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.

HONOR ROLL OF SCIENTIFIC TRUTHSEEKERS

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)

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

Duesberg smartly interviewed


David Jay Brown achieves classic summary

Ideal cornerstone primer for newcomers to the issue

Want a neat, check-off basic guide to why the HIV∫AIDS paradigm doesn’t add up to more than wishful thinking on the part of those, like Bulldozer Bob Gallo, invested in it, financially or emotionally?

An unusually good interview with Duesberg is published this week at Smart Publications Health & Wellness Update newsletter site, an “independent publisher providing health and nutritional supplement information from experts and authorities in alternative medicine.” The classic interview is edited deftly, and covers the main points with an ease and clarity – and the occasional Duesbergian sparkle – that makes them seem more irrefutable than ever.

First, AIDS is not infectious. For example, between 1981 and 2004, 930,000 American AIDS patients had been treated by doctors or health care workers. But, despite the absence of an anti-AIDS vaccine, there is not a single case report in the peer-reviewed literature of a doctor or health care worker, who has ever contracted AIDS (rather than just HIV) from any one of these 930,000 patients in now twenty-five years. Likewise, not one of the thousands of HIV-AIDS researchers has ever contracted AIDS from HIV, nor is there an AIDS epidemic among prostitutes anywhere in the world.

Second, like all other viruses, HIV induces anti-viral immunity, which is the basis of the HIV/AIDS test. But, unlike any conventional viral epidemic or individual disease, AIDS is not self-limiting by anti-viral immunity and thus not likely to be caused by a virus.

Third, unlike all other viral epidemics, AIDS in the U.S. and Europe is highly nonrandom: A third of all patients are intravenous drug users and about two-thirds are male homosexuals who have used nitrite inhalants, amphetamines, cocaine and other aphrodisiac and psychoactive drugs for years before they develop any one or more of the twenty-six different AIDS-defining diseases. In addition, most HIV-antibody-positive people are now prescribed inevitably toxic DNA chain-terminators as anti-HIV drugs. But these terminators are AIDS by prescription, because they were designed to kill cells (for chemotherapy) and are thus also immunotoxic. Thus the AIDS epidemic does not spread randomly like a conventional viral epidemic and coincides with toxic drug use.

Fourth, there is no HIV in AIDS patients. Instead, only antibody against HIV or traces of HIV nucleic acid can be found in typical AIDS patients. But, conventional pathogenic viruses are abundant and not (yet) neutralized by antibodies when they cause diseases…

There is both correlative and functional evidence in the AIDS literature that nitrite inhalants coincide with Kaposi sarcoma and other AIDS diseases among homosexual users, and that nitrites are cytotoxic, immunotoxic and Kaposi-sarcomagenic. It is also known for decades that the long-term use of amphetamines and cocaine cause weight loss, immunodeficiency, dementia and other AIDS-defining diseases. It is the long-term use of such recreational drugs alone or in combination with anti-HIV drugs that American and European AIDS patients have in common…

By contrast, millions of HIV-antibody-positive people from without these risk groups are AIDS-free. For example, since 1985, there are one million HIV-positive people living in the U.S. But only about 30,000 of them (three percent) have any one of the twenty-six AIDS-diseases per year—”namely exactly the minority of them that uses recreational and anti-HIV drugs…

The correlation (between HIV and AIDS) is a hundred percent because AIDS is defined by the U.S. Center for Disease Control, and thus for the world (!), as one or more of twenty-six previously known diseases, if they occur in the presence of antibody against HIV. For example, all tuberculosis patients who have antibodies against HIV are called AIDS patients. By contrast, HIV-free tuberculosis patients are still tuberculosis patients. Thus, the one hundred percent correlation is an artifact of the AIDS definition, rather than a natural coincidence.

Q: When I interviewed neuroscience and AIDS researcher Candace Pert, I said to her that, —œA few scientists that I—™ve spoken with told me that they don—™t think that the HIV virus is responsible for causing AIDS.—?
When I asked her what she thought about this idea she said, —œThese people are nuts. The evidence is clear, and it—™s the most elegant scientific story…..

Dr. Duesberg: Take for example Candace—™s —œtidbit—? of the —œelegant science—? of AIDS, that —œa small percentage of Caucasian Europeans don’t have that receptor—? for HIV and —œno matter what risky behavior they indulge in, they do not get HIV disease—?—”which means according to the CDC: no dementia, no diarrhea, no Kaposi sarcoma, no tuberculosis, no yeast infection, no lymphoma, no cervical cancer, no weight loss, no fevers, no pneumocystis pneumonia, etc. Elegant indeed!

