RSS
There’s a famous, apparently true story regarding the aftermath of the purge and summary execution of NKVD chief Lavrenti Beria in the old Soviet Union. Beria had spent many years at the pinnacle of Soviet power and naturally had been given a long and glowing entry in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, copies of which were found in thousands of establishments across the eleven time zones of that enormous country, and this presented an obvious problem. So a package containing replacement pages on the Bering Sea and other topics was mailed out to all owners, directing them to remove the old pages with a straight razor and substitute in the new ones.
In a similar vein, there’s an interesting book entitled The Commissar Vanishes, covering the numerous official Soviet photographs retouched to eliminate those important individuals whose fall from power and execution had rendered their continuing visible presence inadvisable, something that surely must have inspired elements of George Orwell’s famous 1984.
In a system in which the media has become merely a totally dishonest tool for administering ideological control, important information that is missing or removed sometimes tells us more about reality than does the supposedly factual news being presented.
With the notable exception of touchy racial issues, I’d never regarded our own mainstream media as embodying these disturbing traits, and my gradual discovery that such had long been the case became the basis of my own American Pravda series, which I originally launched more than a decade ago in an article containing these paragraphs:
The realization that the world is often quite different from what is presented in our leading newspapers and magazines is not an easy conclusion for most educated Americans to accept, or at least that was true in my own case. For decades, I have closely read the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and one or two other major newspapers every morning, supplemented by a wide variety of weekly or monthly opinion magazines. Their biases in certain areas had always been apparent to me. But I felt confident that by comparing and contrasting the claims of these different publications and applying some common sense, I could obtain a reasonably accurate version of reality. I was mistaken.
Aside from the evidence of our own senses, almost everything we know about the past or the news of today comes from bits of ink on paper or colored pixels on a screen, and fortunately over the last decade or two the growth of the Internet has vastly widened the range of information available to us in that latter category. Even if the overwhelming majority of the unorthodox claims provided by such non-traditional web-based sources is incorrect, at least there now exists the possibility of extracting vital nuggets of truth from vast mountains of falsehood. Certainly the events of the past dozen years have forced me to completely recalibrate my own reality-detection apparatus.
�
During the darkest days of Stalinism, maintaining a subscription to Pravda was useful less for the falsehoods it regularly published than as a means of monitoring the twists and turns of the official Soviet narrative. These days I mostly retain my longstanding subscription to the New York Times for much the same reason, balancing that value against the extremely irritating dishonesty I so often encounter in its pages, with the Wall Street Journal being only somewhat less egregiously bad.
A major recent example of that value came after president-elect Donald Trump named Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. as his choice to head the Department of Health and Human Services, one of America’s largest government bureaucracies with 83,000 employees and an annual budget of $1.6 trillion, twice that of the Department of Defense.
Although once regarded as a heroic liberal figure whom President Barack Obama had considered naming to his Cabinet, in recent years Kennedy has fallen from grace in that ideological camp. His strident skepticism regarding the safety of vaccines in general and the Covid vaccine in particular outraged the mainstream liberal establishment, as did his loud denunciation of lockdowns and other controversial public health measures undertaken to control that dangerous epidemic.
This sharp ideological rupture eventually propelled him to challenge the renomination of President Joseph Biden in the Democratic primaries, then to launch an independent run for the White House, and ultimately to drop-out and endorse Trump’s candidacy. The victory of the latter has now placed Kennedy on the threshold of setting our national public health care policies.
Over the years, Kennedy had become a very sharp critic of both the pharmaceutical and food industries, so having him in control of the NIH, the CDC, and the FDA represented the worst nightmare of these powerful corporations, and they naturally mobilized their army of lobbyists and opposition researchers to assist their media and political allies in derailing his nomination. Along with Matt Gaetz, Pete Hegseth, and Tulsi Gabbard, Kennedy had probably been one of Trump’s most controversial selections, triggering a huge firestorm of political and media opposition. As a consequence, the Times, the Journal, and the rest of the mainstream media have unleashed a large wave of major pieces highlighting his controversial views, aimed at defeating his nomination. These high-profile articles have attacked him and his ideas on nearly all possible grounds, challenging his fitness for high government office and hoping to sway enough senators to block his appointment, much as had happened in the case of Gaetz, who was forced to withdraw.
Yet in carefully reading all these articles, I noticed that one particular item seemed almost entirely absent, although one might naively regard it as Kennedy’s greatest vulnerability, something that by itself could easily doom his chances of confirmation. The silence of a particular barking dog echoed with thunderclap volume.
�
Despite his famous family name and his successful history of environment activism, until the last few years I’d barely been aware of Kennedy’s history, although vaguely recognizing him as a leading figure in America’s eccentric anti-vaxxing movement, whose damaging activities were occasionally ridiculed in our mainstream media. But in late 2022 he published The Real Anthony Fauci, sharply criticizing the decades-long career of that high-profile public health official. After someone persuaded me to read it, I was absolutely stunned by the information presented. I soon described this in an article that received quite a lot of attention, even being promoted on websites closely allied with Kennedy himself.
Based upon Kennedy’s public focus and the individuals championing his book, I had expected it would contain a detailed critique of vaccines and the controversial public health measures Western governments had implemented to control the Covid epidemic, and so it did. I was pleased to also see a lengthy chapter on the substantial nexus between the mysterious new virus that had devastated the world and America’s longstanding biological warfare programs. But a major portion of the text was devoted to an entirely different topic, one that I had not expected to see and found completely astonishing.
As all of us know from the media, AIDS is a deadly auto-immune disease that was first diagnosed in the early 1980s, primarily afflicting gay men and intravenous drug users. Transmitted by bodily fluids, the disease usually spread through sexual activity, blood transfusions, or the sharing of needles, and HIV, the virus responsible, was finally discovered in 1984. Over the years, a variety of medical treatments were developed, mostly ineffective at first, but more recently so successful that although being HIV-positive was once considered a death-sentence, the infection has now become a chronic, controllable condition. The current Wikipedia page on HIV/AIDS runs more than 20,000 words, including over 300 references.
Yet according to the information provided in Kennedy’s #1 Amazon bestseller, this well-known and solidly-established picture, which I had never seriously questioned, is almost entirely false and fraudulent, essentially amounting to a medical media hoax. Instead of being responsible for AIDS, the HIV virus is probably harmless and had nothing to do with the disease. But when individuals were found to be infected with HIV, they were subjected to the early, extremely lucrative AIDS drugs, which were actually lethal and often killed them. The earliest AIDS cases had mostly been caused by very heavy use of particular illegal drugs, and the HIV virus had been misdiagnosed as being responsible. But since Fauci and the profit-hungry drug companies soon built enormous empires upon that misdiagnosis, for more than 35 years they have fought very hard to maintain and protect it, exerting all their influence to suppress the truth in the media while destroying the careers of any honest researchers who challenged that fraud. Meanwhile, AIDS in Africa was something entirely different, probably caused mostly by malnutrition or other local conditions.
I found Kennedy’s account as shocking as anything I have ever encountered.
In 1985 AZT, an existing drug, was found to kill the HIV virus in laboratory tests. Fauci then made tremendous efforts to speed it through clinical trials as an appropriate treatment for healthy, HIV-positive individuals, with FDA approval finally coming in 1987, producing Fauci’s first moment of triumph. Priced at $10,000/year per patient, AZT was one of the most expensive drugs in history, and with the cost covered by health insurance and government subsidies, it produced an unprecedented financial windfall for its manufacturer.
Kennedy devotes an entire chapter to the story of AZT, and the tale he tells is something out of Kafka or perhaps Monty Python. Apparently, Fauci had been under enormous pressure to produce medical breakthroughs justifying his large budget, so he manipulated the AZT trials to conceal the extremely toxic nature of the drug, which rapidly killed many of the patients who received it, with their symptoms being ascribed to AIDS. So following FDA approval in 1987, hundreds of thousands of perfectly healthy individuals found to be infected with HIV were placed on a regimen of AZT, and the large number of resulting deaths was misattributed to the virus rather than to the anti-viral drug. According to the scientific experts cited in the book, the vast majority of post-1987 “AIDS deaths” were actually due to AZT.
