagan (The Burden of Skepticism, keynote address to CSICOP Annual Conference, Pasadena, April 3/4, 1982).

It is really important to underscore that everything we’re talking about tonight could be utter nonsense. – Brian Greene (NYU panel on Hidden Dimensions June 5 2010, World Science Festival)

I am Albert Einstein, and I heartily approve of this blog, insofar as it seems to believe both in science and the importance of intellectual imagination, uncompromised by out of date emotions such as the impulse toward conventional religious beliefs, national aggression as a part of patriotism, and so on.   As I once remarked, the further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge.   Certainly the application of the impulse toward blind faith in science whereby authority is treated as some kind of church is to be deplored.  As I have also said, the only thing ever interfered with my learning was my education. My name as you already perceive without a doubt is George Bernard Shaw, and I certainly approve of this blog, in that its guiding spirit appears to be blasphemous in regard to the High Church doctrines of science, and it flouts the censorship of the powers that be, and as I have famously remarked, all great truths begin as blasphemy, and the first duty of the truthteller is to fight censorship, and while I notice that its seriousness of purpose is often alleviated by a satirical irony which sometimes borders on the facetious, this is all to the good, for as I have also famously remarked, if you wish to be a dissenter, make certain that you frame your ideas in jest, otherwise they will seek to kill you.  My own method was always to take the utmost trouble to find the right thing to say, and then to say it with the utmost levity. (Photo by Alfred Eisenstaedt for Life magazine) One should as a rule respect public opinion in so far as is necessary to avoid starvation and to keep out of prison, but anything that goes beyond this is voluntary submission to an unnecessary tyranny, and is likely to interfere with happiness in all kinds of ways. – Bertrand Russell, Conquest of Happiness (1930) ch. 9

(Click for more Unusual Quotations on Science and Belief)

Expanded GUIDE TO SITE PURPOSE AND LAYOUT is in the lower blue section at the bottom of every home page.

Neglected genius – Peter Duesberg in Newsweek

After 25 years of abuse, and dedicated work on the only really promising line in cancer research while cut off from NIH funding, it is understandable that the great man and leading scientist in his field might look a little unexcited by the prospect of a profile by a Newsweek reporter, however charmingAnother salute to the cancer pioneer which still assumes he is a fool on HIV

The single world authority featured on why Duesberg is misguided? None other than Seth Kalichman!

Glimpses of Duesberg’s cup of political poison – but now there is one big antidote

Peter Duesberg has a profile in Newsweek, The World’s Most Reviled Genius:Can the scientist who denied the cause of AIDS be trusted to cure cancer? By Jeneen Interlandi, which unlike most scientists in the new field publicly salutes his leadership on aneuploidy as the probable key to cancer, and points to his long rejection of the reigning HIV religion in AIDS as the reason why his colleagues continue to try and ignore his “genius” as they have done for 25 years.

As usual in Duesberg coverage, the article is schizophrenic – respectful enough, even admiring if it weren’t for its pervasive, insultingly thoughtless assumption that Duesberg must be wrong on AIDS, but as usual it treads carefully to avoid mentioning any details of his (intellectually) overwhelming arguments and journal articles against the world’s most specious and deadly – and silliest – scientific claim, details which might tip off officials, politicians and the public as to why his AIDS debunking should be taken seriously after all.

His humorous use of the word “schwarzes” to refer to blacks and “homos” for gays, and a couple of jokes swallowed straight by the earnest scribe at lunch, are quoted as the other persuasive reason why Duesberg is not taken seriously, and there are many tragic hints of the vicious undermining of his work still being applied at Berkeley. But the piece does make clear that the bureaucratic boneheads are sabotaging what is very probably the most important cancer work being done today, work which deserves a million dollar disbursement from the NIH $10 billion share of the Obama rescue without delay. If this strangling of Duesberg’s work continues it may eventually turn out that the man who could have saved the Federal government hundreds of billions in misapplied spending on HIV/AIDS was also prevented from saving the nation from cancer 25 years or more earlier than otherwise.

Peter Duesberg has grown accustomed to all of the slights that come with a life in intellectual exile. The 72-year-old molecular biologist no longer expects an invitation to present his research at the big conferences in his field or to meet with any of the scientists who visit the University of California, Berkeley, where he works. Nor is he surprised when his manuscripts are inexplicably rejected. But in an open lecture this past May, when a visiting scientist claimed that practically no one had investigated the role chromosome damage plays in cancer, it was a step too far. Duesberg himself has been hammering away at that very question for years. He’s published peer-reviewed papers on the topic, given a recent talk at the National Cancer Institute (his first there in 15 years), even hosted two small conferences of his own. So when the speaker solicited audience feedback, he jumped up immediately. “Excuse me,” he said into the microphone. “But I am nobody.”

He wasn’t always. In the past three decades, Duesberg has been described as a genius, a martyr, and a genocidal lunatic—often by the same person, usually amid the fierce debates and international headlines that come with major scientific breakthroughs. In 1971, at the age of 33, he became the first scientist to identify a cancer-causing gene—a biological holy grail that secured his place among an elite group of the country’s top researchers. Tenure at Berkeley and a coveted spot in the National Academy of Sciences followed. So did rumors of a Nobel and millions in grant money from the National Cancer Institute.

Then in 1988, Duesberg broke ranks with his colleagues and postulated that the newly discovered human immuno-deficiency virus (HIV) was not the cause of AIDS. Rather, he declared, it was a harmless passenger virus, found by coincidence in patients whose illnesses stemmed from a constellation of other factors including malnutrition and substance abuse. For this, he was summarily cast out of Eden: Grant money evaporated. Graduate students disappeared. Nobel laureates stopped inviting him to dinner. Of course, he might have been forgiven—or at least forgotten—were it not for his consultation with Thabo Mbeki in 2000. When Duesberg advised the South African president not to bother with antiretroviral medication programs (he still believes the drugs are more toxic than the virus), his adversaries say he condemned hundreds of thousands of the world’s most vulnerable people to death. Consorting with Mbeki to such disastrous ends fixed Duesberg as more than a mere pariah. From then on, he was Duesberg the mass murderer.

Since then, the fallen hero has toiled in what amounts to scientific purgatory—a smaller lab with private funding where he continues his cancer research. The shadows have proved both a refuge and a prison for Duesberg—freeing him to pursue less conventional ideas, but preventing his colleagues from taking those ideas seriously. His stubbornness has made him one of science’s most disturbing paradoxes—a self-avowed outsider searching desperately for a way back in. While he implores his colleagues to open their minds about cancer, he continues to keep his own closed about HIV, insisting still that the virus does not cause AIDS. To honestly evaluate his latest work, we will have to separate science from scientist.

Click this Show/Hide for center portion of text:

For decades now, researchers have been operating (to the tune of billions of dollars) under the assumption that cancer is the work of oncogenes: human genes that have mutated or viral genes that insert themselves into the host’s DNA. According to current dogma, oncogenes cause cells to divide uncontrollably, spurring a cascade of additional mutations that eventually results in a tumor. So far, this hypothesis has led to a number of apparent cul-de-sacs: some faltering attempts at gene-replacement therapy, a growing roster of targeted drugs that work only for some patients (and usually not for very long), and, more recently, the Cancer Genome Atlas—a concerted effort by the National Cancer Institute to sequence the genomes of 10,000 tumor samples, described by more than a few insiders as a colossal waste of time and money.