Fortunately in the U.S., God must have distributed Candace Pert—™s elegant HIV non-receptors otherwise: Here the majority of the heterosexual population has no HIV-receptors and therefore does not get AIDS! Instead, God must have distributed good HIV-receptors in the U.S. non-randomly to male homosexuals, junkies, and a few hemophiliacs and transfusion recipients, which make up over ninety-five percent of the American AIDS cases. Let’s thank God that our mainstream heterosexuals—”from our president to our leading HIV-AIDS researchers—”are genetically protected against this —œdeadly—? virus via defective HIV receptors, and are therefore AIDS-free—”ever since this virus is said to have arrived in the U.S. over twenty years ago.

Q: Why do you think that so many researchers are resistant to examining the idea that HIV may not be the cause of AIDS?

Dr. Duesberg: Scientists are selected for instincts that help them to get funding, recognition, invitations to meetings, access to publications and awards. None of these are available to scientific minorities. On the contrary, minorities are excommunicated at many levels from the consenting majorities, even from personal contacts with mainstream colleagues. Those are strong incentives for scientists not to —œexamine—? unpopular ideas.

Q: What do you think it will take to convince the scientific establishment that HIV is not the cause of AIDS?

Dr. Duesberg: It will take hypothesis-independent funding of research. If funding were available for non-HIV-AIDS hypotheses, AIDS would probably be solved very shortly on the basis of the drug or chemical AIDS hypothesis—”as shown in our paper, —œThe chemical bases of the various AIDS epidemics: recreational drugs, chemotherapy, and malnutrition,—? published in the Journal Biosciences of the Indian Academy of Sciences in 2003, with support from private sources. According to this hypothesis, AIDS is caused by recreational and antiviral drugs.

This hypothesis is already confirmed by exact correlations, and could be easily tested experimentally in animals and epidemiologically in the millions of human volunteers, who are HIV-free recreational drug addicts and develop AIDS-defining diseases under their old names. If confirmed, this hypothesis could readily solve AIDS by banning the inevitably toxic anti-HIV drugs and by warning the recreational drug users against the AIDS consequences of their drugs or lifestyle.

Q: Are there any new developments since the publication of your book Inventing the AIDS Virus that you think are important for people to know?

Dr. Duesberg: In principle, no. The HIV-AIDS hypothesis has recycled the same unproductive ideas and arguments for invisible or undetectable HIV, for toxic anti-HIV drugs, and excuses for failing vaccines in various formulations, for twenty-one years…

Q: What do you think should be done to help improve medical research in general?

Dr. Duesberg: Generate a free market for scientific ideas in which funding depends on logic, scientific principles, and useful results, rather than on approval, or better yet the blessings of —œpeer-review.—? Since the —œpeers—? represent the established scientific monopolies their self-interest demands —œscience—? that confirms and extends the status quo—”rather than innovation, which threatens their considerable scientific and commercial investments.

Inevitably, everyone new to the topic will ask “What about Africa?’, ie the other side of the “AIDS pandemic” now held to be spreading across the globe. The answer of course is that this is, obviously, another story – an entirely different phenomenon also highly dependent on the idea real or (sill mostly) imaginary that victims are tested for HIV positivity, which determines whether their ailments are counted as AIDS or not. In other words, real hunger and disease amid the poor relabeled as “AIDS” and medicated with AIDS drugs rather than the food and medicines appropriate to the rampant malnutrition, tuberculosis and other diseases which ravage the slums and villages of the sub continent.

The author, David Jay Brown, is an adventurer of the mind who has interviewed a great selection of edgy thinkers over the last few decades, everyone from Allen Ginsberg and John Lilly to Jean Houston, Bob Houston’s sister and guru to Presidents (no, she did not invoke Eleanor Roosevelt’s spirit in a seance, as the media misreported, she merely suggested Hilary write her book in the spirit of Eleanor Roosevelt, in other words, with the great First Lady as a model).
David Jay Brown is the author of four volumes of interviews with leading-edge thinkers, Mavericks of the Mind, Voices from the Edge, Conversations on the Edge of the Apocalypse, and Mavericks of Medicine. He is also the author of two science fiction novels, Brainchild and Virus. David holds a master—™s degree in psychobiology from New York University, and was responsible for the California-based research in two of British biologist Rupert Sheldrake—™s bestselling books on unexplained phenomena in science: Dogs That Know When Their Owners Are Coming Home and The Sense of Being Stared At. To find out more about David—™s work visit his award-winning web site: Maverick of the Mind
Having read the celebrated and witty Duesberg going over his main points in such a locked up, well edited final version, where every sentence now seems to have the irrefutable permanence of an inscribed tablet of scientific truth, one is struck anew by the perception of what a battalion of mediocrity by comparison is formed by the core of scientists who rule this field, who come forth with such pusillanimous prevarications as these lines, emblazoned with pride at the top of John P. Moore’s celebration of witless truthiness, AIDSTruth.org:

The Durban declaration states: “The evidence that AIDS is caused by HIV-1 or HIV-2 is clear-cut, exhaustive and unambiguous, meeting the highest standards of science.” And also, “HIV causes AIDS. It is unfortunate that a few vocal people continue to deny the evidence. This position will cost countless lives.”