Prior to the Covid outbreak, AIDS had spent almost four decades as the world’s highest-profile disease, absorbing perhaps a couple of trillion dollars of funding and becoming the central focus of an army of scientists and medical experts. It simply boggles the mind for someone to suggest that HIV/AIDS might have largely been a hoax, and that the vast majority of deaths were not from the illness but from the drugs taken to treat it.
My science textbooks sometimes mentioned that during the benighted 18th century, leading Western physicians treated all manner of ailments with bleeding, a quack practice that regularly caused the deaths of their patients, with our own George Washington often numbered among the victims. Indeed, some have argued that for several centuries prior to modern times, standard medical treatments inadvertently took far more lives than they saved, and those too poor or backward to consult a doctor probably benefited from that lack. But I had never dreamed that this same situation might have occurred during the most recent decades of our modern scientific age.
�
Kennedy’s book sold more than a million copies and he devoted nearly half the length—some 200 pages—to promoting the theory that AIDS did not exist as a real disease and was instead merely a medical media hoax concocted by Dr. Anthony Fauci and his greedy corporate allies.
Yet my astonishment at reading such incendiary claims about HIV/AIDS was matched by my equal astonishment that the topic was totally ignored by all the ferocious media hit-pieces soon launched against Kennedy and his book, including a 4,000 word article produced by a large team of Associated Press journalists.
A great deal of effort had obviously been invested in this attack, and the byline of the named author was shared by five additional AP writers and researchers, underscoring the journalistic resources devoted to demolishing the reputation of an individual who has obviously made such powerful enemies. But in reading the article, the phrase that came to my mind was “the Sounds of Silence” or perhaps the famous Sherlockian clue of “the Dog That Didn’t Bark.”
Almost half of the entire book under attack—around 200 pages—is devoted to presenting and promoting the astonishing claim that everything we have been told about HIV/AIDS for more than 35 years probably amounts to a hoax.
By any reasonable standard, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. has now established himself as America’s #1 “HIV/AIDS Denier,” and prior to the Covid outbreak, AIDS had probably spent almost four decades as the world’s highest-profile disease, reportedly absorbing some two trillion dollars in research and treatment costs. So for someone to essentially claim that the disease doesn’t actually exist would seem the height of utter lunacy, on a par with Flat Earthism. Yet not a single word of this astonishing situation appears in the long AP article, that attacks Kennedy on almost all other possible grounds, fair or unfair. Did all six of the AP writers and researchers somehow skip over those 200 pages in Kennedy’s bestseller?
That large team of AP journalists seems to have spent at least ten days working on their lengthy article, mining Kennedy’s record for almost everything controversial they could possibly find, even highlighting a photograph that merely shows him standing next to Trump allies Roger Stone and Michael Flynn.
- How a Kennedy Built an Anti-Vaccine Juggernaut Amid COVID-19
Michelle R. Smith et. al. • The Associated Press • December 15, 2021 • 4,000 Words
I noticed this same total silence about AIDS was maintained in a similar attack the following month by the managing editor of Counterpunch.
- Vaccines, RFK Jr. and The Science of Misinformation
Joshua Frank • Counterpunch • January 14, 2022 • 1,900 Words
With Kennedy’s book passing the million mark in sales and his influence still growing, this pattern of omission continued and became even stranger. In late February, the New York Times launched a blistering front-page attack against him, tarring the author and his book as a font of total irrationality and dangerous misinformation, but the 2,600 words never hinted at his central focus on AIDS.
Moreover, the writer was longtime Times journalist Adam Nagourney, identified as the co-author of a history of the modern Gay Rights movement, and surely the AIDS epidemic must have been a central part of his research for that 2001 volume. But he never mentioned the 200 pages in which Kennedy had made the incendiary claim that AIDS was just a medical media hoax, an omission perhaps suggesting that he feared that Kennedy might well be correct and that certain doors should be kept firmly closed.
- A Kennedy’s Crusade Against Covid Vaccines Anguishes Family and Friends
Adam Nagourney • The New York Times • February 26, 2022 • 2,600 Words
As I later noted, this silence contrasted very suspiciously with the firestorms of media outrage that had once greeted those who raised even mild doubts about the AIDS issue.
Since the 1980s AIDS has been an explosive topic in the public sphere, and anyone—whether scientist or layman—who questioned the orthodox narrative was viciously denounced as having blood on his hands. During the early 2000s South African President Thabo Mbeki had cautiously raised such possibilities and was massively vilified by the international media and the academic community. Yet when Kennedy’s #1 Amazon bestseller went much farther, devoting seven full chapters to making the case that HIV/AIDS was merely a medical hoax, his media antagonists carefully avoided that subject even while they attacked him on all other grounds.
Once again, the only plausible explanation is that the hostile journalists and their editors have recognized that Kennedy’s factual evidence was too strong and any such attacks might prove disastrously counter-productive. As far back as the 1990s, a former Harvard professor had publicly declared that the AIDS hoax was as great a scientific scandal as the notorious Lysenko fraud, and if a substantial portion of the American public concluded that AIDS was indeed a medical phantom that had been promoted for 35 years by our gullible and dishonest media, the credibility of the latter on current vaccination issues might be completely annihilated.
It would have been the easiest thing in the world for the media to accurately blast Kennedy as “a conspiracy theorist whose book claims that AIDS is a hoax,” and that simple, short phrase would have immediately dealt a massive body-blow to his public reputation. But many people would then have begun looking into the facts, and once they did so, the tables might have quickly turned, destroying the credibility of his critics. The total silence of the media suggests that they greatly feared that possibility.
�
From reading the newspapers during the early 1990s, I had been dimly aware of the dispute regarding the true nature of AIDS, but had never paid much attention to the controversy at the time. So when the media coverage faded away, I assumed that the debate had been successfully resolved.
But according to Kennedy’s fascinating #1 Amazon bestseller, this was not the case. He claimed that for three decades the entire Western media has been promoting and maintaining a gigantic medical hoax, a conspiracy orchestrated by Fauci and his corporate allies that had cost the lives of many hundreds of thousands of Americans.
Such bizarre accusations seemed almost impossible to me, more like the ranting of a deranged lunatic rather than anything that could happen in the real world. But the case he laid out across his 200 pages of text was a surprisingly persuasive one, and I think that his bitter antagonists in the media and medical establishments may have had much the same reaction, so they greatly feared to challenge him on that explosive issue:
Extraordinary claims obviously require extraordinary evidence. Kennedy’s chapters on AIDS include more than 900 source-references, many of them to academic journal articles or other supposedly authoritative scientific information. But although I have a strong science background, with my original academic training having been in theoretical physics, I am not a medical doctor nor a virologist, let alone someone with specialized expertise in AIDS research, and these articles would mean nothing to me even if I had attempted to read them. So I was forced to seek other indications that Kennedy’s 200 pages on AIDS represented something more than sheerest lunacy.
His book carries glowing praise from a long list of medical doctors and scientists, but their names and backgrounds are completely unknown to me, and with nearly a million practicing physicians in America, a few could surely be found to endorse almost anything. However, the first endorsement on the back cover is from Prof. Luc Montagnier, the medical researcher who won a Nobel Prize for discovering the HIV virus in 1984, and he writes: “Tragically for humanity, there are many, many untruths emanating from Fauci and his minions. RFK Jr. exposes the decades of lies.” Moreover, we are told that as far back as the San Francisco International AIDS Conference of June 1990, Montagnier had publicly declared “the HIV virus is harmless and passive, a benign virus.”
Perhaps this Nobel Laureate endorsed the book for other reasons and perhaps the meaning of his striking 1990 statement has been misconstrued. But surely the opinion of the researcher who won a Nobel Prize for discovering the HIV virus should not be totally ignored in assessing its possible role.
And he was hardly alone. Kennedy explains that the following year, a top Harvard microbiologist organized a group containing some of the world’s most distinguished virologists and immunologists and they issued a public statement, endorsed by three additional science Nobel Laureates, that raised the same questions:
It is widely believed by the general public that a retrovirus called HIV causes a group of diseases called AIDS. Many biomedical scientists now question this hypothesis. We propose a thorough reappraisal of the existing evidence for and against this hypothesis, to be conducted by a suitable independent group. We further propose that the critical epidemiological studies be designed and undertaken.