Duesberg has a different hypothesis. According to him, tumors are created not by the accumulation of individual mutations, but by wholesale changes in the structure and arrangement of a cell’s chromosomes. “It’s the difference between changing a couple of words in a sentence and ripping the entire set of encyclopedias apart,” he says. The upheaval is so great that a tumor effectively constitutes a new species—one that grows like a parasite inside its host. Duesberg says that characterizing these upheavals is the best way to understand how cancer begins. Two decades into his scientific exile, some scientists think he might actually be on to something. Something big enough to change the way we look at cancer.

The defining trait of any given species—the thing that distinguishes it from all other species—is not so much its genetic code as its karyotype: the number and size of chromosomes into which that code is organized. Humans and cats and worms all share numerous genes in common, but each has a different karyotype: cats have a total of 38 chromosomes, worms 12. And with a few rare exceptions, humans have two copies each of 23 different chromosomes. Cells that deviate significantly from this blueprint—by making five copies of one chromosome, for example, or only one copy of another—usually die pretty quickly. But sometimes, Duesberg says, a cell will chance upon a new karyotype that doesn’t kill it. These cells are called aneuploid, and they tend to grow and divide in rapid and unstable fashion. Eventually, he says, they evolve into something that can grow uncontrollably anywhere in the body.

It turns out that almost all solid tumors are aneuploid, and this little-examined fact may have implications for the way some cancers are diagnosed and treated. For example, the karyotypes of prostate and cervical tumors can be used to predict whether a given lesion is likely to become malignant, and thus help determine whether surgery is warranted. Swedish doctors are beginning to make use of this information, but aneuploidy receives little attention in the U.S., where the vast majority of funding still goes toward oncogene research. Part of the problem may be entrenched viewpoints that hinder innovation. But another problem may be Duesberg himself.

For five minutes, at least, the embattled scientist can be charming. When I met him at the Caffe Strada just a few blocks east of Berkeley’s Telegraph Avenue, he rode up on an old -Schwinn, gave me a hug, and bought me a scone. He is loquacious and grandfatherly. He has bright blue eyes, a warm smile and a thick German accent that makes him endearingly difficult to understand. It’s at 10 minutes that he begins to betray himself. In explaining the impact chromosome changes can have on health, he lumps being a woman and having Down syndrome into the same category. “One happens when you add an extra copy of chromosome 21, and the other,” he says, half joking, “when you take away the Y chromosome and put an X in its place; you lose all the IQ genes.” He calls black people Schwarzes, and gay people homos, and as an example of how evolution can go awry, he compares Nobel laureate James Watson to E. coli. His assistant, Josh Nicholson, describes these constant gaffes as fingernails-on-a-blackboard irksome. “But he’s not racist,” Nicholson says. “He’s just from a different era, when people actually talked like that.”

In fact, Duesberg grew up during World War II, a Catholic in Nazi Germany. Both parents were prominent doctors; his father volunteered as a medic in the Nazi Army to avoid being forced into the Nazi political party. And Allied forces firebombed his house one Christmas Eve while his family huddled in a shelter. He recalls his formative years fondly, but it’s clear that that time still hangs over him: in casual conversation, Duesberg repeatedly refers to the war, the Holocaust, and the idea of being a “good German”—almost always in some comparison to his current situation. Being cast out of the mainstream, for example, is like being herded onto a train by the Gestapo, never to be seen again.

At Berkeley, Duesberg has long since been relegated to the small, cluttered corner of a decaying building, where he and Nicholson have done their best to conduct research on a shoestring. For a recent series of tumor experiments, Nicholson bought mice from a pet shop in downtown Berkeley and snuck them into the lab. (Lab animals are supposed to be housed in a separate veterinarian-run animal facility, and only by investigators who have obtained the necessary approvals, but all of that costs money.) Campus officials found them out halfway through the six-month project. Despite Duesberg’s pleas to let them finish up, the mice were confiscated and killed. The data were lost. “We are the pauper scientists,” he says, recalling the incident. “Always begging on our knees. Ever since HIV.”

In truth, Duesberg had marked himself as an iconoclast even before the discovery of HIV. He came to Berkeley in 1964, after finishing his Ph.D. in chemistry at the University of Frankfurt. Back then, scientists still believed that yet-to-be-discovered viruses were the root cause of all cancers, and Duesberg quickly joined the likes of David Baltimore and Robert Gallo in the hunt for these viruses. Duesberg was the first to score a win. He sequenced the entire genome of RSV—a chicken virus believed to trigger tumor growth—and identified the offending gene, called src, which was thought to cause rapid, unchecked cell growth when it inserted itself into the host genome. Soon after, Michael Bishop and Harold Varmus found an analogous src gene in human cells that, when mutated, did the same as the viral form of the gene. Almost immediately, the tribe of cancer researchers split into two factions: one continued searching for cancer viruses; the other turned its attention to human oncogenes. Duesberg had already begun to suspect that neither was the smoking gun.

For starters, some known carcinogens like arsenic and asbestos did not seem to cause mutations. On top of that, no single mutation was enough to turn a normal cell cancerous. Over the years, researchers have accounted for this by expanding the list of required mutations. In breast cancer alone, some 250 mutations are now thought to play a role. But several researchers have noted that a cell’s chances of hitting on the exact combination of required mutations would make cancer a rare event, not a common disease.

In his quest for another instigator, Duesberg stumbled upon aneuploidy, something almost all tumors had in common. The aneuploidy nature of cancer was no secret—German scientist Theodor Boveri first noted it in 1914—but it had long since been written off as a consequence of cancer, not a cause. In 1984 Duesberg began to question this presumption. Doing so meant trivializing two decades’ worth of his own oncogene research, but he says that was fine by him. “Science is a game,” he says.” And I was prepared to lose.” But just as he was fleshing out his new hypothesis, a mystery epidemic seized the nation; the towns and cities surrounding Berkeley’s campus were at its very epicenter.

Duesberg concocted his AIDS hypothesis in the frenetic early days of the epidemic, when the balance of evidence had not yet tipped in favor of HIV. At first, he proceeded along perfectly respectable avenues of inquiry—mapping out the epidemic use of poppers, a nitrite drug that had become a cheap and popular way of getting high—and showing that it correlated strongly with the AIDS epidemic. His results were published in Science and Nature, and for a brief moment it appeared that his hypothesis was at least plausible.

But as a consensus formed around HIV as the cause of AIDS, Duesberg refused to budge. He clung to the outliers: HIV-positive patients who never developed full-blown AIDS, and patients with all the symptoms of AIDS but no detectable HIV. When his colleagues offered potential explanations for each, he challenged their interpretations of the data. Before long, the so-called golden boy had alienated himself from all but a few friends. “He was irritating too many people at once,” says George Miklos, an Australian scientist who helped map the human genome. “He was challenging the HIV work and raising all these uncomfortable questions about oncogenes. Nobody wanted to hear it. So they wrote him off as crazy.”