All we can say to this is, against the long established certainties of Duesberg’s peer reviewed analysis, what hollow claptrap, what empty assertiveness! If anything, it should now be clear to anybody who can read Duesberg, and then use a mouse and check the literature at Pub Med, that these lines should correctly read, “The evidence that AIDS is not caused by HIV-1 or HIV-2 is clear-cut, exhaustive and unambiguous.”

Smart interview with Duesberg by David Jay Brown

Challenging the Viral Theory
of AIDS: An Interview
with Dr. Peter Duesberg

By David Jay Brown

Peter Duesberg, Ph.D., is a professor of molecular and cell biology at the University of California at Berkeley. He is a pioneer in retrovirus research, and he was the first scientist to isolate a cancer gene. More recently, Dr. Duesberg has gained recognition for his theory that abnormal chromosome numbers are the causes of cancer, which challenges the conventional mutation theory. However, he is probably best known for challenging the widely-held theory that HIV is the cause of AIDS.

Dr. Duesberg earned his Ph.D. in chemistry at the University of Frankfurt in Germany in 1963. He isolated the first cancer gene through his work on retroviruses in 1970, and he mapped the genetic structure of these viruses. This, and his subsequent work in the same field, resulted in his election to the National Academy of Sciences in 1986. He was also the recipient of a seven-year Outstanding Investigator Grant from the National Institutes of Health, before he called the HIV-AIDS hypothesis into question.

Dr. Duesberg is the author of Inventing the AIDS Virus, and his articles challenging the HIV/AIDS hypothesis have appeared in scientific journals worldwide including: The New England Journal of Medicine, Science, Cancer Research, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, and Nature. On the basis of his experience with retroviruses, Dr. Duesberg concludes that it is impossible for HIV to be the cause of AIDS, and that AIDS is, in fact, a nonviral disease. He has instead proposed the hypothesis that the various American and European AIDS diseases are brought on by the long-term consumption of amyl nitrites or —œpoppers—? and other recreational drugs, and/or by the use of the extremely toxic drug AZT, which is a chain-terminator of DNA synthesis that was originally developed for chemotherapy of cancer and is now prescribed to prevent or treat AIDS.

Despite Dr. Duesberg—™s impressive track record, and the fact that his ideas about AIDS are truly compelling if one studies them carefully, he has found himself at direct odds with the medical establishment since he began talking about his controversial AIDS hypothesis. Many AIDS researchers and drug companies have reacted hostilely to Dr. Duesberg—™s hypothesis. For example, when I interviewed neuroscientist and AIDS researcher Candace Pert from Georgetown University, and I asked her what she thought about the scientists that don—™t think that the HIV virus is responsible for causing AIDS, she replied, —œThese people are nuts.—?

However, some other scientists think differently and strongly respect Dr. Duesberg—™s ideas—”including Nobel laureates in chemistry Kary Mullis and Walter Gilbert. Duesberg, Mullis, and Gilbert all point out that there is no direct experimental evidence that HIV causes AIDS, and that there are numerous problems with the HIV-AIDS theory. For example, not everyone infected with HIV gets AIDS, and not everyone with AIDS symptoms is infected with HIV. In fact, the symptoms of AIDS vary from continent to continent, and a medical diagnosis of AIDS is often made simply by testing positive for HIV antibodies in the presence of a disease such as tuberculosis or cancer. However, instead of engaging in scientific debate, according to Dr. Duesberg, the only response from the scientific establishment has been to cut off funding to further test his hypothesis.

To find out more about Dr. Duesberg—™s work, see Harvey Bialy—™s biography Oncogenes Aneuploidy and AIDS: The Scientific Life & Times of Peter H. Duesberg (North Atlantic Books, Berkeley CA, 2004), or visit Dr. Duesberg—™s Web site at: www.duesberg.com

I interviewed Dr. Duesberg in December of 2005. We spoke about why he thinks that it—™s a mistake to assume that the HIV virus is the cause of AIDS, why so many researchers are resistant to examining the idea that HIV may not be the cause of AIDS, and what he thinks the real cause of AIDS might be.

Q: What originally inspired your interest in molecular biology?

Dr. Duesberg: The idea that there are cancer viruses, and thus ways to understand cancer and perhaps prevent or cure it by vaccines, inspired me forty years ago. I was young enough to ignore, or better, not even know objections.

Q: If you could just briefly summarize—”what are some of the primary reasons why you think that it—™s a mistake to assume that the HIV virus is the cause of AIDS?

Dr. Duesberg: Here are four out of many more —œprimary reasons—?:

First, AIDS is not infectious. For example, between 1981 and 2004, 930,000 American AIDS patients had been treated by doctors or health care workers. But, despite the absence of an anti-AIDS vaccine, there is not a single case report in the peer-reviewed literature of a doctor or health care worker, who has ever contracted AIDS (rather than just HIV) from any one of these 930,000 patients in now twenty-five years. Likewise, not one of the thousands of HIV-AIDS researchers has ever contracted AIDS from HIV, nor is there an AIDS epidemic among prostitutes anywhere in the world.