As Kennedy tells the story, by that point AIDS researchers and the mainstream media were completely in thrall to the ocean of government funding and pharmaceutical advertising controlled by Fauci and his corporate allies, so these calls by eminent scientists were almost entirely ignored and unreported. According to one journalist, some two trillion dollars has been spent on HIV/AIDS research and treatment over the decades, and with so many research careers and personal livelihoods dependent upon what amounts to an “HIV/AIDS industrial-complex,” few have been willing to critically examine the basic foundations of that empire.
Until a couple of weeks ago, I had never given any thought to questioning AIDS orthodoxy. But discovering the longstanding scientific skepticism of so many knowledgeable experts, including four Nobel Laureates, one of them the actual discoverer of the HIV virus, has completely shifted my perspective. I cannot easily ignore or dismiss the theories Kennedy presents, but can only briefly summarize them and leave it to individual readers to investigate further then decide for themselves. And in basic fairness to the author, he himself also repeatedly emphasizes that he can “take no position on the relationship between HIV and AIDS” but is simply disturbed that Fauci has successfully used his government funding and media clout to suppress an ongoing and perfectly legitimate scientific debate. According to Kennedy, his book is intended “to give air and daylight to dissenting voices.”
His narrative of the origins of the HIV/AIDS connection is absolutely stunning and seems well-documented. Dr. Robert Gallo, an NIH researcher in Fauci’s orbit, originally announced HIV as the apparent cause of AIDS at a packed 1984 press conference, which he held before any of his supportive research findings had actually been published and reviewed by his scientific peers. Only long after the theory had become firmly embedded in the national media did it come out that only 26 of the 76 AIDS victims in his seminal study showed any traces of the HIV virus, an extremely slender reed for such a momentous conclusion.
Furthermore, critics eventually noted that many thousands of documented AIDS victims similarly lacked any signs of the HIV virus, while millions of those infected by HIV exhibited absolutely no symptoms of AIDS. Correlation does not imply causality, but in this case, even the correlation seemed a very loose one. According to Kennedy, fully orthodox AIDS researchers grudgingly admit that no scientific study has ever demonstrated that HIV causes AIDS. The widespread accusations of serious scientific misbehavior and outright intellectual theft that long swirled around Gallo’s laboratory research were eventually confirmed by legal proceedings, and that helped explain why his name was not included on the Nobel Prize for the HIV discovery.
AIDS had originally come under the purview of the National Cancer Institute, but once it was blamed on a virus, Fauci’s own infectious disease center managed to gain control. That resulted in an enormous gusher of Congressional funding and media attention for what had previously been a sleepy and obscure corner of the NIH, and Fauci soon established himself as America’s reigning “AIDS Czar.” The HIV-AIDS link may or may not be scientifically valid, but it carried enormous political and financial implications for Fauci’s career.
One of the major scientific heroes in Kennedy’s account is Prof. Peter H. Duesberg of Berkeley. During the 1970s and 1980s, Duesberg had been widely regarded as among the world’s foremost virologists, elected to the prestigious National Academy of Sciences at age 50, making him one of its youngest members in history. As early as 1987 he began raising serious doubts about the HIV/AIDS hypothesis and highlighting the dangers of AZT, eventually publishing a series of journal articles on the subject that gradually won over many others, including Montagnier. In 1996 he published Inventing the AIDS Virus, a massive 712 page volume setting forth his case, with the Foreword provided by Nobel Laureate Kary Mullis, the renowned inventor of PCR technology and himself another leading public critic of the HIV/AIDS hypothesis. Duesberg even underscored the confidence of his HIV skepticism by offering to be injected with HIV-tainted blood.
But rather than openly debate such a strong scientific opponent, Fauci and his allies blacklisted Duesberg from receiving any government funding, thereby wrecking his research career, while also vilifying him and pressuring others to do the same. According to fellow researchers quoted by Kennedy, Duesberg was destroyed as a warning and an example to others. Meanwhile, Fauci deployed his influence to have his critics banned from the major national media, ensuring that few outside a narrow segment of the scientific community ever even became aware of the continuing controversy.
- American Pravda: Vaxxing, Anthony Fauci, and AIDS
The HIV/AIDS Crisis as a Medical Media Hoax?
Ron Unz • The Unz Review • December 6, 2021 • 6,100 Words
�
I subsequently spent several weeks carefully reading the arguments of Duesberg and his scientific allies as well as those of their opponents, and then described the results of my inquiry:
So the theory I needed to investigate amounted to the Duesberg Hypothesis, the long-suppressed challenger to our reigning HIV/AIDS orthodoxy…
One of Duesberg’s central claims was that the disease known as “AIDS” didn’t actually exist, but was merely the official label attached to a group of more than two dozen different illnesses, all of which had a variety of different causes, with only some of these being infectious agents. Indeed, most of these illnesses had been known and treated for many decades, but they were only designated “AIDS” if the victim was also found to test positive for the HIV virus, which probably had nothing to do with the condition.
In support of their contrary position, the authors noted that the various groups at high risk for “AIDS” only tended to get particular versions of the disease, with the “AIDS” suffered by hemophiliacs usually being very different from the “AIDS” of African villagers and only slightly overlapping with the diseases of gay men or intravenous drug addicts. Indeed, the pattern of “AIDS” in Africa seemed utterly divergent from that in the developed world. But if all these different illnesses were actually caused by a single HIV virus, such completely disparate syndromes would seem puzzling anomalies, difficult to explain from a scientific perspective.
Faced with arguments they found hard to refute, the AIDS lobby of the medical establishment resorted to the blacklist and the boycott, and during the 1990s they gradually pressured the mainstream media into denying any platform to their critics. But prior to the creation of that iron wall of censorship, some vigorous exchanges had been published in major policy magazines, allowing both sides of the scientific debate to be heard. I discovered that the arguments Duesberg and his allies had been making thirty years ago seemed remarkably similar to what was presented in Kennedy’s 2022 book.
The Summer 1990 issue of Policy Review, one of America’s most sober and influential conservative policy journals, had offered Duesberg and a co-author a platform for the controversial theory, and their resulting piece ran nearly 9,000 words. According to the editor, this topic provoked more letters and responses—both positive and negative—than anything in the publication’s history, and became one of their most talked-about articles. As a result, the next issue of the quarterly featured some of those reactions as well as the replies of the two authors, with the entire exchange running almost 13,000 words.
- Is the AIDS Virus a Science Fiction? (PDF)
Immunosuppressive Behavior, not HIV, May Be the Cause of AIDS
Peter H. Duesberg and Bryan J. Ellison • Policy Review • Summer 1990 • 8,800 Words- Is HIV the Cause of AIDS? (PDF)
Critics Respond • Policy Review • Fall 1990 • 12,700 WordsSeveral years later, a similar development unfolded at Reason, the glossy flagship publication of America’s libertarian movement. The magazine ran a long cover story endorsing Duesberg’s claims and authored by three of his scientific allies, one of them a former Harvard Medical School professor and another a recent Nobel Laureate. Once again the result was a huge outpouring of both supportive and critical reactions, and the lengthy debate was published in a subsequent issue.
- What Causes AIDS? (PDF)
We still don’t know what causes AIDS
Charles A. Thomas Jr., Kary B. Mullis, and Phillip E. Johnson • Reason • June 1994 • 4,600 Words- What Causes AIDS? The Debate Continues (PDF)
Critics Respond • Reason • December 1994 • 9,100 WordsThe Lancet is one of the world’s leading medical journals and in 1996, the year after he become its chief editor, Richard Horton took to the pages of the intellectually-prestigious New York Review of Books to produce a 10,000 word discussion of Duesberg’s theories, as propounded in three of the researcher’s recent books and collections. Horton was obviously among the most respectable of establishmentarian figures, but although he mostly came down in support of the orthodox HIV/AIDS consensus, he presented Duesberg’s entirely contrary perspective in a fair-minded manner, respectfully though not uncritically.