Experts who have followed Duesberg’s career say he is not so much crazy as pathologically stubborn. “He is like a big-game fisher who loves the fight too much,” says Seth Kalichman, a social psychologist whose recent book on HIV-deniers included a whole chapter on Duesberg. “He’s destined to lose because he won’t give any slack. It’s tragic because he’s clearly a brilliant thinker and could have had much more to offer.” While it’s clear that Duesberg craves a return to respectability, he refuses to cede any ground to his adversaries. “If you go on your knees,” he says, “then they say, ‘We knew you were wrong all along—now you’ve admitted it!’ ”

In recent years, cancer researchers have begun to take up the questions that Duesberg laid out 25 years ago—reexamining the role of aneuploidy and other forms of chromosome instability in tumor formation, and figuring out how they tie into the mutation model. “The relative contribution of each is now one of the biggest questions in cancer,” says Thomas Ried, a scientist at the National Cancer Institute who recently invited Duesberg to present his aneuploidy research.

But even as some of his ideas rise to the top, Duesberg himself remains stuck at the bottom. Few scientists who have turned their attention to aneuploidy bother to cite Duesberg’s work. His lab is down to its last $50,000, and this past year Berkeley officials relieved him of his only remaining teaching duty. Even some scientists who don’t agree with Duesberg say that he has been treated unfairly. “The ideological assassinations that he has undergone will remain an embarrassing testament to the reactionary tendencies of modern science,” Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet, wrote in 1996.

Duesberg’s old life still haunts him at every turn. At an opera this past spring, he spotted Jay Levy, a friend from the good old days who has since become a laboratory director and lead HIV researcher at the University of California, San Francisco. “I called over to him, and I think at first he was trying to pretend he didn’t hear me,” Duesberg says. “And I think he was looking over his shoulder the whole time—afraid someone would see us together.” But the two men talked through the intermission, mostly about the fun they used to have. “He used to throw these fantastic parties,” says Duesberg. They also talked science, sparring a bit over Levy’s latest work on latent HIV infection. Recalling the evening weeks later, Duesberg admits that he misses his old friends and the intellectual rigor of their exchanges. “The whole dissident idea attracts a lot of crazies,” he says, his voice trailing off into a sigh. “And then all of a sudden, without realizing it, you’ve become one of them.”

The glaring omission in all this

Apart from the mistakes of fact in this skillful piece which suggest that checking standards are melting away at Newsweek along with ads, and misphrasing (some of both ways of misleading readers are highlighted by us in bold) the foolishness of this kind of coverage, of course, is that there is no hint that Duesberg’s arguments and evidence against HIV in AIDS were presented in the leading journals of science, fiercely peer reviewed by reviewers anxious to find as many flaws as possible, often doubly and trebly reviewed by more reviewers than normal, and thus thoroughly tempered, tested and in effect proved irrefutable.

Then they were never directly and successfully refuted by opponents in the same journals, despite promises to do so, but instead, spiked and swept under the carpet after truncated public discussion only by political and editorial opposition generally hidden from public view.

This ultimately left the issue to be decided on the public level by officials, editors, patients and other lay outsiders who are usually scientifically uninformed, unaware of the internal science politics and generally unable to read the literature. These innocents are easily confused and persuaded by the handful of lower ranking HIV fellow travelers such as Seth Kalichman, who are nowadays usually confined to blogs and blog threads unless they write a book.

All of these HIV promoters are motivated by the same unwarranted premise of the Newsweek writer, which is the scientifically naive assumption that a globally received wisdom and established claim must be correct, and that its politically unsuccessful critic must be wrong.

This ignorant assumption is what leads to the kind of mistake we find at the end of this piece – Duesberg obviously said he might now often be viewed as a crazy, not that he had become one – or the reversal of logic in the subhead, The World’s Most Reviled Genius:Can the scientist who denied the cause of AIDS be trusted to cure cancer? , which would make more sense if it read The World’s Most Reviled Genius: Could the scientist who has created a whole new field in cancer be right about AIDS after all?

That Newsweek should join the rest of the mainstream media in sinking to this low point in science coverage is disappointing to those of us who have always admired it as a tough minded alternative to Time.

Duesberg’s new vindication

The beauty of the current situation, however, is that the well executed expose by Brent Leung of the disarray of HIV/AIDS authorities and ideas in his new movie House of Numbers is quite enough to give anyone who wants to assess the situation for themselves, without even reading the literature, all they need to see and hear to know, without any doubt whatsoever, who is right in this dispute.

The leading figures in the field of HIV AIDS will tell them directly, on camera.

Don’t overlook the Comments

The Comment thread is extensive and features the wittily scathing “Nick Naylor” giving the plodding but rather poisonously misleading Snout – oops, not the ubiquitous Snout after all, unless renamed – Bennett and Kalichman a good thrashing.

But of course the fundamental issue here is not funny, it is a matter of life and death:

Posted By: whereistheproof @ 10/11/2009 8:26:40 AM

I owe Peter Duesberg my life. When diagnosed HIV+ in the early 90-ties i witnessed how many fellow patients died of AZT and later combo therapy. When I began asking questions that no one could answer, Peter Duesberg offered an hypothesis that made sense. I nearly died taking nevirapine. I stopped taking all ARV’s, regained my weight fully, and now 22 years after initial diagnosis am as healthy as any one.

Gallo and his friends have made millions based on tests that are flawed, based on lab experiments that were never peer reviewed, the outcome as the previous poster already noted clearly falsified by Gallo himself.

Peter Duesberg saved my life – as excentric as he may be. Listening to Gallo’s ideas would have killed – Gallo is the king of mediocracy! and it kills people!

20 Responses to “Neglected genius – Peter Duesberg in Newsweek”

  1. loveandmusic Says:

    I have seen House of Numbers, and even for someone who has long known about this can of worms (mainly through this site, thanks truthseeker) it is a revelation. What a bunch of charlatans milking the public for all they can get, knowing that it makes no sense at all from any angle except keeping their rich funding!

    But surely truthseeker and other experts on the scam should publicize their views more on the Web by joining in the threads on this and other misleading stories? And why not an Op Ed article for the New York Times in time for World AIDS day?

    The movie is definitely the answer to all attacks on those who question HIV.

  2. Baby Pong Says:

    The Times would never run such an op-ed.

  3. Truthseeker Says:

    Thanks loveandmusic yes that possibility is unofficially blocked judging from the heavy bias in reporting and the Op Eds addressing the politics and science of HIV/AIDS, which as far as we recall have been confined to John Moore of Cornell Weill’s embarrassing rant a couple of years ago.

    Maybe a parallel route could work if the Op Ed piece was written as a genuine letter and direct complaint to the editor and/or publisher and sent to various outlets en masse as some kind of petition or demand eg the Times or Newsweek demanding at least an unpublished editorial response, carried here as well as an open letter, to embarrass recipients into a public acknowledgement of some kind.

    Perhaps the Times ombudsman could be prodded into considering the complaint that Times coverage is heavily biased on a scientific matter in which it should have maintained professional impartiality. Unfortunately that duty has just passed from the gentleman who seemed to do it very well and independently to a new guy.

    Here at Science Guardian we are beginning to believe a statement should be prepared which can be mailed to fifty major outlets and posted in public here. Let’s see.

    Doesn’t have to be just media, could include various top dogs eg Jim Watson whose position may have been shaken by his own experience in the last few years.

    This is essentially a libertarian issue, politically speaking.

  4. Snout Says:

    While I was initially impressed by the claim in your masthead that “All posts guaranteed fact checked”, you can imagine my disappointment to read above:

    “The Comment thread is extensive and features the wittily scathing “Nick Naylor” giving the plodding but rather poisonously misleading Snout, Bennett and Kalichman a good thrashing.”

