Speaking of AIDS...

Does Hiv cause Aids? Lots of scientists say ‘no.’ Read more.
Rethinking AIDS
Virusmyth.net
Alive And Well
HEAL Toronto
Dr. Peter Duesberg
The Perth Group
Treatment Information Group
Immunity Resource Foundation
Alberta Reappraising Aids Society

http://aras.ab.ca/rethinkers.php

http://www.semmelweis.org/2008/12/09/ssi-endorses-1984-science-report-retraction/

http://www.houseofnumbers.com/site/

http://www.howpositiveareyou.com/

http://www.aliveandwell.org/ 

Scarlet Letter: A Christian With AIDS

Does God Heal Today?

Could Duesberg Be Right?

VIRUSMYTH HOMEPAGE



COULD DUESBERG BE RIGHT? By Tom Bethell National Review 17 Aug. 1992
On July 20, the New York Times reported from Amsterdam that AIDS is "generally thought to be caused" by HIV, the human immunodeficiency virus. Earlier, the virus had been identified as the undoubted cause. But reports, circulating at the Amsterdam conference, of AIDS-like diseases with no trace of HIV triggered a moment of short-lived doubt. The next reaction was to assume a new, hitherto undetected virus was the culprit. Like Ptolemaic epicycles, hypothetical viruses began to multiply.

Another possibility is that HIV doesn't have anything to do with AIDS. This is what Peter Duesberg of UC Berkeley has been saying for five years: that HIV doesn't attack the immune system, doesn't cause AIDS, and is in fact harmless. A professor of molecular biology, Duesberg is one of the world's leading experts on retroviruses. I called him at his Berkeley lab and asked what he thought of the news from Amsterdam, and the possibility that we may now have one more lethal virus to worry about.

"How many different viruses are we going to have that all evolved in the last ten years and all cause the same disease?" Duesberg asked. "Viruses have been around for billions of years and now they're coming out for the latest AIDS conference."

Duesberg is a member of the National Academy of Sciences and was the first to map the genetic structure of retroviruses. He is not popular with the National Institutes of Health, the government agency that has been funding and policing AIDS research for the last decade. For years he was supported by an NIH "outstanding investigator" grant, but after he attacked the HIV theory of AIDS, his grant was cut off.

Down the hall from Duesberg at Berkeley's Stanley Hall is the lab of Professor Harry Rubin, another skeptic. He also believes that HIV has not been shown to be the cause of AIDS. I spoke to Bryan Ellison, a doctoral candidate with Rubin. Retroviruses have never been observed to kill cells, he told me. If you microscopically examine healthy cells in a dish, and a virus such as polio is added to them, the virus multiplies inside the cells and bursts them open in a matter of hours. Soon you can see nothing but "debris and garbage and dead cells," he said. But if you put HIV, or any other retrovirus, into the same dish with healthy cells-an environment where the body's immune system cannot interfere-the cells just sit there and continue healthy growth.

Knowing this, Duesberg and Rubin were suspicious when HHS Secretary Margaret Heckler announced in 1984 that a retrovirus, HIV, was the cause of AIDS. What was the evidence for this? Correlation. Where there was AIDS, there was HIV. "There is no AIDS without HIV," James Curran, AIDS chief of the Centers for Disease Control, has said.

Duesberg responds: AIDS is defined as any of 25 existing diseases in the presence of HIV. Therefore the correlation between HIV and AIDS is 100 per cent by definition. At an "alternative" AIDS conference in May, Duesberg illustrated the point this way: TB+HIV=AIDS. But TB - HIV=TB. "It was a great triumph" for the AIDS establishment to take these different diseases "and put them all in the same uniform labeled AIDS," Duesberg said.

Until the latest flurry of reports from Amsterdam, patients with AIDS-indicator diseases but without HIV were not counted as AIDS cases. For reasons that are not clear, a decision has now been made to play up the "discovery" of such cases. There may have been thousands of them already. Robert Root Bernstein, a professor of physiology at Michigan State University, says that such cases were reported in the medical literature in the mid 1980s. And according to Duesberg, in about half the AIDS cases enumerated so far, patients were never actually tested for HIV. They were presumed to be positive but may not have been.