However, what struck me most about Horton’s account was how appalled he seemed at Duesberg’s treatment by America’s ruling medical-industrial complex, as suggested by his title “Truth and Heresy about AIDS.”
The very first sentence of his long review article mentioned the “vast academic and commercial industry built around…HIV” along with the fundamental challenge Duesberg posed to its scientific basis. As a consequence, the “brilliant virologist” had become “the most vilified scientist alive” and the subject of “excoriating attacks.” The leading professional science journals had displayed an “alarmingly uneven attitude,” and partly as a consequence, other potential dissidents had been dissuaded from pursuing their alternative theories.
According to Horton, financial considerations had become a central element of the scientific process, and he noted with horror that a press conference on research questioning the effectiveness of a particular anti-AIDS drug was actually packed with financial journalists, focused on the efforts of the corporate executives to destroy the credibility of a study that they themselves had helped to design but which had now gone against their own product.
Most importantly, although Horton was generally skeptical of Duesberg’s conclusions, he was absolutely scathing towards the opponents of the dissident virologist.
One of the most disturbing aspects of the dispute between Duesberg and the AIDS establishment is the way in which Duesberg has been denied the opportunity to test his hypothesis. In a discipline governed by empirical claims to truth, experimental evidence would seem the obvious way to confirm or refute Duesberg’s claims. But Duesberg has found the doors of the scientific establishment closed to his frequent calls for tests…
Duesberg deserves to be heard, and the ideological assassination that he has undergone will remain an embarrassing testament to the reactionary tendencies of modern science…At a time when fresh ideas and new paths of investigation are so desperately being sought, how can the AIDS community afford not to fund Duesberg’s research?”
That ringing last sentence closed the entire review, which appeared in a prestigious and influential publication over a quarter-century ago. But as near as I can tell, Horton’s heartfelt criticism fell entirely on deaf ears, and the AIDS establishment simply ignored the entire controversy while gradually pressuring the media to end any coverage. This seems to fully confirm the narrative history provided in Kennedy’s current bestseller.
- Truth and Heresy About AIDS
Richard Horton • The New York Review of Books • May 23, 1996 • 10,100 WordsTaken together, these five articles run more than 45,000 words, the length of a short book, and probably provide as good and even-handed a debate on the Duesberg Hypothesis as can be found anywhere. Individual readers may judge for themselves, but I thought the that Duesberg camp certainly got the better of all those exchanges.
- American Pravda: AIDS and the Revival of the Duesberg Hypothesis
Ron Unz • The Unz Review • December 29, 2021 • 4,100 Words
�
In 1996 Duesberg published Inventing the AIDS Virus, setting forth his controversial theories for a general audience, with Nobel Laureate Kary Mullis providing a strong endorsement and writing the Foreword. Although copies now are quite expensive, the public-spirited author had simultaneously released a freely downloadable PDF copy on the Internet.
In that work, Duesberg very persuasively placed the HIV/AIDS controversy within the broader context of past public health debacles and the massive professional pressures faced by infectious disease researchers. His book had apparently been produced under difficult political circumstances and was ultimately released by the Regnery Company, the leading conservative press, whose publisher provided an unusual explanatory Preface, containing the following paragraphs:
The book you are about to read has been a long time in coming. Why? It is at once enormously controversial and impeccably documented. It comes from a scientist and writer of great ability and courage. It will cause, we believe, a firestorm of yet undetermined proportions in both the scientific and lay communities. And it is, I think I am safe in saying, about the most difficult book that the Regnery Company has published in nearly 50 years in the business.
If Duesberg is right in what he says about AIDS, and we think he is, he documents one of the great science scandals of the century. AIDS is the first political disease, the disease that consumes more government research money, more press time, and indeed probably more heartache—much of it unnecessary—than any other. Duesberg tells us why.
Although the text was easy reading, well-written for a general audience, it contained a huge amount of surprising medical information difficult for the non-specialist to check, and this would normally have left me very cautious. However, the Lancet is one of the world’s leading medical journals, and although its editor Richard Horton was a strong supporter of the orthodox HIV/AIDS consensus, his 10,000 word review in the New York Review of Books treated both Duesberg and his book very respectfully, so I doubt that the latter work contains any obvious errors or blatant misrepresentations.
Duesberg’s opus is now a quarter-century old, but as far as I can tell, very little has changed since it was written, and the same disputes of the mid-1990s are just as relevant today. Therefore, I would urge everyone interested in the subject to read it and draw his own conclusions. Since the original PDF was so enormous, I have broken it up by chapters for the convenience of readers.
- Inventing the AIDS Virus
Peter H. Duesberg • Regnery Publishing • 1996 • 712 Pages
The story that Duesberg told was a simple one. After the successful eradication of polio in the 1950s, America’s enormous existing infrastructure of infectious disease professionals lost most of the reason for its existence, and its leaders eventually began searching for some new means of justifying their continued government funding. The War on Cancer begun in the late 1960s proved a dismal failure and the massively-hyped warnings of a deadly Swine Flu epidemic in 1976 became a complete debacle, leading to the ouster of some top officials. So a few years later when the AIDS label was affixed to a group of apparently unrelated illnesses, Anthony Fauci and others had a tremendous incentive to claim that the cause was an infectious agent, and despite the lack of any solid evidence, they soon fingered the HIV virus as the culprit. Once that original misdiagnosis had spawned an enormous multi-billion-dollar industry, its researchers, administrators, and corporate beneficiaries became committed to protecting it.
For those more interested in the scientific details, Duesberg and two co-authors also published a very lengthy academic journal review article in 2003, summarizing their position, and as a non-specialist I found it very solidly presented.
- The chemical bases of the various AIDS epidemics: recreational drugs, anti-viral chemotherapy and malnutrition (PDF)
Peter Duesberg, Claus Koehnlein, and David Rasnick • Journal of Bioscience • June 2003 • 24,000 Words
Duesberg’s writings provide by far the most comprehensive exposition of his material, but for those who prefer a different format, I would strongly recommend his hour-long Red Ice podcast interview from November 2011, conveniently available on Youtube.
The following year he was also interviewed for nearly two hours on Joe Rogan’s podcast:
During the 1990s, Celia Farber was a leading AIDS journalist, who covered Duesberg and the other main figures in the controversy. In 2022 she released on Substack a long 2004 article she had originally written for Harpers on the controversial Berkeley researcher, which later became the first chapter of one of her books.
- The Passion of Peter Duesberg
How Anthony Fauci And His AIDS Industry Sacrificed One Of America’s Greatest Cancer Scientists
Celia Farber • Substack • January 2, 2022 • 11,000 Words
Journalist John Lauritsen covered the HIV/AIDS controversy for decades, writing two books on the subject and serving as an important source for Kennedy’s own work. His presentation delivered at a 2018 conference usefully summarized the history and current state of the issue.
- Making Our Case In the Battle for Truth
Challenging Avaricious Viral Paradigms
John Lauritsen • Vers Pont du Gard Conference • June 16, 2018 • 2,500 Words
�
YouTube videos are widely popular among those less inclined to read, and the same year that Duesberg published his opus, Starvision Productions released a two hour documentary entitled “HIV=AIDS: Fact or Fraud,” which very effectively covered much of the same material. The feature included interviews with the Berkeley researcher and several of his key scientific allies in the controversy, one of whom described the scandal in American medical science as worse than the notorious Lysenko fraud of the old Soviet Union.
Among the many telling points, the documentary noted that although nearly 90% of those Americans suffering from AIDS are male, HIV tests administered to our new military recruits indicated that the general rate of HIV infection in the population was equal between men and women, a very strange divergence between the illness and its alleged cause. Furthermore, the incidence rates of sexually-transmitted diseases and HIV have sharply diverged over the years, raising serious doubts about whether the virus actually followed that mode of transmission.
Although both Duesberg and most of the other scientists in his camp seemed to be very conventional and even buttoned-down researchers, an important exception was Nobel Laureate Kary Mullis, widely regarded as a brilliant but eccentric and iconoclastic figure. For those interested in his views on the HIV/AIDS debate, I would recommend the following two hour interview by Dr. Gary Null, also released in 1996.
