blog post on Aids / A Startling Claim about the AIDS Virus

[Guest guest]

Tue, 20 Jun 2006 18:55:51 +0200

" Sepp Hasslberger " <josef.hasslberger

blog post on Aids / A Startling Claim about the AIDS Virus

 

 

 

 

 

A recent blog post on Aids

 

http://konstantin2005.blogspot.com/2005/09/is-aids-hoax.html

 

found following a link from this French blog

 

http://www.onnouscachetout.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=9647

 

also:

 

A Startling Claim about the AIDS Virus

 

which is an interview with Duesberg on the Moscow News site ...

http://english.mn.ru/english/issue.php?2005-34-17

 

 

Kind regards

Sepp

 

 

 

 

--

 

 

 

 

http://english.mn.ru/english/issue.php?2005-34-17

 

 

A Startling Claim about the AIDS Virus

By Ostap Karmodi The Moscow News

Science magazine lists the mystery of AIDS as among the 25 chief

problems facing the world's scientific community. This entitles some

scientists to come forward with extremely radical hypotheses

 

 

Twenty years ago, Peter Duesberg had a reputation as one of the

world's most respected virologists. In 1969, when he was just 33, he

demonstrated that the flu virus has a segmented genome, which explains

its unique ability to change. One year later he isolated the first

cancer gene. When reading his academic biography, one encounters the

word " first " quite a number of times. But Duesberg's primary subject

was retroviruses; he is arguably the first scientist who discovered

their structure. He received Outstanding Investigator Grants from the

National Institute of Health for seven years in a row. In 1986, he

became a member of the National Academy of Sciences and was considered

a probable candidate for the Nobel Prize. Next year, his career

crashed. In 1987, Duesberg published an article in which he claimed

that the HIV retrovirus doesn't - and cannot possibly - cause AIDS.

 

The consequences for his career were devastating. Colleagues branded

his views not only wrong but dangerous. Scientific magazines stopped

publishing his articles and, most harmfully, the financing of his

research was cancelled. The scientific community all but set up a

boycott of the reckless scientist. If Duesberg had admitted his

mistake, everything would have been back to normal. But he always had

a reputation as an uncompromising scientist. Eighteen years later,

Duesberg still argues that HIV is a harmless passenger virus, while

AIDS is caused by completely different factors. He explained his views

in the following interview for The Moscow News.

 

You are saying that HIV doesn't cause AIDS. Can you explain your point

of view?

 

The distinctions of an infectious epidemic are:

 

1) Random spread in a population;

 

2) Exponential increase over weeks or months followed by exponential

decline over same periods due to anti-microbial/viral immunity or

death of susceptible individuals;

 

3) Latent periods from contact/infection to disease of days to weeks

corresponding to generation time of virus/microbe;

 

4) Virus/microbe is very active and abundant during course of disease;

 

5) Virus- or microbe-specific disease.

 

By contrast,

 

1) AIDS in the US and Europe is more than 80% male, of which 1/3 are

intravenous drug users and 2/3 are male homosexuals using

psychoactive/aphrodisiac and anti-HIV drugs - unlike any microbial

epidemic in history

 

2) The AIDS epidemic in the US and Europe has increased slowly during

the decade from the early '80s to the early '90s and has since

declined slowly - unlike any new microbial epidemic in history. But

very much like chemical epidemics such as lung cancer from smoking or

tuberculosis from cocaine.

 

3) Since the " AIDS virus " replicates in 24 hrs, just like other human

viruses - the latent period for HIV-caused AIDS should be the same as

that of other viruses, like flu or measles, namely days to weeks. But

it is 5-10 years - just about equal to the " latent periods " for lung

cancer from smoking or liver cirrhosis from drinking.

 

4) HIV is undetectable in AIDS patients. See Gallo (US) and Weiss (UK)

scandals of misappropriating Montagnier's virus, because they could

not find it in hundreds of AIDS patients! Only anti-bodies against HIV

are detectable in patients - the classical certificate of vaccination!

 

5) There is no HIV-specific disease. More than 26 AIDS-defining

diseases are simply old diseases under new names, e.g. tuberculosis,

dementia, diarrhea, weight loss, yeast infection, pneumocystis, etc.

 

You weren't a " dissident " from the very start. How did you come to

your conclusions about HIV/AIDS?

 

1) HIV is claimed to cause AIDS by killing T-cells.

 

But, at the same time mass production of HIV in immortal T-cell lines

was patented in 1984 as source of HIV proteins for " AIDS tests " by

Gallo/NIH, Weiss/Burroughs Wellcome (UK), and Montagnier/Pasteur.

These infected cell lines are still producing HIV 21 years later! Thus

HIV does not kill cells, just like all other retroviruses.

 

2) HIV is latent and neutralized by antibody, when it is said to cause

fatal AIDS. I have studied virus for 25 years, and I don't know one

example of a fatal disease caused by a virus that is neutralized by

antibodies and only detectable indirectly via antibodies.

 

So all I had to do was think: Once I realized that the HIV-AIDS

hypothesis was paradoxical, because viruses are not pathogenic if they

are latent and neutralized by antibodies, and retroviruses don't kill

cells (the reason why they are considered cancer viruses), it was

clear that something was wrong with the HIV-AIDS hypothesis. But,

there are no paradoxes in nature, only flawed hypotheses.