Second, like all other viruses, HIV induces anti-viral immunity, which is the basis of the HIV/AIDS test. But, unlike any conventional viral epidemic or individual disease, AIDS is not self-limiting by anti-viral immunity and thus not likely to be caused by a virus.

Third, unlike all other viral epidemics, AIDS in the U.S. and Europe is highly nonrandom: A third of all patients are intravenous drug users and about two-thirds are male homosexuals who have used nitrite inhalants, amphetamines, cocaine and other aphrodisiac and psychoactive drugs for years before they develop any one or more of the twenty-six different AIDS-defining diseases. In addition, most HIV-antibody-positive people are now prescribed inevitably toxic DNA chain-terminators as anti-HIV drugs. But these terminators are AIDS by prescription, because they were designed to kill cells (for chemotherapy) and are thus also immunotoxic. Thus the AIDS epidemic does not spread randomly like a conventional viral epidemic and coincides with toxic drug use.

Fourth, there is no HIV in AIDS patients. Instead, only antibody against HIV or traces of HIV nucleic acid can be found in typical AIDS patients. But, conventional pathogenic viruses are abundant and not (yet) neutralized by antibodies when they cause diseases.

Q: Can you talk a little about why you think that recreational drug use is the primary cause of AIDS among gay men?

Dr. Duesberg: There is both correlative and functional evidence in the AIDS literature that nitrite inhalants coincide with Kaposi sarcoma and other AIDS diseases among homosexual users, and that nitrites are cytotoxic, immunotoxic and Kaposi-sarcomagenic. It is also known for decades that the long-term use of amphetamines and cocaine cause weight loss, immunodeficiency, dementia and other AIDS-defining diseases. It is the long-term use of such recreational drugs alone or in combination with anti-HIV drugs that American and European AIDS patients have in common.

By contrast, millions of HIV-antibody-positive people from without these risk groups are AIDS-free. For example, since 1985, there are one million HIV-positive people living in the U.S. But only about 30,000 of them (three percent) have any one of the twenty-six AIDS-diseases per year—”namely exactly the minority of them that uses recreational and anti-HIV drugs.

Q: Why do you think that there is such a high correlation between HIV and AIDS?

Dr. Duesberg: The correlation is a hundred percent because AIDS is defined by the U.S. Center for Disease Control, and thus for the world (!), as one or more of twenty-six previously known diseases, if they occur in the presence of antibody against HIV. For example, all tuberculosis patients who have antibodies against HIV are called AIDS patients. By contrast, HIV-free tuberculosis patients are still tuberculosis patients. Thus, the one hundred percent correlation is an artifact of the AIDS definition, rather than a natural coincidence.

Q: When I interviewed neuroscience and AIDS researcher Candace Pert, I said to her that, —œA few scientists that I—™ve spoken with told me that they don—™t think that the HIV virus is responsible for causing AIDS.—?
When I asked her what she thought about this idea she said, —œ … These people are nuts. The evidence is clear, and it—™s the most elegant scientific story. There was a movement against HIV research, and the main champion was Peter Duesberg. There were some personal animosities against the power and the money that the early AIDS researchers got, and there are a lot of political aspects to this. But beyond a shadow of a doubt—”and I—™m speaking as somebody who studies data in the lab—”there is just no doubt about the fact that HIV is the cause of AIDS. There—™s just so much elegant science behind it. Just let me cite one little tidbit that tells you how clean the whole thing is. There are two primary receptors that the AIDS virus uses to enter and infect cells. One of them is called CCR-5. It turns out that a small percentage of Caucasian Europeans don—™t have that receptor. They have a genetic mutation where the receptor should be, and it—™s missing a major chunk of it in the middle. Now those people who have that mutation, no matter what risky behavior they indulge in, they do not get HIV disease … Then, of course, you can show clearly in the test tube that you can artificially make cells that have this receptor and they will become readily infected with the viruses that use this receptor. And if the cells don—™t have the receptor then they don—™t. That—™s summarizing like hundreds and hundreds of papers that elegantly address this, so there—™s no doubt that HIV causes AIDS. Duesberg may not like some of the HIV virologists, and their style and all, but it—™s just so silly. And it—™s sad, because they—™ve created a movement that—™s been very destructive. My understanding is that out in California some of these people are like Luddites. Some of the activists—”not all of them, but some small percentage—”have gotten this into their head, and have stormed research labs. They—™ve gotten very angry and very crazy, and it—™s complete rubbish. I have no doubt in my mind. I—™m a hundred percent sure about this.—?
How would you respond to Candace?