Mullis’s demeanor was extremely informal and almost boyish, and some of the questions he raised have an “Emperor’s New Clothes” feel about them. He noted that substantial numbers of the young military enlistees who annually test positive for HIV grew up in small rural towns that are hardly likely to be AIDS hotbeds, and suggested that their mothers be tested for the virus, which is known to be transmitted to the newborn. If those women also tested positive, that would prove the virus had already been widespread eighteen or twenty years earlier, completely demolishing the established AIDS narrative. Naturally, none of our many thousands of dedicated AIDS researchers showed any interest in implementing this extremely simple research proposal.
In 2009, an independent film-maker named Brent Leung produced a 90 minute documentary on AIDS, strongly sympathetic to Duesberg’s thesis. The film highlighted the tremendous inconsistencies of the orthodox scientific position, and also included important interviews with Duesberg, Mullis, Fauci, and numerous other key researchers and journalists on all sides of the debate.
�
I am not a medical professional let alone an expert virologist, and as an interested layman I’ve merely spent a few weeks over the last several years exploring the complex and longstanding scientific dispute regarding the true nature of AIDS, a subject that has absorbed the efforts of top researchers for decades.
However, in recent years I have become quite experienced in analyzing the severe distortions and deliberate omissions so often found in our media, a skill that I had honed during the production of my lengthy American Pravda series. And the evidence I see in the total media silence surrounding the astonishing claims about HIV/AIDS advanced by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in his #1 Amazon bestseller seems quite decisive to me.
As a consequence of the publication of his book and especially since the rise of his Presidential campaign and his recent designation as the proposed Secretary of HHS in the incoming Trump Administration, Kennedy has endured an endless barrage of very harsh media criticism, including several front-page stories in the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal. These attacks portrayed him as a reckless purveyor of bizarre, irrational, and harmful beliefs, the worst sort of dangerous conspiracy-monger, and the controversial ideas presented in his book were sometimes the focus of this campaign of relentless vilification. Here is a listing of more than a dozen of the most recent highest-profile articles attacking his fitness for that Cabinet position that ran in the Times and the Journal.
- NYT: What R.F.K. Jr.’s Alliance With Trump Could Mean for Public Health
- NYT: What to Expect if Kennedy Is Promoted to a Position of Power
- NYT: Elon Musk, Robert Kennedy and the Unconfirmables of a Second Trump Administration
- NYT: Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Foe of Drug Makers and Regulators, Is Poised to Wield New Power
- NYT: Trump Picks R.F.K. Jr. to Be Head of Health and Human Services Dept.
- NYT: Kennedy’s Views Mix Mistrust of Business With Unfounded Health Claims
- NYT: How to Handle Kennedy as America’s Top Health Official
- WSJ: The Strange World of RFK Jr.
- WSJ: Pharma, Long Criticized by RFK Jr., Looks for Ways to Work With Him
- WSJ: Trump’s RFK Jr. Pick Weighs on Vaccine Makers
- NYT: How Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Could Destroy One of Civilization’s Best Achievements
- WSJ: How Radical Can RFK Jr. Be as America’s Top Health Official?
- WSJ: The Democrats Made RFK Jr.
- WSJ: How Science Lost America’s Trust and Surrendered Health Policy to Skeptics
Yet the largest portion of Kennedy’s bestseller—seven full chapters totaling some 200 pages—promoted the astonishing theory that AIDS doesn’t really exist as a disease but was merely a medical media hoax concocted by Dr. Anthony Fauci and his profit-hungry corporate allies, a hoax that ultimately cost the lives of many hundreds of thousands of Americans. It is difficult to imagine a more outrageous accusation or one so apparently indicative of severe mental illness.
As I’ve emphasized, a single sentence uttered by Kennedy’s bitter enemies in the media could seemingly destroy him: “Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is a conspiracy theorist whose book claims that AIDS is a hoax.”
However, our entire media establishment—so eager to attack Kennedy on every other matter—has almost completely avoided engaging him on that issue. Across some 20,000 words of articles in the Times and the Journal, I could only locate a couple of sentences alluding to Kennedy’s unorthodox ideas on HIV/AIDS along with a short phrase or two here and there, these mentions being so minimal that I doubt that almost any casual reader ever noticed them. One of the early attacks on his book came from a Times journalist with deep expertise in Gay Rights history, but that long front-page hit-piece completely excluded any mention of Kennedy’s extreme AIDS Denialism. “The Dog That Didn’t Bark.”
The only logical explanation I can see for this near-total reluctance to engage Kennedy on what would seem his greatest vulnerability is that the media fears that he might very well be right. So after consulting trusted medical experts who had carefully reviewed Kennedy’s 200 pages of scientific analysis, all these different editors concluded that discretion was the better part of valor.
If Kennedy is correct, our entire American media has spent the last 40 years promoting and protecting a medical fraud, one that cost us many hundreds of billions of dollars and many hundreds of thousands of lives. As far back as the 1990s, a former Harvard professor had declared that the AIDS hoax was a worse scientific scandal than the notorious Lysenko fraud of the old USSR. So the media rightly feared that if they challenged Kennedy on the issue, they themselves might suffer the total destruction of their reputations.
Some 700,000 Americans died in the AIDS epidemic, but according to Kennedy the overwhelming majority of these victims were perfectly healthy individuals whose agonizing deaths were caused by the lethal but very lucrative AIDS drugs they were prescribed. This public health policy was enthusiastically supported by our entire media establishment, completely in thrall to Fauci’s governmental influence and the advertising dollars of his corporate allies. More than half of those casualties were gay men, and gay activists are an influential and highly-organized political force. The desperate effort of the media to prevent Kennedy’s accusations from receiving any significant public attention is hardly surprising.
But matters have reached a crucial junction. As a leading supporter of Donald Trump, Kennedy has been selected to head the Department of Health and Human Services, the very government agency whose minions may have been responsible for the gigantic public health disaster he denounced. In such a position, he would have the authority to reveal the true facts of the HIV/AIDS scandal, and use the resulting explosion to bring down the corrupt public health bureaucracy that has long been the target of his deep hostility. So although they have shied away from engaging Kennedy’s HIV/AIDS views, I do not think his opponents will be able to avoid that issue much longer.
And perhaps some great historic wrongs may finally be rectified.
I’ve read that back in the 1970s Prof. Peter Duesberg came close to winning a Nobel Prize for his groundbreaking work on cancer-causing viruses. But soon afterward his stubborn unwillingness to bend his scientific beliefs to official fashion led him to formulate and champion the Duesberg Hypothesis of HIV/AIDS.
The result was the total destruction of his research career, which suffered more than three decades of complete suppression at the hands of a hostile government and medical establishment. If he had been correct all along, and I think that he probably was, the implications are staggering. He is now in his late 80s and it would be very fitting if he were finally awarded the international prize that he has richly deserved for so long.
Related Reading:
English
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Swedish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Off topic I know you’re very interested in China and the diaspora. If you haven’t read these books already you will like them.
The first about 19th century China. Empress Dowager Cixi Quing. By Jung Chang Anchor books a Division of Random House USA. It’s more about 19th century China when she ruled than her. She’s the evil Empress everyone hates and blames for everything . It’s a change from the conventional story that some European ships sailed to China around 1800 and due to 😈 👿 evil Europeans everything collapsed until Mao and the communists conquered China.
Second is Lords of the Rim the Invisible Empire of the Overseas Chinese by Sterling Seagraves. He’s not Chinese but his family lived in China & N E India running tea plantation for more than 100 years. So he knows the subject the Chinese diaspora very powerful. Mrs Zuckerberg is one of them from Vietnam. So was our kids baby sitter Mary Fong. From Indonesia She and her husband were kicked out fled for their lives along with other Chinese after the attempted communist revolution organized by the People’s Republic of China. I forget if he mentioned the Chinese in the Phillipines. Who arrived about a thousand years ago and have run the country ever since. At least economically.
Lords of the Rim is on PDF. Or you can buy it.
They’re both enjoyable reading. And different from the conventional wisdom.
AIDs thousands of San Francisco gay men died of it years before those AZT meds were developed.
Mr Unz you do brilliant work but may I politely suggest brevity is a virtue. There is also much repitition.