    I’m sure we could legitimately disagree about your characterization of Mr Naylor’s posts as “wittily scathing” – this is a matter of opinion. However, as a matter of fact I was not present on the discussion thread in question. Please dispatch your “fact checker” down to the woodshed for an immediate and thorough spanking.

    But even more disappointing is your promise in the August 31st post “Brent Leung, Duesberg provoke censorship moves” that “Duesberg’s and others letters in connection with this new outrage will be detailed in our next post”, referring of course to their written responses to the ignominious… err… withdrawal of their “Out of touch with South African AIDS” dog’s breakfast from the September issue of “Medical Hypotheses”.

    My tail has been wagging furiously now for 57 days in anticipation of such a delicious treat, but this is now the third post on your blog that has failed to deliver on your undertaking.

    Why must you tease us in such a cruel and deceitful way?

  5. MartinDKessler Says:

    Hi Truthseeker, That Peter Duesberg is being given attention to his aneuploidy cause of cancer in both Newsweek and Scientific American is subtly undermining the bad reputation pinned on him by his evil colleagues. Despite both articles trying to brush Duesbergs ideas on AIDS and HIV under the rug, it opens up the possibility that some readers might take a serious look at what Duesberg wrote on AIDS rather than rely on others’ criticisms. The vaccine trials (all of them) have failed miserably, with the AIDS establishment trying to squease every last drop of optimism from the failures. People on the street who are not beneficiaries of the HIV=AIDS=Death mantra are looking more skeptically at what AIDS has wrought.

    As I said in Dr. Bauer’s Blog, Madoff wasn’t found out publicly until he confessed. In spite of Harry Markopolous bringing the evidence of Madoff’s scheme to the SEC 3 times, Madoff continued plying his trade until the economy collapsed and he couldn’t get the investment dollars required to keep his scheme going.
    The only way AIDS will go away is when the money dries up. Unfortunately, as long as the government continues to fund AIDS, it won’t go away. I would be quite surprised if Gallo or Fauci came forward and confessed that AIDS was as scam. But would anyone believe them? They would be quickly sedated with Chlorpromazine and hidden from sight in a snake pit.

  6. Truthseeker Says:

    “Please dispatch your “fact checker” down to the woodshed for an immediate and thorough spanking.”

    Fact checker had this check in mind but unfortunately was sidetracked by other entertainments, dear Snout (sometime you HAVE to explain why you thought this moniker was appropriate, since we certainly think so but surely you cannot share the same reason), and failed to follow up although he sensed that this would be the reason he would lose his first little finger (one chopped off for each error, which keeps him fairly assiduous).

    Sorry about the lack of follow through on Duesberg letters, will do as soon as our current rescue operation of deserving person from bureaucratic system error is completed in another sphere of life.

    By the way, we have to assume that a discerning person such as your notorious self means by “ignominious” to refer to the self-belittling activities of those who misled the ignorant publishers at Elsevier to take down Duesberg’s excellent paper refuting the crass claim from Harvard’s gang of shame that it was he not they who were responsible for abusing South Africans with often eventually fatal drugs?

    It is another badge of honor for Duesberg, of course, to be the target of such weaseling backstage maneuvers by those who have no means of answering his refutation directly and honestly.

    Martin, is it not possible that Gallo has tried to confess his sin out of bitter reaction to being shamed by the Nobel committee but has already been injected with chlorpromazine? His face becomes more bloated with every passing month, have you noticed? We must publish one of the photos we took at the Lasker awards years ago to show you what we mean. He used to look roguish but sexy in an uncouth Mediterranean manner. Now he just looks as if he is inflated every morning with a bicycle pump.

  7. Robert Houston Says:

    On the one hand, there were several positive aspects of the Newsweek article. The allocation of five pages of a major American news magazine to a profile of Dr. Peter Duesberg constitutes a recognition of his importance as a scientist. Essentially, the article acknowledges that his breakthrough research on the chromosomal basis of cancer has forged a promising front in solving the disease. Such recognition in a major newsmagazine means that the scientific establishment can no longer easily ignore his cardinal contributions to this burgeoning area of cancer research. Moreover, the appellation of “genius” in the title accords a measure of deserved respect for his scientific brilliance.

    On the other hand, Newsweek engaged in a perverse form of journalistic “balance” by slapping him with sleazy insults and catty insinuations, as if trying to undermine every positive point. This began in the table of contents, where the article was subtitled, “The crackpot behind a potential cancer breakthrough.” Throughout the article there was a reactionary, authoritarian attitude that anyone who holds to a minority opinion must be a crazy deviant. Has the writer never learned that America is pluralistic society that is supposed to respect minority viewpoints rather than condemn them for being unpopular? The fact that a Democrat won the presidency is not a reason for a Libertarian to switch affiliation or beliefs. Why should such automatic conformity to majority views be expected in science?

    Thus, much of the article was interlaced with condemnation of Duesberg for daring to maintain that there are plausible causes for AIDS other than HIV. As Truthseeker pointed out, the subtitle could more logically have been reversed, e.g. “Can the scientist behind a cancer breakthrough also be right about AIDS?”

    It should be noted that the writer got the history of Duesberg’s AIDS research wrong. He began intensively researching the question at the NIH in 1986, two years after Gallo’s announcement of HIV. He publicly “broke ranks with his colleagues” not only on HIV but also on cancer oncogenes, and not “in 1988” but in lectures in 1986 and an extensive paper in Cancer Research published March 1, 1987. One would not know from Newsweek that Duesberg published about 20 papers on AIDS in respected peer-reviewed journals through 2003.

    Regarding his chromosomal cancer research, the article only tells us that it consisted of “questions that Duesberg laid out 25 years ago.” Again, the reader would not know that Duesberg with his colleagues published dozens of studies in this area since then – including original lab research, all in respected in peer-reviewed journals. There were no less than a dozen such studies in the last five years, including one that came out the same week as the Newsweek article.

    Newsweek thus gave a misleading impression of a curmudgeon with a lucky idea long ago, instead of the reality of a tremendously productive and brilliant scientist who had enormous research and documentation to back up his nonconforming conclusions and great integrity to uphold them despite intense professional pressures to conform.

  8. Truthseeker Says:

    Yes, indeed, Robert, thanks, very well put, the Newsweek errors of fact and interpretation certainly short change Duesberg’s achievement in cancer and also his early and continuing refutation of the scientifically incredible and discredited HIV=AIDS hypothesis.

    Of course, no one sophisticated believed the Gallo claim when it was made in 1984, or at any rate, took it with a very large pinch of salt. In fact, Duesberg, according to Harvey Bialy’s book Oncogenes, Aneuploidy and AIDS, the prime source for what really went on behind the scenes among the leaders of the field, has quoted one of them as saying something to the effect that “When Francis Crick says something is true we know we can believe it, but when Gallo makes a new claim we know we probably shouldn’t!”

    No one sensible swallowed the HIV claim in 1984, and it is to the eternal discredit of Larry Altman of the New York Times that he went along with it so quickly in a few weeks, instead of saying more accurately “possible” or even “probable” cause of AIDS, even though it was neither of those either as far as the evidence went that Gallo was presenting.