Dr. Duesberg: Take for example Candace—™s —œtidbit—? of the —œelegant science—? of AIDS, that —œa small percentage of Caucasian Europeans don’t have that receptor—? for HIV and —œno matter what risky behavior they indulge in, they do not get HIV disease—?—”which means according to the CDC: no dementia, no diarrhea, no Kaposi sarcoma, no tuberculosis, no yeast infection, no lymphoma, no cervical cancer, no weight loss, no fevers, no pneumocystis pneumonia, etc. Elegant indeed!

Fortunately in the U.S., God must have distributed Candace Pert—™s elegant HIV non-receptors otherwise: Here the majority of the heterosexual population has no HIV-receptors and therefore does not get AIDS! Instead, God must have distributed good HIV-receptors in the U.S. non-randomly to male homosexuals, junkies, and a few hemophiliacs and transfusion recipients, which make up over ninety-five percent of the American AIDS cases. Let’s thank God that our mainstream heterosexuals—”from our president to our leading HIV-AIDS researchers—”are genetically protected against this —œdeadly—? virus via defective HIV receptors, and are therefore AIDS-free—”ever since this virus is said to have arrived in the U.S. over twenty years ago.

Q: Why do you think that so many researchers are resistant to examining the idea that HIV may not be the cause of AIDS?

Dr. Duesberg: Scientists are selected for instincts that help them to get funding, recognition, invitations to meetings, access to publications and awards. None of these are available to scientific minorities. On the contrary, minorities are excommunicated at many levels from the consenting majorities, even from personal contacts with mainstream colleagues. Those are strong incentives for scientists not to —œexamine—? unpopular ideas.

Q: What do you think it will take to convince the scientific establishment that HIV is not the cause of AIDS?

Dr. Duesberg: It will take hypothesis-independent funding of research. If funding were available for non-HIV-AIDS hypotheses, AIDS would probably be solved very shortly on the basis of the drug or chemical AIDS hypothesis—”as shown in our paper, —œThe chemical bases of the various AIDS epidemics: recreational drugs, chemotherapy, and malnutrition,—? published in the Journal Biosciences of the Indian Academy of Sciences in 2003, with support from private sources. According to this hypothesis, AIDS is caused by recreational and antiviral drugs.

This hypothesis is already confirmed by exact correlations, and could be easily tested experimentally in animals and epidemiologically in the millions of human volunteers, who are HIV-free recreational drug addicts and develop AIDS-defining diseases under their old names. If confirmed, this hypothesis could readily solve AIDS by banning the inevitably toxic anti-HIV drugs and by warning the recreational drug users against the AIDS consequences of their drugs or lifestyle.

Q: Are there any new developments since the publication of your book Inventing the AIDS Virus that you think are important for people to know?

Dr. Duesberg: In principle, no. The HIV-AIDS hypothesis has recycled the same unproductive ideas and arguments for invisible or undetectable HIV, for toxic anti-HIV drugs, and excuses for failing vaccines in various formulations, for twenty-one years.

We have pointed this out in two papers since Inventing the AIDS Virus, which was first published in 1996. One of these papers, —œThe AIDS dilemma: drug diseases blamed on a passenger virus,—? by Duesberg & Rasnick was published in Genetica in 1998. The other paper, —œThe chemical bases of the various AIDS epidemics: recreational drugs, anti-HIV drugs and malnutrition,—? by Duesberg, Koehnlein & Rasnick, was published in the Journal of Biosciences in 2003.

These papers analyze old and new paradoxes generated by the HIV hypothesis, and address new and old evidence for chemical AIDS, namely AIDS caused by recreational drugs, antiviral drugs, and malnutrition.

Q: What are some of the ways that you think a prevailing scientific paradigm can limit our medical understanding?

Dr. Duesberg: By becoming a monopoly able to control funding and publication, as is the case now with the HIV-AIDS monopoly and to a slightly lesser degree with the oncogene-cancer monopoly.

Q: What do you think should be done to help improve medical research in general?

Dr. Duesberg: Generate a free market for scientific ideas in which funding depends on logic, scientific principles, and useful results, rather than on approval, or better yet the blessings of —œpeer-review.—? Since the —œpeers—? represent the established scientific monopolies their self-interest demands —œscience—? that confirms and extends the status quo—”rather than innovation, which threatens their considerable scientific and commercial investments.

The only way to achieve innovation is to replace the so-called peer-review system by a system modeled after American courtroom juries, in which only jurors without any investments in the case on trial are judging the merits of a case.

The claim that only established —œpeers—? have the knowledge to decide on AIDS, cancer, Alzheimer—™s, etc. is not consistent with their failures to explain or cure these diseases. And is not consistent even with the spirit of our constitution, where neither the law nor the health of the citizens should be left solely to the powers of the —œexperts.—? The claims for exclusive authority of —œscientific peers—? are no more valid than those of their legal counterparts nor those of their predecessors who wrote prescriptions in Latin, or those of their theological counterparts who determine what—™s moral or ethical via special connections with God.

Q: What do you think are the primary causes of aging?