So glad to see you are ” absolutely stunned”
once again. George Carlin said that ” religion
was at the bottom” of the worst. In the dirt.
It’s all fixed…
And again I have to add, ” all ” , means all.
The tide might be turning. It might be about time.
Keep up the great work. For some of us
TRUTH is a beautiful thing . And thanks 😃,
It’s pleasurable as well.
His anti-White sentiments make RFK a hard No for me but that someone who spends about half his book claiming HIV is a giant hoax is now in control of the HHS, FDA and so on, is really quite astonishing and amusing.
On another note: Is an update on the website traffic of TUR planned, Mr. Unz? I would appreciate it.
Cue in Debbie Wasserman Schultz… – Link to youtube
That’s when I jumped off the bandwagon.
So AIDS was a hoax, but COVID was real and a “bioweapon” at that. Ok, Ron… Whatever.
P.S. AIDS is/was a lifestyle gay disease (in Africa they characterized a lot of different stuff as “AIDS” to get financial aid), and COVID was a type of simple flu.
In his book, RFK Jr. cites ‘Science Sold Out’ by Rebecca Culshaw, PhD
Here’s her interview [1], her substack [2], her article [3], after which her contract was not renewed, her latest book [7], and other reference material [4][5] mentioned in her interview [1].
P.S. Her new book, ‘Real AIDS Epidemic’ [7], is just a reprint of original one (different publisher) titled ‘Science Sold Out’ [6] – so no need to spend $150+ for the out-of-print one.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[1] Fake Epidemics, Tests & Drugs with Rebecca Culshaw-Smith | Dr. Sam Bailey
https://odysee.com/@drsambailey:c/Fake-Epidemics-Tests-and-Drugs-with-Rebecca-Culshaw-Smith:2
[2] The Real AIDS Epidemic | Articles Archive | Substack
https://rebeccaculshawsmith.substack.com/archive?sort=new
[3] Why I Quit HIV | Rebecca V. Culshaw | LewRockwell
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2006/03/rebecca-v-culshaw/why-i-quit-hiv/
[4] Out of control: AIDS and the corruption of medical science. – Free Online Library
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Out+of+control%3a+AIDS+and+the+corruption+of+medical+science.-a0143163225
[5] Out of Control: AIDS and the corruption of medical science – Alliance for Human Research Protection
https://ahrp.org/out-of-control-aids-and-the-corruption-of-medical-science/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[6] Science Sold Out: Does HIV Really Cause AIDS? (Terra Nova): Culshaw, Rebecca, Bialy, Harvey: ISBN 1556436424: Amazon.com: Books
…
[7] Real AIDS Epidemic: How the Tragic HIV Mistake Threatens Us All: Culshaw, Rebecca V.: ISBN 1510776710: Amazon.com: Books
…
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
700+ Anon001 Comments Archive @ The Unz Review | TUR
https://www.unz.com/comments/all/?commenterfilter=anon001
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This piece is sprinkled with circumstantial “evidence” on the cause(s) of AIDS.
Let’s just cut to the chase and consider the main protagonist in the campaign against the purported HIV hoax: RFK Jr. Is he now going to stop funding the billions of dollars invested in R&D efforts in developing anti-retroviral (ARV) medications, their ready and free availability both domestically and globally? Try telling the millions whose lives were saved by ARVs that they’ve been royally scammed and lied to and that RFK is on hand to unscam them. It is now best for their well-being and sanity to stop taking such useless, toxic and very expensive medications.
Theoretical physics is a fascinating subject that introduced us commoners to the big bang and black holes. I would be cautious about venturing from that discipline into epidemiology, virology, immunology, pathogenesis, molecular biology and drug molecular modeling.
Proposing a hodge podge of aetiologies for AIDS defies the provisions of Koch’s hypothesis. Did Druesberg volunteering to be injected with HIV really materialize, as was done by the Australian scientist Barry Marshall who ingested Helicobacter pylori for a definitive proof of the cause of stomach ulcers? Marshall and his co-author Robin Warren were justifiably awarded the Nobel Prize in medicine.
Wakefield is now more than correct than eveer. He is probably the 2nd mosted hated personality that has recievced non-stop media damnatioms over a period of years
Didn’t we ‘cure’ aids . Another billion dollar pharma mindfuck with blurry lines and multivariet iteologies that ellude our big huge egos
Even the establishment narrative agrees vaccines did not to much in decreasing death rates from infectrious disease from where they were in the early late 1800s
Vaccines came in the late 60s after a century of dropping disease lethality at the very very end when death rates were approaching zero.
What would have happened if wew never implented them?
If plubing gets the gold prize, than vaccinesm maybe, maybe get a carbnord honorable mention butten
And thats just being nice
he study of the evolution of disease patterns provides evidence that during the last century doctors have affected epidemics no more profoundly than did priests during earlier times. Epidemics came and went, imprecated by both but touched by neither. They are not modified any more decisively by the rituals performed in medical clinics than by those customary at religious shrines.8 Discussion of the future of health care might usefully begin with the recognition of this fact.
Ivan Illich ‘Medical Nemesis’ 1973
A key commonality between the HIV/AIDS hoax and the recent Corona hysteria phenomenon was the dependence upon tests that were used to presumptively determine whether one has been “infected” by the allegedly dangerous killer virus. Even leaving aside the relevant issue of high rates of false-positive results, the tests used in both cases were themselves inherently flawed because they did not actually test for the elusive virus itself but merely a simplified proxy. Through this highly unreliable (essentially fraudulent) mechanism, the perception of a new superficial pandemic could be generated again in the future. With the assistance of the compliant media, a psychological state of mass panic would then ensue, leading to heavy-handed behavioral control measures through governmental dictates.
Since I had already become suspicious, long ago, of the sudden announcement, in April 1984, pertaining to “the probable cause of AIDS“, which was triggered by political pressure during the Reagan re-election effort, this skeptical attitude naturally made me rather cynical about the coercive mass experimental injection campaign, nearly four years ago, that ensued from the so-called “Operation Warp Speed” endeavor in the context of Trump’s re-election bid in 2020. Though Trump never explicitly apologized for having permitted that ill-conceived imposition, he has apparently tried to make up for the mistake by selecting RFK Jr to do a much better in this domain job than Fauci.
Brilliant and brave book by RFK. No wander they are afraid of him. Thanks Ron for this informative summary.
Nice job Ron.
People should read Duesberg even now.
Kennedy is just a famous name attached to sell copies and adds nothing of substance to a serious topic.
I was there in Bethesda at a medical school lecture amphitheater where Tony Fauci and Bob Gallo revealed their discovery of a new virus, the viral cause of AIDS.
The year was 1985 and Fauci was as obvious poseur then as he was during the COVID crisis, really rather a debacle.
Montagnier’s role in this story is enormous.
Of course, the virus isolated by Fauci and Gallo wasn’t the causative agent that had been identified by The Pasteur Institute under the leadership of the Nobel Laureate Luc Montagnier.
LAV if I remember correctly became HIV.
For all his public posturing on that stage in 1985, Fauci’s assertions and claims were wrong and he knew it. The duo of Gallo and Fauci had obtained a sample of LAV from Montagnier, but that fact didn’t stop Fauci and the U.S. Government from embarking on a campaign to steal the thunder, notoriety and patent windfall from Montagnier and The Pasteur Institute.
The man is, was, and ever shall be shameless.
Fauci let Gallo take most of the heat from the fallout while Luc was quite generous in credit to Bob Gallo.
Two men I trained under in the mid-80s ran in the same circles then and now. You might recognize one, Robert Redfield of recent COVID notoriety and the other, Ed Tramont, director of NIAID’s AIDS division.
Dr. Luc Magnier also asserted that spike protein injectees have no possibility for survival, which somewhat puts into perspective the AIDS red herring.
A book you might be interested in is AIDS: What the Government Isn’t Telling You by Lorraine Day, M.D. Dr. Day was at the time of the AIDS epidemic chief of Orthopedic Surgery at San Francisco General Hospital, the first woman to hold that position. As an active surgeon she was one of the first doctors to realize that AIDS could be transmitted through contact with blood and through blood transfusions, and demanded protection for doctors and medical staff when treating patients, including tests before surgery and before blood was donated. Her reward, of course, was to be fired from her job and hounded by accusations of homophobia and Nazism.