I phoned the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta and asked what they thought of Duesberg's ideas.

"Up to now we have said-and we still say-that HIV causes a majority of AIDS cases," said Chuck Fallis, a press officer. "The jury is still out on the new virus-whether it actually causes the other AIDS cases."

"Nothing specifically on Duesberg?" "No."

What was once "all" has now become "a majority."

"You don't ever have polio without polio virus," Duesberg says. "A hundred cases can support a theory, but it only takes one to destroy it."

Something has been attacking the immune system, he agrees. The T-cells of AIDS patients do dwindle away, and there has been an increase in such opportunistic diseases as pneumocystis in the past decade. But HIV has never been shown physically to attack T-cells. The virus in fact is very difficult to find, even in patients dying of AIDS. Usually only antibodies can be detected-which is why an antibody test is used for HIV. Indications are that HIV is swiftly neutralized by the body's defenses. Yet it is said to kill after a ten-year (average) latency period. This has been lengthened to account for the failure of AIDS cases to keep pace with projections. Another oddity: researchers still have no "animal model" for AIDS. Over one hundred chimps have been infected with HIV since 1985 -- and the virus does "take," or replicate within them-but none has yet come down with AIDS.

Routine testing of army recruits shows the HIV-positive percentage of the population has remained constant since 1985, and AIDS remains largely confined to risk groups-homosexuals and drug-users. Neither finding is consistent with a new virus spreading in the population.

Duesberg goes further and claims that drugs are the real cause of AIDS. If he's right, the emaciated patient in the AIDS ward corresponds to the emaciated junkie in the opium den. One-third of AIDS patients are admittedly intravenous drug users-covering about 75 per cent of heterosexual AIDS cases. The real figure is probably higher: drug use is illegal, and no doubt underreported. Duesberg adds that homosexuals from the "bathhouse culture" are (or were) heavy drug users (including non-injection drugs such as "poppers"). In the course of their encounters they tend to pick up whatever is going around, including HIV and other germs. But he says that HIV itself is a harmless "hitchhiker"-a marker for risk behavior, as the scientists say.

It's the same with needle-sharers. They pick up HIV, but, says Duesberg, it's the drugs that are killing them, not the bugs. This would explain why over 80 per cent of AIDS patients are male (males consume over 80 per cent of psychoactive drugs); and why the sexually active general population that is not addicted to drugs does not get AIDS (at a time when venereal disease is spreading). On Duesberg's theory, needle-exchange programs are worse than useless. Many homosexuals, incidentally, are enamored of the viral theory of AIDS. ACT-UP member Robert Rafsky, who "confronted" Bill Clinton in the New York primary, thinks that HIV "cloaks AIDS activists in nobility." Duesberg's position is politically unpopular. As he says, if drugs cause AIDS "you are responsible for your health."

Duesberg also makes the following claims: there are no cases in the medical literature of health-care workers contracting AIDS through accidental needle-stick. In a footnote to its latest AIDS report, the CDC says there have been four such cases, but they have not been identified or described. There are a few disputed cases in the courts "and they want their money," Duesberg says. By contrast, about 15,000 cases of needle-stick hepatitis infection are reported every year.

About 75 per cent of the 20,000 U.S. hemophiliacs are HIV-positive, but there has still not been a properly controlled study of them. Do those with HIV come down with more AIDS diseases, or die sooner, than those without? It has been found that hemophiliacs in general are living longer than ever, even though three-fourths are now infected with the "deadly virus" and virtually all of these have been infected for eight years or more. Since the relevant data are already in place and await only statisticians, perhaps NIH could spend some of its research billions on a hemophiliac study.