Dr. Duesberg: I don—™t know. It—™s an interesting question. But, if I were to work on it, I would look at the three factors that generate the un-aged prototype: (1) The karyotype or species-specific chromosome combination; (2) The genes; and (3) The differential expression of thousands of genes or —œepigenetic—? controls that generate differentiated phenotypes. I would plan experiments which compare karyotypes, genes and gene expressions of un-aged prototypes with aged counterparts.

Q: What do you think are currently the best ways to slow down, or reverse the aging process and extend the human life span?

Dr. Duesberg: The answer would depend on the experiments proposed in my last answer. But it is already known from the experimental literature that the life-span can be much extended, by about a third, and the cancer-risk reduced by minimizing the metabolism and cell divisions by limiting the diet. So aging could probably be slowed down by minimizing the inevitably fallible processes that replicate chromosomes and genes, and maintain differentiated function by limiting metabolism via the diet.

Q: What are some of the new medical breakthroughs that you foresee coming along in the near future?

Dr. Duesberg: I am very skeptical—”indeed I am scared—”of a —œnew medical breakthrough—? from the very same medical establishment, which prescribes inevitably cytocidal DNA chain-terminators to hundreds of thousands of healthy people solely because they have made antibodies against the non-cytocidal retrovirus HIV!

Q: What are you currently working on?

Dr. Duesberg: The currently prevailing cancer theory postulates that cancer is caused by four to seven gene mutations. However, despite over thirty years of efforts, it has not been possible to find one or a combination of mutant genes in cancers that are able to transform a normal cell to a cancer cell, or are able to cause cancer in an animal.

In view of this, I am now studying the chromosomal theory of cancer. This theory is based on the fact that the numbers or structures of chromosomes of all cancers are abnormal.

However, since the currently prevailing cancer orthodoxy holds that gene mutations cause cancer, I am again working on cancer without funding from any non-private, —œpeer-reviewed—? agencies, such as the National Cancer Institute, despite over fourteen grant applications.

David Jay Brown is the author of four volumes of interviews with leading-edge thinkers, Mavericks of the Mind, Voices from the Edge, Conversations on the Edge of the Apocalypse, and Mavericks of Medicine. He is also the author of two science fiction novels, Brainchild and Virus. David holds a master—™s degree in psychobiology from New York University, and was responsible for the California-based research in two of British biologist Rupert Sheldrake—™s bestselling books on unexplained phenomena in science: Dogs That Know When Their Owners Are Coming Home and The Sense of Being Stared At. To find out more about David—™s work visit his award-winning web site: www.mavericksofthemind.com
Copyright © 2007 – Smart Publications
POB 4667 – Petaluma, CA 94955
888-998-6889 (fax)

13 Responses to “Duesberg smartly interviewed”

  1. Michael Says:

    Oh how the mighty have fallen. For all of your pleasure and amusement,

    please be sure to view the humbling and bumbling of Pharmabawd, Noble, Tara, and others at this link.

  2. Wilyretrovirus Says:

    Michael,

    you must have a strong stomach to “debate” at Tara’s supposedly “scientific” blog. I used to get involved quite a bit in the past, but my gut would hurt too much as it’s very sensitive to BS.

    Really, I hope Tara isn’t trying to convince people she’s a scientist as far as AIDS is concerned. The titles of her threads concerning AIDS (and especially rethinkers) are pure propaganda.

  3. kevin Says:

    “you must have a strong stomach to “debate” at Tara’s”supposedly “scientific” blog.” — Wiley

    I post on Tara’s site, as well, using the same name as here, of course. I think that it is very important to engage the apologists over there, and elsewhere, for they need to be exposed as hypocrites to as many audiences, as possible. They certainly do not like to debate any one who does not think exactly like them and that level of hypocrisy is easy to expose on a site that professes to be interested in real scientific inquiry.

    It only takes a strong stomach if you stoop to their level. Sticking to the facts and explaining their ulterior intentions in detail is very damning to the hollow idealism that they use to defend HIV.

    Perhaps, one of them will read this comment and try to use it against me on that site. I look forward to it because as usual, I’m just telling the truth and my stomach feels fine.

    Kevin

  4. Celia Farber Says:

    Glancing just now at Anthony Lane’s New Yorker review of the great movie “The Lives of Others,” about former GDR (German Democratic Republic) (about as much of a hoot of a name as AIDS Coalition To Unleash Power-) I came across a phrase that made me pause all movement.

    He referred to former GDR as “…a world in which there is no justice.”

    I felt, simply: That’s the world of AIDS. A world in which there is no justice.

    There hasn’t been, I mean.

    The sense of being Right and Justified has eclipsed all notions of what it means to play Fair.

    It induces deep depression in all living creatures when justice is undercut.