  9. MartinDKessler Says:

    Hi Truthseeker, I perused several Newsweek magazines looking for ads from major pharmaceutical corporations. They had anywhere from 3 to 4 ads per issue – like Abbot, Glaxo-Smith Kline, Allergan, Bristol-Meyers, etc. All of them make AIDS drugs whether for so-called ARVs or other drugs used to help tolerate the toxic effects. In addition, there ads for CVS Pharmacies or Prudential that deal in some medical fashion with AIDS patients. Newsweek published a politically acceptable article doing their very (unfactual) best to discredit him so thier advertisers would keep having their drug ads published. So Newsweek wrote an article that it hopes will not frighten away some of their best customers.

  10. cervantes Says:

    Martin, thank you for your comment on the advertisements, costing a pretty penny. As you implied, it comes back a million-fold to the drug companies you mention, from my/our taxpayer dollars taken in by the IRS (from me, anyway – can’t speak for you).

    Of course, the obscenity of the U.S. Congress appropriating for year 2010 the amount of $25.80 $billion taxpayer dollars for all the normal HIV/AIDS bullshit, plus another PEPFAR bullshit 2010 appropriation for African bullshit to the tune of $6.66 $billion dollars – summing to $32.45 $billion dollars for year 2010. We’re talking $billions, not $millions.

    And we’re talking it’s now been a $Trillion dollars spent on this Fraud, since 1990, when one includes all the States’ spending and medical bills paid by individuals, etc.

    And our Great New Leader has no clue, whatsoever, as he smiles and signs the Appropriation Bill for this. Good night, and good luck.

  11. cervantes Says:

    Correction: It may be $8.6 Billion dollars for PEPFAR for 2010, tho what the hell – since when’s a couple $billion mean anything to Congress, or to The Great One now in office.

  12. Baby Pong Says:

    The fact that Newsweek ran this article at all, indicates that Pharma has figured out a way to make zillions of dollars on treatments based on Duesberg’s work. With more and more people rejecting traditional chemo and radiation, they need a new cancer drug scam.

    If there weren’t money to be made from it, they never would have publicized Peter’s research.

    Here is today’s example of media censorship of medical stories that impugn Pharma’s and Allopathic Medicine’s credibilty:

    Gardasil Researcher Drops A Bombshell

    Did you see this story in any major media outlet? Here’s the answer:


    Somehow, someone at Google News slipped up and it turned up on their front page long enough for me to find it amidst all their mainstream pap.

    Poor Dr. Harper will shortly find that her funding has dried up and people are calling for her dismissal. So, perhaps, will that hapless Google News sap who let it appear for a few brief moments on their headline page.

  13. Baby Pong Says:

    Martin wrote:
    “I would be quite surprised if Gallo or Fauci came forward and confessed that AIDS was as scam. But would anyone believe them? They would be quickly sedated with Chlorpromazine and hidden from sight in a snake pit.”

    Actually, I don’t think that would be necessary. If Gallo attempted to unburden his conscience by holding a press conference at which he announced that he was wrong about Hiv and Aids, you would see a total opaque blanket of censorship descend on the event in virtually the entirety of the media, not just in the US, but in the world. Not a peep would escape, except perhaps on this blog and Henry’s, quickly to be dismissed as “conspiracy theorizing.”

  14. Truthseeker Says:

    Ahem. It’s all very well jeering at the pharmas but have you considered the entire picture? How many print periodicals would survive if these behemoths failed to buy their ad space? There are none of their ads in the current New Yorker, for instance, and this weeks issue is only 86 pages, with about 15 ad pages in that total. Help! Even though the editors and writers there are far too nice and PC ever to find out about the biggest and most obvious scientific boondoggle in history, let alone write about it if they did, the magazine does have a magical quality that should not disappear forever from national culture and our bedside and bathside tables. The test of this distinction is that the New Yorker is the only bearable bedtime reading around, in magazines at least, since its text consistently soothes ones nerves at the same time allowing one to take in something interesting to think about before nodding off.

    (The parlous condition of the New Yorker is one of the shames of the advertising industry. The philistines and their clients in that deplorably hireling arena apparently do not realize it is their public, social, artistic and moral duty to support fully one of the last three remaining citadels of thoughtful reporting in American journalism’s dwindling pantheon (the other three being Harpers and The New York Review of Books, and of course the grayish grande dame of the daily press, the New York Times, which grows more relevant by the week as it catches up with concerns from the forty year cul-de-sac in cancer treatment (which entirely ignored Peter Duesberg’s breakthrough in cancer research) to the series which has provoked Congressional hearings on texting while driving (When Texting Kills, Britain Offers Path to Prison).

    Half the television channels seem to be living off drug ads now, too. And at what social cost? Some of these drugs are supposedly useful, are they not? Others have a placebo effect. And what would doctors prescribe, if they didn’t have a drug culture to support? Only surgery, which involves a hospital stay, and as we all know, bacteria are so out of control now having evolved beyond antibiotics that they kill 100,000 hospital patients a year in the US. This is not so surprising given the fact that most hospitals have ventilation systems which recirculate all the infected air, with windows that are sealed against fresh air, previously one of the great curealls.

    Here in New York City moreover it is becoming apparent that without the drugstore Duane Reade’s outposts on every corner, the city’s street economy would have to depend on Korean nail salons.

    Finally, let us not forget that the legal drug trade offers employment to a host of predatory personalities who otherwise would have to seek employment on Wall Street, where they would no doubt add even more to the nation’s woes by dreaming up even more useless but vastly more expensive novelties in the sphere of derivatives.

    Also, conscience sometimes strikes, and we need an army of people on the inside for the few who finally turn public avocate with inside knowledge.

    For the latest admirable example, check this out (our boldface) in the Phialdelphia Bulletin, Phillies Family Newspaper:

    Gardasil Researcher Drops A Bombshell:Harper: Controversal Drug Will Do Little To Reduce Cervical Cancer Rates by Susan Brinkmann, Bulletin, Sun Oct 25, 2009

    Dr. Diane Harper, lead researcher in the development of two human papilloma virus vaccines, Gardasil and Cervarix, said the controversial drugs will do little to reduce cervical cancer rates and, even though they’re being recommended for girls as young as nine, there have been no efficacy trials in children under the age of 15.

    Dr. Harper, director of the Gynecologic Cancer Prevention Research Group at the University of Missouri, made these remarks during an address at the 4th International Public Conference on Vaccination which took place in Reston, Virginia on Oct. 2-4. Although her talk was intended to promote the vaccine, participants said they came away convinced the vaccine should not be received.

    “I came away from the talk with the perception that the risk of adverse side effects is so much greater than the risk of cervical cancer, I couldn’t help but question why we need the vaccine at all,” said Joan Robinson, Assistant Editor at the Population Research Institute.

    Dr. Harper began her remarks by explaining that 70 percent of all HPV infections resolve themselves without treatment within a year. Within two years, the number climbs to 90 percent. Of the remaining 10 percent of HPV infections, only half will develop into cervical cancer, which leaves little need for the vaccine.

    She went on to surprise the audience by stating that the incidence of cervical cancer in the U.S. is already so low that “even if we get the vaccine and continue PAP screening, we will not lower the rate of cervical cancer in the US.”

    There will be no decrease in cervical cancer until at least 70 percent of the population is vaccinated, and even then, the decrease will be minimal.