The refusal of the medical industry to follow her advice led to what is now referred to as the contaminated blood scandal, in which tens of thousands – perhaps hundreds of thousands – were infected with blood from HIV-positive donors.
Day did survive both her dismissal and a bout with cancer, afterwards opening a clinic in Southern California for the alternative treatment of cancer. Although not politically active before her firing, she became so afterwards and was for years a regular guest on the Jeff Rense radio program.
Those of us born in the late ’60s – early ’70s recall the career of Earvin Johnson, an enormously famous Negro basketball player bestowed with the nickname “Magic”. He announced his HIV-positive status and retirement from the professional league in late 1991. Yet he never got “AIDS”. In the early 1990s he attempted a “comeback”. Critics quickly dubbed him “Chubby Magic” because of his enormous weight gain compared to his playing days. Again, he never had “AIDS”. To-day he is wealthy and healthy, and interestingly…he never got “AIDS”.
The most astounding thing – the one thing that truly earns the title “heartbreaking” – is that by all accounts billions of dollars were and are being wasted for the sake of a sub-set of a sub-set of the population whose personal predilections are grotesque perversions. There is deservedly no sympathy for the long-time smoker who gets emphysema. The “AIDS” victim, however, is lauded as a “hero”, even though if one could see the “heroic” individual in his true state, one would throw up every meal eaten for the last week.
‘If Kennedy is correct, our entire American media has spent the last 40 years promoting and protecting a medical fraud, one that cost us many hundreds of billions of dollars and many hundreds of thousands of lives.’ — Ron Unz
And now it’s happened again with the deadly mRNA covid ‘vaccines,’ which killed many more than they saved.
Well done article, per usual. Most enlightening.
At the end of the day, however, Nature has the last word.
Extreme behavior, extreme consequences.
No discussion here of the perverse nature of the “homosexual community” that arose around the time of the outbreak of AIDS, nor of the pervasive drug culture that had become as filthy (needles, etc) as it was lethal.
A close family friend, trained in Europe, was a doctor at a hospital in New York in the early 80s and dealt with many AIDS cases among gay men. The stories he recounted regarding the excessive and anonymous encounters that may have led to the degraded health conditions of these men was stomach churning to say the least.
I do not doubt the evil Fauci’s money-grubbing pharmo- exploitation of this sad chapter in human health. But the victims–in large part–brought this situation upon themselves, I’m sorry.
I had known of most of it before, but a good summary. The HIV-tainted blood-transfusion cases in Japan are interesting, mainly because the blood bank concerned was run by a Unit 731 alumnus. However, I’ve never read of mass deaths among that cohort.
If only you would open your eyes to the elevated excess death rates post-Corona vaccination.
In Japan, a former cabinet minister has apologised for it and a group of medical academics has also made the point.
I think Robert Kennedy Jr. sold himself to Isra-hell, that’s what Edward Curtin (writer of Globalresearch.ca and dissidentvoice.org said).
My conscience is very clear because i voted for Jill Stein, not for the zionist parties Kamala Harris and Trump
.
The guys of ZeroHedge also talk about Fauci (or should we said “Fauxci” or “Fraudci”?) documentary.
https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/hey-elon-hey-rand-mega-censored-fauci-documentary-nails-whole-charade
Obviously staying away from the ‘heath’ industry, as much as is possible, is good advice. However the deal with HIV/AIDS (whatever it is…): don’t take it up the back passage–especially taking it like you are on an assembly line. And stay away from IV street drugs.
It’s as simply as that. Not complicated.
This is a perfect example of the “look–squirrel ” mechanism of the MSM. Their perfidy is not so much the lies and distortions they publish–which are manifest– but that which they refuse to look at.
Kennedy’s writings about the Covid virus are also weighty, whether or not they have a Nobel Laureate supporting them. One day they will. While the media’s response or lack of response to that part of Kennedy’s book covering the AIDS hoax can be described as the barking “dog that didn’t bark”, his Covid disclosures can be a case of “the lady doth proteth too much”
You have to wonder about our governing agencies allowing the manufacture and distribution of certain drugs, some which can cause great harm. Their philosophy seems to be “for the greater good”, and by that I mean that if the drug causes grave conditions to only a few, the drug will be kept on the market, and if you are one of those few, well, that’s too bad, for it is helpful to the greater number. You have to wonder where or how they come up with the cut off point. If 30 million people take a drug, and only 10,000 come down with one of the “rare” but grave side effects, would they keep it on the market? How is that number derived, you have to wonder? And if they do not do the proper clinical studies, how would they come up with any figure enough to designate the very grave side effect as “rare”.
I wonder if the philosophy that it cannot cause”even one” such a grave condition would not be the better philosophy. Or why not find a drug with a rare side effect that is mostly harmless? The rare side effects drugs appear to be mostly life-threatening.
I found that one (at least one) of the drugs for high blood pressure can cause, albeit rare, arrhythmia, and more specifically atrial fibrillation, as well as a “heart attack.” I wanted to do research to determine how many more people are getting arrhythmia these days, than they were before these drugs were put on the market. I found it almost inconceivable that a drug for high blood pressure would be able to “cause” very thing the drug is trying to ward off. How did that happen?
to preclude topics from investigation only raises more questions we are not allowed to ask
see Holocaust
Thank you Ron
Unbelievable.
It looks like that both Ron Unz and RFK jr. have never met nor spoken with people affected by HIV.
I kindly advise them to contact some HIV+ patient who underwent the rescue therapy.
What RFK jr. affirms about the people dying due to antiretroviral therapies is irresponsible and bordering with felony. He’s a partner of miserable criminal Thabo Mbeki, and both deserve being at least infected with HIV, which would be a well warranted punishment for the deadly consequences of the crap that they have been peddling.
The deadly legacy of infamous criminal racist Thabo Mbeki’s policy about HIV has had devastating consequences that keep causing incommensurable suffering and deaths until today. It’s a real disgrace that he has never been infected with HIV.
Just have a look at the UNAIDS stats comparing South Africa’s (+/- 60 million people) current yearly AIDS deaths with Italy’s (+/- 60 million people): the difference is staggering.
RFK jr. is so stupid that he even staunchly supports those who killed both his father and uncle.
I advise Ron Unz to have a look at the photos of the giant world boxing champion Tommy Robinson lying on his deathbed. He too didn’t believe that HIV was the cause of AIDS and kept fighting and f*cking with totally irresponsible insouciance and at the end he got what he fully deserved.
This post by Ron Unz confirms that he spent his life buried under a mountain of books and newspaper, but about real life experience just zilch.
Very good article. Now that you know all about the AIDS/HIV hoax from reading Kennedy’s book, you may also want to read the book Dissolving Illusions, by Suzanne Humphries, a thorough and well-documented examination of vaccines and disease, which could possibly help you to realize that vaccines, as well, are a complete hoax which: (1) intentionally and deceitfully, have been given credit for accomplishing things which they never in least accomplished, (2) help practically no one at all, and (3) most importantly, have killed millions of people over the last 200 or so years, and are currently undermining the health of billions of others.
Polio -> cancer -> swine flu -> AIDS -> covid. One success followed by four trainwrecks.
How would Dr. Pangloss rationalize that? Doesn’t matter. Murcans always believe Dr. Pangloss.
We’re constantly admonished to “Follow the money” and “Consider the source.” Where does that take us today, after the fourth trainwreck?
It takes us to Bourla, Walensky, and Sulzberger.
Same old same old.
I reached the conclusion aeons ago: believe no ‘authoritative source,’ above all no one in government.
If I see something with my own eyes I believe it, senators and representatives giving a mass murderer fifty-eight standing ovations, for example. That I believe.
Otherwise ixnay.
I listened to Gary North interview the scientist Arthur Robinson in the early 90’s and the discussion turned to the massive flow of money for AIDS research.
Robinson stated that people he knew were accepting AIDS research money and using the money to build up their laboratories or in some cases building new labs from scratch, so they could engage in some real research.