    In Adelaide, the matter is now before a man whose expertise is justice. He can distinguish between the right consequences of a scientific belief system and the wrong consequences of it. For the AIDS orthodoxy, the only awareness has been the fact that they feel they are right. Scientifically right. Dead right. The media went with them on that, for 20 years. Kick their denialist asses. The world will thank you.

    John Moore can write, in agony: “This IS war. There ARE no rules and we WILL crush you…” But he can’t ever be right about that. Those who start to think their fanatic beliefs justify going outside the rules of civilized conduct are in for a mighty surprise about how fast power can implode. I was there when it happened in GDR and Checkoslovakia in 1989 and it was delirious. Nobody ever thought that the oppressed could regain any status. When they start to regain status, the first sign is a return to justice.

    The Stasi and entire GDR apparatus also felt right and justified in defending their deranged dictatorship that doesn’t even exist anymore, by any and all means necessary, including collecting smell samples citizens and keeping the entire population under psychotic surveillance, in search of ideological impurities. The greatest treatment of this subject I know of is Anna Funder’s “Stasiland: Stories From Behind the Berlin Wall,” a book I loved and wish everybody would read. (Also, go see “The Lives of Others.”)

    My essential point is that all movements, governments, societies, dictatorships, cults etc that have gone off the course and rails of justice, thinking themselves invulnerable, have become extinct.

  5. Wilyretrovirus Says:

    Kevin,

    A “strong stomach” in this matter can also translate to “thick skin”.

    I was complimenting Michael on his ability to go into that snakepit and deal with the ugliness there. I think it takes fortitude.

    It only takes a strong stomach if you stoop to their level. Well, either I’ve “stooped to their level” (don’t think I ever did), or I just have to disagree with your viewpoint on this.

    After a few years of debating the defenders of the faith in their assorted snakepits, I’ve come to the understanding that they’re not debating science at all. They’re simply defending the faith. And many of them know either consciously or beneath the surface that they’re defending a lie. But at this point, they lack the integrity to “come clean”.

    Part of my not wanting to “debate” them much anymore, if at all, is: in debating them, they don’t have to deal with themselves. They have “us” to project all their darkness onto. I’d rather not let them have that option.

    John Moore can write, in agony: “This IS war. There ARE no rules and we WILL crush you…” I was right about this one, as this was Moore’s response to a post of mine on Barnesville. I said that the apologists simply viewed this as war.

    The next thing I’m right about is how much the darkness of defending the paradigm is eating the insides of many of the more outspoken apologists. It’s eating them alive, and by “debating” them, they have an outside source to focus that darkness on, rather than finding resolution or peace within themselves. The way to find peace though, is to admit they’re wrong. Darkness be gone! Doesn’t that feel much better now?

  6. Michael Says:

    Manto Tshabalala Msimang, Health Minister of South Africa, is presently very ill and in ICU.

    If Manto dies from the stresses currently upon her, I think it will be one more death that has been contributed to greatly by the AIDS orthodoxy, by the whipping up of the furor of her own people of South Africa into a frenzy against her, orchestrated by many leading AIDS apologists, including people such as John P. Moore at http://www.aidstruth.org , Greg Gonsalves, Marc Wainberg, Richard Jefferies, the mass media, with the support of pharmaceutical companys funding of groups such as The Treatment Action Campaign, Zachie Achmat, and others, and even those among her own people who have raised arms against her in the press and radio of South Africa and the world. It is also exacerbated by those in her own government and country who have not supported her and who have tried to destroy her, in her struggle to protect and bring health and well being to the people of South Africa.

    Since the Toronto Aids Conference, she has been in a constantly attacked and has been in a situation of extreme emotional distress. This has been intensely contributed to by her inability to save her people from toxic AIDS drugs, and an inability to lift her people up to health and well being and nutritionally adequate diets and clean drinking water to drink, and sanitation, without the backing of many of her own people, and the people of the world.

    The only support our country has offered is to send toxic AIDS drugs, which will only exacerbate and overwhelm the already overtaxed health system of South Africa.

    She is in my prayers, for a full recovery.

    I invite you and hope you will join with me in holding Manto Tshabalala Msimang up in prayer, to acceptance of life as it is, to regaining her peace of mind, and regaining her health and her well being, and regaining her energetic and overflowing optimism for a better and healthier future for all.

  7. Celia Farber Says:

    This is voodoo, what they are doing to Manto. It is heartbreaking. I sometimes think they killed EJ with their voodoo too. What did EJ die of? Can anybody explain it and does it look like anything anybody has ever seen?

    Look at this death wishing, this voodoo site, that I found yesterday:

    Schadenfreude

    Please write in and tell these people that is is NOT OK to express the wish on the Internet that a living human being should die.

    I have been very distraught about this since I saw it. The darkness and death-wishing and violence of the orthodxy is so far gone now that one can openly express lust and glee that a small person has died (as they did with EJ) and that another (Manto) may be dying.

    To wish the death of people because of their views, opinions, way of seeing the world, is no better than wishing their death due to their skin color, ethnicity, religion.