    Apparently, conventional treatment and preventative measures are already cutting the cervical cancer rate by four percent a year. At this rate, in 60 years, there will be a 91.4 percent decline just with current treatment. Even if 70 percent of women get the shot and required boosters over the same time period, which is highly unlikely, Harper says Gardasil still could not claim to do as much as traditional care is already doing.

    Dr. Harper, who also serves as a consultant to the World Health Organization, further undercut the case for mass vaccination by saying that “four out of five women with cervical cancer are in developing countries.”

    Ms. Robinson said she could not help but wonder, “If this is the case, then why vaccinate at all? But from the murmurs of the doctors in the audience, it was apparent that the same thought was occurring to them.”

    However, at this point, Dr. Harper dropped an even bigger bombshell on the audience when she announced that, “There have been no efficacy trials in girls under 15 years.”

    Merck, the manufacturer of Gardasil, studied only a small group of girls under 16 who had been vaccinated, but did not follow them long enough to conclude sufficient presence of effective HPV antibodies.

    This is not the first time Dr. Harper revealed the fact that Merck never tested Gardasil for safety in young girls. During a 2007 interview with KPC News.com, she said giving the vaccine to girls as young as 11 years-old “is a great big public health experiment.”

    At the time, which was at the height of Merck’s controversial drive to have the vaccine mandated in schools, Dr. Harper remained steadfastly opposed to the idea and said she had been trying for months to convince major television and print media about her concerns, “but no one will print it.”

    “It is silly to mandate vaccination of 11 to 12 year old girls,” she said at the time. “There also is not enough evidence gathered on side effects to know that safety is not an issue.”

    When asked why she was speaking out, she said: “I want to be able to sleep with myself when I go to bed at night.”

    Since the drug’s introduction in 2006, the public has been learning many of these facts the hard way. To date, 15,037 girls have officially reported adverse side effects from Gardasil to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). These adverse reactions include Guilliane Barre, lupus, seizures, paralysis, blood clots, brain inflammation and many others. The CDC acknowledges that there have been 44 reported deaths.

    Dr. Harper also participated in the research on Glaxo-Smith-Kline’s version of the drug, Cervarix, currently in use in the UK but not yet approved here. Since the government began administering the vaccine to school-aged girls last year, more than 2,000 patients reported some kind of adverse reaction including nausea, dizziness, blurred vision, convulsions, seizures and hyperventilation. Several reported multiple reactions, with 4,602 suspected side-effects recorded in total. The most tragic case involved a 14 year-old girl who dropped dead in the corridor of her school an hour after receiving the vaccination.

    The outspoken researcher also weighed in last month on a report published in the Journal of the American Medical Association that raised questions about the safety of the vaccine, saying bluntly: “The rate of serious adverse events is greater than the incidence rate of cervical cancer.”

    Ms. Robinson said she respects Dr. Harper’s candor. “I think she’s a scientist, a researcher, and she’s genuine enough a scientist to be open about the risks. I respect that in her.”

    However, she failed to make the case for Gardasil. “For me, it was hard to resist the conclusion that Gardasil does almost nothing for the health of American women.”

    Save young girls from dropping dead in school corridors! Speak up! A fine example of moral leadership, second only to the celebrated ex-editor of JAMA whose name we are trying to recall, since the New York Times has yet to congratulate her in a prominent editorial that we saw.

    Check this post at Age of Autism blog out for some readers comments with interesting, in fact, rather shocking anecdotes.

  15. cervantes Says:

    Good grief Truthseeker, I cannot detect if you are supporting Age of Autism or trashing them when you mention the NYT’s reporting six major studies “ruled out any correlation between autism and vaccines.” And using the example of Jenner to seemingly also trash Age of Autism’s organization.

    So please clarify. At any rate, my intensive 2000 hours (at least) review of the rise of autism cases in the U.S. (the real deal, not an expanded definition/diagnosis as you assert) from 1-4 in 10,000 back in year 1980 to now 1 in under 100 just released a month ago by CDC, puts in perspective the Fraud of AIDS to be tiny potatoes. And, by the way, is has been internationally acknowledged that boys are afflicted any where from 3 to 4 times the rate of girls.

    Actually, I think you are kidding us that you think autism is not seriously related to vaccines, because I can’t believe you would honestly ever really believe the NYT on any medical issue. Whewww –.

    Back to basics on vaccinations/vaccines: There are approx. six other components in every vaccine, and every one is perilous, particularly to infants. Just to mention a few: different chemistries of aluminum used as adjuvants, formaldehyde/other preservatives, foreign protein coming the egg/other tissue cultures, fragments of the pathogen itself, contaminants of all kinds rarely detected, undoubtedly there is some contamination even with immortal cancer cells, on and on.

    Secondly, these toxic ingredients are injected into the cardio-vascular systems of infants, entirely different than pathogens and toxins normally fielded (baseball slang) by digestive or respiratory systems having exquisite means of tackling (football slang) and weakening a vaccine’s ingredients.

    Now, please pull up the 2009 Vaccination Schedule for U.S. Children, truly the most frightening document I have ever seen (and I’ve seen a few, including the Official NIH protocols for putting AZT into babies over 6 weeks old at a dose that would be 1,800 milligrams for an 160 lb. adult).


    Please note that all these toxic ingredients are slammed into a newborn the day of birth, and at two months(!). A baby’s neuro development is fragile and growing as fast as the proverbial weed, but by age 18 months, over 40 vaccine doses have been slammed into him/her. NO vaccines were given until the age 3-5 before year 1980 (well, maybe one), and in the early 1980’s, and I quote from the National Academy of Science the following:

    “The immunization schedule in this country has grown complex over the last 20 years. In 1980, infants were vaccinated against four diseases — diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, and polio.”

    If anybody believes what the NYT or the U.S. CDC says about vaccines not being implicated in the disastrous, incredible skyrocketing of autism, I have a couple dozen bridges in West Virginia I will happily sell you.

    Finally, if anybody believes the total bullshit that autism was always this prevalent, where the hell are all the adults in their 30s, 40s, 50s?? Where? Does anybody know of giant psychiatric facilities all over the country caring for these horribly dysfunctional people? And, pardon any typos.

  16. cervantes Says:

    TS, This longish excerpt from Roberts’ book is for you to edit/shorten if you want, but all is worth knowing. Also, this excerpt does not get into many other ingredients that go into vaccines, particularly adjuvants, but the many other ingredients can easily been seen on numerous medical-info websites.

    What has been kept close to the vest by the scoundrels at CDC, FDA, et al. is the extensive use of immortal human fetal cells as ‘substrates’ to grow the virus pathogens going into many vaccines – in my view, it is impossible that some immortal fetal cell DNA, or even significant cell debris, does not make it into the final product.

    To me, injecting all of this witches brew, time and again, into human infants conceived but 9 to 11 months earlier is incomprehensible. How has the human social system allowed this to happen?

    by Janine Roberts
    Monday, 18 August 2008 01:37

    Extract from her book Fear of the Invisible

    In an earlier chapter I explained that all the viruses that exist are made by cells – both healthy and ill cells – so when they need viruses for a vaccine, they get cells from monkeys, chicken embryos etc and put these in an incubator. These cells are called the vaccine “substrate” – the vaccine is drawn from the incubator, filtered so nothing bigger than viruses remain in it and then given to our children… the problem is – lots of things are smaller than viruses… read on…

    MMR Vaccine Contaminated

    A year after I met with the top government regulatory scientists at the NIH Emergency Workshop on SV40 in 1997, they met again in Washington for another workshop on vaccine safety. At this there were representatives of all the major US government health organizations and of the vaccine manufacturers. A third similar meeting would be held a year later in 1999.