 

Why, then, do most of modern scientists think that HIV causes AIDS?

 

This is a non-scientific, perhaps political question and I have no

" scientific " answer. But based on my anthropological experiences, to

" think " or to pretend to " think " that HIV causes AIDS is politically

correct, socially attractive, and very very fundable if you are a

" modern scientist " in need of a grant and a publication, and is

beneficial for a merit increase, and for an award and for a company.

None of these benefits are available to " non-conformists " - even " in

the freest of all countries, " as George Bush calls the US. On the

contrary, non-conformists are excommunicated at all social and

scientific levels available in " free " countries.

 

If HIV doesn't cause AIDS, what does?

 

Based on the American/English AIDS establishment from before 1984,

when HIV was discovered, AIDS was a " lifestyle " disease

 

(a euphemism for addiction to recreational drugs). So logic led me

more and more to the chemical-AIDS hypothesis, which proved to be a

consistent theory to this date. Once I became suspicious, all I had to

do was to look up the literature on the pathogenic effects of

long-term drug use, to see the chemical AIDS theory. More recently I

had to include into the chemical AIDS hypothesis the DNA

chain-terminators like AZT and protease inhibitors, prescribed to

HIV-antibody-positives as anti-HIV drugs, for a complete case for

chemical AIDS and against viral AIDS.

 

Why is AZT dangerous? As far as I know, it's used to cure cancer?

 

All chemotherapy is " dangerous " , ideally less dangerous than cancer -

but certainly always less dangerous than a latent retrovirus that

cannot kill cells.

 

The principle of chemotherapy is to kill growing cancer cells

chemically. However, since no chemical can distinguish between normal

and cancer cells, billions of normal cells are killed together with

cancer cells. The strategy is to kill the cancer before you kill the

patient!

 

This is the best we can do against cancer now. But it would be a

disaster if we were to use this inevitably toxic treatment against a

virus that in all likelihood does not cause AIDS.

 

CDC says that there is a very strong statistical correlation between

HIV and AIDS. Can you comment on that?

 

Even a 100% correlation is no proof. According to Koch's postulates,

the correlation must be 100% with the microbe - NOT antibody against

it; the virus/microbe must be isolated from potential competitor

microbes; and the pure virus must cause the disease.

 

Over 150 chimpanzees have been infected over the last 22 years, but

not one has developed AIDS. And from over 40 million HIV-positives,

the World Health Organization has not registered more that 2 million

AIDS patients in 20 years. This is less than the normal mortality of

20 million people in 20 years.

 

However, there are plenty of non-correlations. In one study published

in Nature Biotechnology in 1993,

 

I listed 4,621 HIV-free AIDS cases described in the literature by the

HIV-AIDS establishment at that time.

 

But CDC claims that Koch's postulates have been fulfilled by HIV. What

do they mean, and how can you comment on that?

 

They mean that infection with HIV is sufficient to cause AIDS.

However, according to the peer-re-viewed literature, not one American

doctor has ever contracted AIDS from more than 929,000 American AIDS

patients in 21 years, although several got infected by HIV. Likewise,

no American scientist ever developed AIDS from studying and mass

producing HIV. And according to the World Health Organization, 40

million people on this planet are HIV-positive, but have no AIDS! So

HIV can not be sufficient to cause AIDS.

 

But your opponents argue that Koch's postulates don't have to be

fulfilled by HIV because they were invented before the discovery of

retroviruses.

 

Algebra was invented before computers were made. Does this mean that

computers don't have to follow the laws of algebra?

 

As I know, you've been deprived of financial support for your AIDS

research. What level of financing does your research require?

 

My research budgets prior to AIDS run between 4,250,000 and 4,500,000

per year in current $ equivalents. Now I am studying the role of

aneuploidy in cancer with support from private foundations for about

$100,000 per year.

 

How long could it take for the scientific establishment to understand

their mistake about HIV (if they are wrong)?

 

It took the highly established and affluent catholic church 400 years

to " understand " Galileo. Since the NIH/CDC bio-establishment is the

church of the 20/21 century and just as affluent as Rome it may take

up to 400 years too - at least as long as everything that confirms the

HIV-AIDS hypothesis gets funded and published in the professional and

public press and all alternative interpretations are censored in the

" freest of all countries. "

 

Your opponents insist that your statements are irresponsible and

thousands of people can die if they believe you. Doesn't it bother you?

 

For a scientist, scientific truth is the only " responsibility " that

matters. The rest is for politicians and philosophers. Fortunately, I

am not scientifically responsible for prescribing DNA

chain-terminators - developed exclusively to kill human cells for

cancer chemo-therapy over 40 years ago - to 450,000 HIV-positives in

the name of a hypothesis that has not been proved in 21 years!

 

 

 

The individual is supreme and finds its way through intuition.

 

Sepp Hasslberger

 

 

Critical perspective on Health: http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/

 

My blog on physics, new energy, economy: http://blog.hasslberger.com/

 

" Historical " page on physics/energy: http://www.hasslberger.com/

 

La Leva di Archimede: http://www.laleva.cc/

La Leva's news: http://www.laleva.org/

 

Robin Good - http://www.masternewmedia.org/

 

Trash Your Television!

http://www.tvturnoff.org/

 

Not satisfied with news from tv and other controlled media?

Search the net! There are thousands of information sources

out there. Start with

 

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/

http://www.truthout.org/