"There is not a single controlled epidemiological study to confirm the postulated viral etiology of AIDS," Duesberg wrote in 1990. True? San Francisco's Project Inform recently put out a discussion paper, very critical of Duesberg, referring to "studies" comparing HIV-infected homosexuals with uninfected controls with "similar patterns of drug use and frequency of sexual contacts." None of the latter came down with AIDS, apparently. These studies were not identified or footnoted, so I phoned Martin Delaney, the executive director of Project Inform, and asked for the reference.

His "source," it turned out, was a person, not a paper. He gave me the name of a doctor who is identified in Randy Shilts's book, And the Band Played On, as having helped persuade CDC a decade ago that AIDS was caused by a virus. I phoned him but so far haven't heard back.

Delaney seemed dismayed that journalists were interested in Duesberg. I mentioned the series of articles that came out recently in the (London) Sunday Times about Duesberg and his critics. "When the Sunday Times publicizes what Duesberg says," Delaney replied, paradoxically, "it has an obligation to ask, 'What is your source for this?' They don't apply skepticism."

I spoke to Neville Hodgkinson, the Sunday Times's science correspondent and author of the series. He said he had never checked anything so carefully before publication. He was concerned that there might be a study he didn't know about. "What was the response?" I asked.

"Anger and indignation, but no factual rebuttal," he said. "I've never seen anything like it." He was solemnly told that there is a "consensus" that HIV causes AIDS, and it shouldn't be challenged.

"HIV Causes AIDS: A Controlled Study," was the unsubtle title of a paper released at the Amsterdam conference. Here was the "long-awaited rebuttal to controversial UC Berkeley Professor Peter H. Duesberg," wrote the San Francisco Examiner. Like the New York Times, however, it has ignored the controversial professor. The study was of homosexuals in Vancouver, some of whom were HIV positive, some not. "Every case of AIDS occurred in people infected with HIV," according to Martin Schecter, the principal investigator. But according to Duesberg, the two cohorts "were not controlled for extent and duration of drug use." The "positives" had been doing drugs for years, apparently; the negatives either not at all or for a much shorter period.

Maybe, then, we don't have a study refuting Duesberg yet. If we don' t have one soon, we may have a major scientific scandal on our hands.*

Mr. Bethell is Washington editor of The American Spectator and a Media Fellow at the Hoover Institution.

Gays unhappy about Catholic comparison?

Plea to Diehard Catholics &Protestants to Repent

Having clearly seen how the practice of homosexuality is a sin (as I testify in God and the Gays), I can now see clearly how SPIRITUAL HOMOSEXUALS, the bloody Roman Catholic whore and her Protestant prostitute daughters (Rev. 17:5), prefer tradition over truth.

***************************

I received this heartfelt email:

Hi David,

I wanted to comment on your comparison of gays to the legacy of the Roman Catholic Church by referring to that church and the followers of Protestant churches as "SPIRITUAL HOMOSEXUALS."

I am offended by that comment. I think I know what you're intending to say, but believe it is an inappropriate comparison. The legacy of the Roman Catholic Church thru the centuries is rooted in persecution, cruelty and blood letting. Throughout much of its sordid history, many of beliefs and actions have been directly inspired by Satan - the deceiver of the whole world.

In fact, the legacy of traditional Catholic and Protestant religion includes the demonizing and persecution of homosexuals.

Yes, you're right that practicing a gay lifestyle that includes active homosexual relationships is sin. As we know, most homosexuals did not "choose" to have a homosexual orientation. I certainly didn't. I assume that you didn't. Humanly, most are following their emotions - trying to find love, affection and connection in the only way they know how - just like the straights are trying to find the same thing.

Yes, the gays are "sinning" - and they do need to repent - just like the rest of humankind. You and I know how painful coping with this issue can be. And you also know - in a personal way that I don't - how much compassion is needed for those who are coping with AIDS.

Humanly, I understand the reasoning of the homosexuals. If I didn't know about God's plan - and if I hadn't been called into His Church - I can see how I could easily be out there with them. It really is a: "But for God's grace go I" situation.The gays are in a painful, conflicted situation.