    We are dealing with very seriously ill people.

    What is the answer?

    Is there some way we can get a message over to Manto that she is loved and understood and honored by many many people?

  8. Wilyretrovirus Says:

    The darkness and death-wishing and violence of the orthodxy is so far gone now that one can openly express lust and glee that a small person has died (as they did with EJ)

    A grave that has been danced upon countless times by the orthodoxy is David Pasquarelli’s. My mind would just reel in shock at misc.health.aids from the lust and glee that would accompany any mention of Mr. Pasquarelli’s passing.

    I “debated” for months at misc.health.aids with my friend, Paul (who tested “positive”). It’s all there…documented…orthodox folks trying to work their voodoo on Paul, telling him he’s going to die, not in a concerned, sympathetic way, not at all, quite the opposite. If anybody’s interested, I’ll get the titles of the threads there, and you can read for yourselves. It’s amazing, and sickening.

    I hope Manto gets well. But for her overall health, she may want to pull away from this madness.

  9. Celia Farber Says:

    They are awful. They are awful in the way that you can not find words for, but it makes you cry. Why cry? Because it is such a concentration of everything un-beautiful in this world, and it makes you stop dreaming, in the end. Stop being fully human because they are so contemptuous it just makes you want to retract your head or pull your soul into a previous century.

  10. Mark Biernbaum Says:

    Okay, so let’s say that Tara, due to diurnal rhythms and perhaps some random cold virus, returned a CD4 count of 194, which research in your beloved PubMed says can indeed happen, AND had invasive cervical cancer, and also developed systemic candida — voila! It’s ICL! Unless of course she also tested HIV+. Then it’s AIDS. How does that make sense exactly? Can someone explain?

    Can anyone (i.e., how about it Tara) defend the addition of invasive cervical cancer to the diagnosis of AIDS? Again, isn’t invasive cervical cancer related to a different virus?

    Posted by: Mark | February 24, 2007 06:27 AM

    And no more AdHoms in response please. If you can’t answer the question, just admit it, how about? Besides, all the AdHoms in the world aren’t going to bother me — so I suppose if you folks need to make them, go ahead.

    There was never any justification for adding invasive cervical cancer to the list of AIDS-defining illnesses — at least, no scientific justification. But hey — if you think you’ve got one, let’s hear it. Otherwise — it looks like your favorite diagnosis is broken and there’s nothing to be done to fix it.

    Oh and Dale — couldn’t one believe that HIV is indeed infectious, but also harmless? After all, it hasn’t harmed me one bit, so why would I believe it was harmful? After 10 years, no AIDS. What’s a guy to do?

    Posted by: Mark | February 24, 2007 06:32 AM

    And one more thing on tenure files — they are always open to letters from outside commentators, except for that short period when the file is actively under review. So unless Tara is currently actively under review, any letters received by the Dean of her college are placed automatically in her file — she does have the right to rebut such letters if they displease her, but she can’t keep them out. That’s just how tenure works. Kinda sucks, huh?

    Posted by: Mark | February 24, 2007 06:36 AM

  11. Wilyretrovirus Says:

    Back to Duesberg, and the best quote from the interview, in my opinion.

    Q: What are some of the new medical breakthroughs that you foresee coming along in the near future?

    Dr. Duesberg: I am very skeptical—”indeed I am scared—”of a —œnew medical breakthrough—? from the very same medical establishment, which prescribes inevitably cytocidal DNA chain-terminators to hundreds of thousands of healthy people solely because they have made antibodies against the non-cytocidal retrovirus HIV!

    This sums up absolutely every grave error by the medical establishment concerning HIV/AIDS in one sentence.

  12. Glider Says:

    I assume that the Candace Pert mentioned in this interview is the same woman who appeared in that pseudo-scientific, JZ Knight/Ramtha film “What the Bleep Do We Know?” And SHE’S calling scientists who question HIV/AIDS dogma nuts?

  13. Wilyretrovirus Says:

    Dr. Duesberg: Take for example Candace—™s —œtidbit—? of the —œelegant science—? of AIDS, that —œa small percentage of Caucasian Europeans don’t have that receptor—? for HIV and —œno matter what risky behavior they indulge in, they do not get HIV disease—?

    Why isn’t the CCR5 gene deletion common knowledge? I’ve been involved with “AIDS” since the beginning, but the only people that are aware of this great way some of us blessed caucasians are genetically “immune” to AIDS are researchers, scientists, some doctors, and the laypeople (like myself) that have sought to educate myself.

    Since Dr. Pert is so damned certain that a person with the gene deletion can’t become HIV-infected, therefore can’t get “AIDS”, then the ethical thing to do would be to test the good white people of the US for the gene deletion…that way they never have ANY reason to be concerned about getting “AIDS”. Strange how this possibility is NEVER mentioned when you subject yourself to an “HIV” test.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.


Bad Behavior has blocked 167 access attempts in the last 7 days.