    The main issue at the November 1998 meeting was whether or not it would be safe for manufacturers to produce the viruses needed for vaccines from cancer cells. Pharmaceutical companies were at that time seeking government approval for this, on the basis that cancerous cells, as ‘immortal’ and permanent, would be cheaper to use than cells they had to regularly replace by, for example, buying more monkeys.

    These workshops looked at the issue broadly, by comparing the safety of the different ways available for making our vaccines. As everyone present was a scientist, the discussions were much more open and frank than they are when journalists are present.

    They started with the Measles, Mumps and Rubella vaccine (MMR). One of the first speakers on this was from the federal Food and Drugs Agency (FDA) and what she had to report was very disturbing.

    “Today I would like to present an update on the reverse transcriptase [RT] activity that is present in chicken cell derived vaccines.” My attention was immediately grabbed. I knew that the mumps and measles viruses used for the MMR vaccine are grown in fertilized chicken eggs, as are also the viruses for the Flu and Yellow Fever vaccines. (The rubella virus for MMR is produced differently – in artificially grown cells taken originally from an aborted human foetus.)

    Dr, Khan was reporting the result of a just concluded two-year investigation into the safety of MMR led by the World Health Organisation. She explained that this was initiated in 1996 after the discovery in MMR of RT; an enzyme whose presence they believed could well indicate that retroviruses had contaminated the vaccine. This had greatly alarmed them as some retroviruses are thought to cause cancers – and AIDS (Note: Since this excerpt is directly quoted, I did not delete this misconception of retroviruses implicated in cancer and AIDS. Cervantes).

    WHO had then quietly, without telling the public, without withdrawing the vaccine, organized MMR safety studies at various laboratories to see “whether this RT activity was associated with a retroviral particle, and even more importantly, whether this retrovirus particle could infect and replicate in human cells.”

    What they then discovered confirmed their worse fears. Dr Khan continued: “The RT activity is found to be associated with retroviral particles of two distinct avian endogenous retroviral families designated as EAV and ALV.” Now ALV stands for Avian Leukosis Virus. It is associated with a leukaemia cancer found in wild birds, so definitely was not wanted in the vaccines. EAV was however less dangerous, at least for birds as it is natural for them to have it.

    Khan added that they had also found another possible danger; “There was a theoretical possibility that the virus [ALV] could … infect the [human] cell” thus integrating its genetic code “into the human DNA” to cause cancer. The only reassurance she could give was that her team had watched vaccine cultures for a full “48 hours”, and, in that time period, no merger of viral and human DNA had been observed. I thought this much too short a period to guarantee safety. Cancers develop over years.

    Dr Khan then warned; “there is a possibility that there could also be potential pseudotypes (merging between) … the measles vaccine virus and the retroviral sequences” – meaning there was a risk that bird viruses might combine with the measles virus in the vaccine to create dangerous new mutant viruses, They had not seen it, but it could happen.

    She acknowledged much longer term safety studies were needed than 48 hours, but said that long-term studies of measles vaccine cultures were very difficult: “because the measles vaccine virus itself lyses [kills] the culture in about three to four days.” This had prevented them from studying the longer-term consequences of this contamination of the MMR vaccine.

    So far, she added, they had only managed to analyse a small part of the retrovirus contamination in the vaccines. “Our ongoing studies are directed towards doing similar analysis’ of other retroviral genetic codes found in the vaccine preparations.” It was suspected that other retroviruses might also be present. She also noted that “about 20 years ago similar RT activity was reported” in the vaccine. Apparently nothing had been done about it at that time and the public were never told.

    She concluded by explaining what the World Health Organisation (WHO) had decided to do about this chicken leucosis virus (ALV) contamination. It would take the risk of quietly allowing MMR to continue to be contaminated. It would permit vaccine manufacturers to continue to use retrovirus contaminated eggs, because “you cannot get ALV free flocks in places where you are making yellow fever vaccine.”

    Dr Andrew Lewis, head of the DNA Virus Laboratory in the Division of Viral Products, then warned. “All the egg-based vaccines are contaminated,” including “influenza, yellow fever and smallpox vaccines, as well as the vaccine for horses against encephalomyelitis virus” for these fertilized chicken eggs are susceptible to a wide variety of viruses.

    This was an eye opener for me. Before I started on this investigation, if I thought about it, I would have presumed our vaccines were made of selected viruses in sterile fluid to which a small amount of preservative chemicals has been added. I think this is what most parents presume.

    It was thus a shock to discover from this top-level scientific workshop that the viruses in our current vaccines are not in a sterile fluid as I had presumed, but in a soup of unknown bits and pieces, a veritable witches’ brew of DNA fragments, added chemicals, proteins and, even possibly prions and oncogenes, all of which would easily pass through the filters used to be injected into our children.

    Our vaccines, I thus learnt, are not filtered clean but are suspensions from the manufacturers’ incubation tanks’ in which the viruses are produced from ‘substrates’ of mashed bird embryo, minced monkey kidneys or cloned human cells. These suspensions are filtered before use but only to remove particles larger than viruses. The point of the vaccine is that it contains viruses, thus these must not be filtered out. This means there remains in the vaccine everything of the same size or smaller, including what the manufacturers call ‘degradation products’ – parts of decayed viruses or cells.

    I also learnt that the only official checks made for contaminants in vaccines are for a few known pathogens, thus ignoring a vast host of unknown, unstudied, small particles and chemicals. These eminent doctors reported at these vaccine safety meetings that it is simply impossible to remove these from our common vaccines – and this would of course also apply to vaccines for pets, farm animals and birds.

    I went to the published reports of the MMR manufacturers and found these confirmed what the scientists at this workshop had reported. A manufacturer stated in 2000 that it made the MMR vaccine with ?harvested virus fluids.’ It stated frankly that their “Measles vaccine bulk is an unpurified product whose potency was measured through a biological assay for the active substance rather than through evaluation of integrity of physical form. Degradation products are neither identified nor quantified.” In other words, it left the latter in the measles vaccine along with all contaminants that lay there quietly, or worked slowly. The pharmaceutical company admitted checking the measles vaccine only for obviously active contaminates. It did not measure how much the vaccine was polluted with genetic code fragments, other viruses, or with parts of bacterial, animal, bird or human cells.

    The latest information I could find on the retroviral contamination of the MMR vaccine was in a 2001 scientific paper from the CDC. This reported that 100 MMR recipients were tested to see if they were contaminated by either of the two types of retroviruses identified by Dr Khan and others. The conclusion was dramatic. “The finding of RT activity in all measles vaccine lots from different manufacturers tested suggests that this occurrence is not sporadic and that vaccine recipients may be universally exposed to these [chicken] retroviral particles.”

    They then concluded: “Despite these reassuring data, the presence of avian retroviral particles in chick embryo fibroblast-derived vaccines [like MMR] raises questions about the suitability of primary chicken cell substrates for vaccine production.” They recommended considering stopping production in fertilized eggs, and growing the vaccine viruses instead on “RT-negative cells from different species, such as on immortalized [cancerous] or diploid [laboratory grown] mammalian cells.” I was amazed to learn this, for, to the best of my knowledge, nothing has been done since this report was made to render MMR safer. The measles vaccine is still produced from contaminated chicken embryos.