You of course, also know that. Many of them don't know how to "repent" the way most heterosexuals think they should. Yet most of them will do that someday. They will do it, because they'll see an outstretched compassionate hand wanting to help them - not just condemn them. Yes, you are right - the gays are sinning. But, to my mind, it's inappropriate to compare them directly to the false church - spiritual Babylon and her harlot daughters - when countless homosexuals themselves have often been the victims of cruelty from these false churches!

If you've ever been to the Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington D.C. you may have seen the display about the "pink triangle" homosexual victims of World War II. They were victims of cruelty that most people, even now, don't hear about. They were demonized, along with the Jews and others, as being "worthy" of being treated cruelly. Those atrocities happened while the Roman Catholic Church remained silent. The powerful experience since seeing that display sticks with me.

Yes, the gays are sinning and need to repent, along with the rest of the world. They will do that someday - with us there to help them. I think I know what you're meaning to say - but the way you said it seems to demonize an already alienated, sinning group of people, who need to be shown the way to repentance.

Please take my comments as a difference of perspective. It's not a personal thing.

[Name withheld by request]

*************************

Hello .....,

I hope I made myself clear, and it appears you do understand, that I was referring to the PRINCIPLE of being in love/lust with traditions/ourselves/same sex rather than in love with God and not all the other billion issues we both know that accompany homosexuality. Some Protestants undoubtedly would take issue with me comparing them to whores and prostitutes and say they all haven't chosen whoredoms willingly, at least initially, etc.

I haven't been to the Holocaust thing in DC but I have been to Yad Vashem - the mother of all Holocaust museums in Jerusalem - and they don't have the homosexual victims' category (at least not the last time I was there), as many know, as The Pink Swastika exposes, many Nazis were homosexuals and they often only persecuted the queens [the effeminate]. Have you read it? I have several times and heard one of the co-authors, Kevin Abrams, lecture on it in Jerusalem.

I'll think about this more later. Just a quick response for now.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts. They are much appreciated.

*************************

God and the Gays - To Be or Not to Be (Part 1)
Homosexuality.... Is it a matter of choice? Are some born that way? And if so, then how could God condemn it? Or does He? Does it make a difference?

God and the Gays - All That Glitters Isn't Gold (Part 2)
The gay bar scene or high risk promiscuous sex... Is it so happy-go-lucky? Something so sweet and wonderful we'd "wish you were here?" Or is it actually something you wouldn't wish upon your worst enemy?

God and the Gays - Once Gay, Always Gay? (Part 3)
Once gay always gay? How about once an adulterer always an adulterer? Better yet, once a sinner always a sinner (1 Cor. 6:11; 1 John 1:9)? WHO says so?

God and the Gays - Of Vice and Men (Part 4)
Everyone - gay or straight - has the "fire" within (1 Cor. 7:9). Some burn more than others, but it's still there. God understands proper sexual desire and simply commands that we develop His character to control and channel it. He knows our human need to love and be loved, to touch and feel, to give of ourselves totally in a reciprocal relationship.

God and the Gays - A Time to Heal (Part 5)
God calls people from all walks of life and performs a miracle in their minds: they're offered a fresh perspective, given a new outlook, and enabled to try a different approach (Philip. 2:5). Their former "records" aren't held against them and they're started out with a new attitude and identity (2 Cor. 5:17).

God and the Gays - Make Up Your Mind (Part 6)
We can make things easier or more difficult for ourselves. Either you're totally convinced God's way is right and worth living, or you're not sure and continually ride the fence and risk rupture; tormenting yourself and sending out conflicting signals and confusing signs (Matt. 6:24; 7:16).

*****************

Scarlet Letter: A Christian With AIDS
The following is a actual letter I sent to a close Christian friend in 1999, immediately after I was diagnosed with HIV. Since then the HIV has progressed on into AIDS.

Does God Heal Today?
When I was first diagnosed with the HIV virus, I read innumerable articles on it and later suffered from an information overload and depressing confusion. One article would speak in favor of taking the highly toxic HIV/AIDS medicines, and then I'd read another one that spoke against it with just as convincing of an argument.