  17. cervantes Says:

    Here is the excerpt:


  18. Truthseeker Says:

    Cervantes, apologies for the ironic tone of my comment above, which reflects our own indecision about the validity of what we have seen is certainly fierce instinctive parental conviction that autism and other symptoms have been caused in their children by MMR vaccines, since they have followed soon after, and to view vaccines as an assault on an immune system which at birth is unformed and even when mature is still not completely fathomed by science seems to make common sense on the face of it. But experts deny it happens or that it makes sense, correlation is not causation as we all know, the studies say not, and the immune system exists to reject alien material of any kind. But still…there seems to be a phenomenon to be explained, in some way, even if the truth is something else.

    The absence of evidence emerging from the major studies on this topic gives anyone who trusts science and its institutional practitioners serious pause, but, again, the correlation seems to be there in so many people’s minds that one suspects there may be something to it somewhere, though it is hard to imagine what. Andrew Wakefield the English doctor who first suggested this effect in the Lancet in February 1998, has been accused of being in it for the money because his court payments as an expert have been as high at three quarters of a million dollars, according to NBC Dateline recently, but he gives us a good impression on camera.

    Perhaps the answer is suggested by Ms Roberts’s revelation that vaccines are not very well prepared and therefore challenge the immune system more than they should, but the whole concept of challenging the immune system too greatly with impurities seems prima facie wrong by definition, and the tone of her texts is too amateurish to be convincing to us. “In an earlier chapter I explained that all the viruses that exist are made by cells – both healthy and ill cells – so when they need viruses for a vaccine, they get cells from monkeys, chicken embryos etc and put these in an incubator. These cells are called the vaccine “substrate” – the vaccine is drawn from the incubator, filtered so nothing bigger than viruses remain in it and then given to our children… the problem is – lots of things are smaller than viruses… read on”. What exactly is that meant to mean? It is almost illiterate.

    The sentence “a veritable witches’ brew of DNA fragments, added chemicals, proteins and, even possibly prions and oncogenes, all of which would easily pass through the filters used to be injected into our children” is plain silly. Prions and oncogenes? Please.

    By the way, MMR is not given at birth but 12-15 months later, as per the case against causation summarized on this Quackwatch page:

    ” The CDC continues to recommend two doses of MMR vaccine for all children who do not have a known medical contraindication; the first dose is recommended at 12-15 months of age and the second dose is recommended at either 4-6 years of age or at 11-12 years of age (Measles prevention: Recommendations of the immunization practices advisory committee. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, Vol.38 , No.S-9, Dec 29, 1989; Measles, mumps, and rubella-vaccine use and strategies for elimination of measles, rubella and congenital rubella syndrome and control mumps: Recommendations of the advisory committee on immunization practices. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, Vol 47, No. RR-8, May 1, 1998.)

    Now your current schedule from the CDC reveals that this seems to have changed radically in the last ten years for other vaccines, since there are now many given before that date. What is going on?

    This table would seem to suggest that if vaccines are an assault on the unformed immune system if multiplied beyond reason and moved up towards birth by a radical amount in the last ten years, complacency is not in order.

    Is this what has happened – that early vaccines have multiplied beyond reason?

  19. cervantes Says:

    TS, Yes, to answer your question, to refer back to the cut/pasted from the The National Academy of Sciences’ Newsletter of Feb. 20, 2002:

    “The immunization schedule in this country has grown complex over the last 20 years. In 1980, infants were vaccinated against four diseases — diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, and polio.”

    However, my major point, in combination with with sparse vaccinations themselves, was/is that no vaccinations in 1980 were injected into kids until age 3+ (still finding all the facts on this).

    This is light years apart from injecting foreign substances (and such as mercury/preservatives and aluminum adjuvants) at age of Birth and then the onslaught from 2 months on (still extremely vulnerable/sensitive to these toxins).

    But, back to your reliance on Studies you have read, or have been mentioned by the NYT, or from CDC for that matter:

    These Studies are laughable, horse-laughable. Why? Well, first they are done by the vaccine manufacturers; Two, when tested versus a ‘placebo’ they only leave out the attenuated virus in the placebo, but keep in all the other toxic components you now know about; Three, the duration of checking for ‘side effects’ only goes on for several weeks; Four; they are tested on animals/rats, not human babies just born — do I have to keep going?

    So, yes, to agree with your above thought: The “vaccines are an assault on the unformed immune system (and) multiplied beyond reason and moved up towards birth by a radical amount.” However, this ramping-up started around 1990, and not “the last ten years” (from your comment).

    Of course we all know the old saw that correlation is not causation, yet the exact correlation of exponential rise of autism, ADD, muscular dystrophy, life-threatening allergies, autoimmune afflictions such as lupus, all matching the exponential rise in vaccinations looks as suspicious as it gets. Yes, there have many studies with rats, petri dishes, etc., that do show how brain-destructive the vaccines are at a microbiological level, but I won’t get into them here.

    The “changing the criteria for autism diagnoses” is a completely bankrupt position held by vaccine advocates. The simplest analysis is usually the best, and school teachers are unanimous they have been besieged from this exponential increase, compared to 20 years ago. Applying the test of common sense and observation and school teachers experience and our own life experience certainly prevails over what the vaccination companies contend.

    I am serious, TS, do you really put any trust in studies published in the NYT? From either the CDC or the vaccine makers? Seriously, do you? Just like Hiv? Just like Aids? Just like Hep C? Just like H1N1/Swine Flu? Seriously?

    One series of shots is illustrative, the Hepatitis B (aka Hep B) given at day of birth, and then another at 2 months, another at 4 months. This is perfect example of the “tail wagging the dog” and making the con artists that scammed this poisonous shot into 100% of American newborns unless waivers are asked for and signed by parents.

    The Hep B vaccination has some legitimate value if the baby’s mother has ongoing infection with Hep B herself, but this is a tiny percent of pregnant women, almost 100% being hard-core drug abusers with heroin, etc. Since mothers are tested (or asked) if they have Hepatitis B infection, and in fact they do after this is verified, then ok, maybe there is some justification for shooting up the baby too. But, this is literally insane to be mandatory for everyone – yet it typifies the world of vaccinations.

    The science of course is immense on this whole topic, but here’s something everyone should read:


    As usual, please pardon the inevitable typos. Happy trails for the weekend.

  20. cervantes Says:

    TS, A quick update/correction of my prior comments on the time line of U.S. vaccinations is in order: Deep digging reveals starting about 1950, the combined DTP (now DTaP) shot (or Pertussis given separately) was indeed given sometimes at 2 months, though medical papers indicate cite 6 months+ maybe most prevalent.

    However, the coverage percentage for infants is not clear. What is clear, interestingly, are many papers investigating the “temporal” accounts of serious/permanent/SIDS incidents. These “temporal” reactions eventually brought about changing the “P” “aP” standing for acellular pertussis, licensed by the FDA in 1996:


    Otherwise, the Natl. Acad. Scien. Feb., 2002 already cited is a basic benchmark to give a grasp, particularly compared to today’s Schedule (see either of our urls above).

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Bad Behavior has blocked 292 access attempts in the last 7 days.