Robinson obviously considered the AIDS money wasteful, but he didn’t seem to be aware of the AZT scam. I have a homo cousin, and he certainly knew from the beginning. He told me they were using AZT to kill off the Queers. So it was known. That homo cousin never took AZT and he is past 60 now, quite healthy still.
Let us not forget that HIV has been used as a cudgel to scare US parents into having their infant sons sexually mutilated.
The Gates foundation circumcision trials of course never followed the patients longer than a few weeks.
US health policy is ritual sexual battery of baby boys in hospitals and the most obese population in recorded history.
Ron. says,
Reworked a bit.( Interesting how lies bear the same structure.)
One of Men of Unz’s central claims was that the disease known as “AntiSemitism” didn’t actually exist, but was merely the official label attached to a group of more than two dozen different beliefs, all of which had a variety of different causes, with only some of these being actual threats of harm to Jews. Indeed, most of these beliefs had been known and openly discussed for many decades, but they were only designated “AntiSemitism” if the alleged persecutor was also found to have questioned the veracity of Jewish accounts of the holocaust, which probably had nothing to do with actual Anti-Semitism.
Marty Makary of Johns Hopkins would frequently appear on the weekly Wall Street Journal Editorial Report, to give viewers the straight, actual, medical and epidemiological facts on various Covid issues. He resembled an apparent outlier, a lone wolf, stacked-up against Fauci’s armamentarium of thousands of scientists. Makary, alas, was unable to cite the fact that a near-unanimous majority of his Hopkins colleagues agreed with him. These cowardly colleagues were focused upon grants and career trajectory; upon private-school tuitions for their children, and upon their wives’ plans for a leafy-neighborhood home. These were the real dogs that didn’t bark. Imagine if Makary had actually been able to hold-up to the camera a signed statement of scientific agreement. I focus on Hopkins here, but the faculties of Harvard, Stanford, and so on were equivalent unbarking dogs, Correct me if I am wrong Ron, but I cannot recall your discussing the above-described unbarking dogs, for AIDS or Covid,
One of the things I learned from my reading about the Covid fiasco is that virology is a rather primitive science. I had assumed that it would be as advanced as bacteriology. It isn’t.
Epidemiology seems to be even more primitive and, of course, Public Health is mainly racketeering.
But in reality the whole health system is nothing more than a money-making scheme for scoundrels. A clear example of this is the cholesterol fraud that has killed tens of millions of people and kept tens of millions more living a bad life because of the greed of those who exploit the health system.
And not to mention diabetes, a disease developed by modern life and turned into another big business by the health system and which threatens to wipe out humanity.
RFK Jr will always have a big negative mark in my book 📖 for groveling to the Cabal while running for POTUS and now working for Donald.
PS.
Gaetz unfortunately didn’t make it. He would have been a disruptor and he’s not fully controlled by the Cabal.
Hesgeth should be removed, violently if necessary, for being a super Christian Zionist.
Hopefully Marco Rubio will catch AIDS and resign as Sec.of State.
Tulsi can stay. 🙂
From my point of view as someone who works in the medical industry.
Can HIV cause AIDS?
That must be true. HIV infects human T cells, which can lead to death from other diseases.
Can AIDS cause cancer?
Yes, because AIDS can lead to a state of low immunity, and patients with low immunity are unable to kill the cancer cells that are born in the body every day, so patients have a high probability of dying from infection or cancer.
Because cancer cells depend on the treatment of T cells infected with AIDS.
However, it’s important to note that antiviral drugs from companies like Gilead work by blocking viral RNA replication, a process that can cause damage to a patient’s DNA and can actually lead to cancer. And these drugs are not a cure, so patients have to pay for them for a long time.
So of course Big pharmaceutical companies hope that the more the virus spreads, the more patients will be a lasting cash cow.
Big Pharma will even lobby the DEA for this, so that more drug addicts and promiscuity will develop the disease.
I’m worried Mr. Unz will lose credibility by endorsing this topic. AIDS therapy has grown into a cornerstone of medical science. Patients who are HIV positive and on enzyme inhibitor therapy will go out into the community at times, of course some are low iq or schizophrenic of have other problems, and go off their medications. These patients suffer a decline in their T cell count while OFF the medications and begin to get the opportunistic infections associated with AIDS in a staged process according to their degree of immunocompromise. Different infections are associated with different lowness of T cell count. There is even a science of reestablishing antiretroviral therapy since the reactivation of the immune system in this context causes an overwhelming inflammatory response which itself can be life threatening. It only takes a few T cells to marshal a huge immune response—T cells are like the generals of the immune system. The syndrome is called IHRIS. There’s a Wikipedia page for it. For some infections steroids are utilized but for others not.
As for the hiv infected women and men in the general community, I would think that these are false positives. Any time you administer a laboratory test there is a significant risk of false positive. For example, if we give the flu test to everybody in this blog, a number would come up positive who did not in fact have the flu. Laboratory tests must be assessed in the context of likelihood that the disease is present and followed up with more specific tests. This would also explain the even balance between male and female positive tests.
Also, there is a dementia and heart disease associated with HIV, which the antiretrovirals do not seem to prevent. This phenomenon is poorly understood.
Several other blood born pathogens arose during that time period, such as hepatitis b and c which had similar means of transmission. These cause chronic illnesses similar to the way HIV does. Does it seem more likely that HIV is a hoax, while these viruses are for real? Hepatitis c, spread primarily by needles, was the most recent one here. Or more likely that globalization lead to the spread of previously geographically localized blood born pathogens during this time in history? Occam’s razor applied.
I am concerned about Mr. Unz’s endorsement of this issue. Is this website really a complex attempt to discredit Holocaust revisionism?
I would think that the journalists who avoid reviewing kennedy’s hiv assertions do so because it is scientifically abstruse. They recall that there was some controversy about the topic back in the day before everything was hyper politicized, but don’t want to show their ignorance by analyzing the topic.
No one disputes there were a number of gay men who died of AIDS in the early days of this ugly saga. If they had given up their self-destructive lifestyle of street drugs, pharma drugs and ultra-promiscuous unprotected anal sex would they have faired better? The answer is obviously yes.
Aug 6, 2020 HIV=AIDS – Fauci’s First Fraud
Billions of dollars are authorized for fast track drug and vaccine research simple, effective remedies are rejected while expensive, dangerous ones are pushed presumptive diagnoses, and exaggerated death statistics, and also falsified death certificates…
Video Link
Your reply seems overly pessimistic and negative. Ron isn’t proposing to solve the question of causality here, but to suggest that a number of eminent experts in this field have presented a fairly unified alternative answer, one that has been vilified and ignored. He is says, essentially, that the same process of corruption for money and power that has affected so many aspects of our lives is sadly operative with the AIDS debacle.
Why this deference to authority? Aren’t these counter-presenters CHALLENGING the so-called experts? Isn’t your position akin to someone scoffing, “Hmpf! All these revisionist historians should be listening to the establishment historians!”
Isn’t the basis of science that of skepticism, and not deference? Why SHOULDN’T Ron be investigating these issues, and drawing on other experts who run counter to mainstream, establishment views?
And yet you offer no actual arguments, just the vaguely threatening “I wish he gets AIDS”. Comparing Italy to South Africa, without controlling for the racial and lifestyle differences? That is the best you have? RFK jr is “stupid” – that is your rebuttal?
I hope that your employer sees how bad a job you have managed here.
Does anyone know of anybody credible who has challenged chemotherapy? Asking because I have a relative who was diagnosed with cancer and is trying to decide if the “cure is worse than the disease” with this too.
DWS is the ugly duckling, bitch from hell only loyal to Jews and Israel.
OK, but the current question is:
— Will RFK Jr be swatted away, another Trump nomination he really, really wanted but the Deep State baddies pevented him from having?
or
— He will make it, having been clearly instructed as follows:
(1) No more lip out of you about Fauci. The Don did not like him either but any criticism of the Malign Midget hurts the Don because it makes him look dumb and weak.
(2) Not a mention of your HIV/AIDS subversive talk that will be considered an insult to the suffering of our LGBT community and to the admirable efforts of our scientific and medical workers to find a cure for the disease that killed so many.
(3) No loose talk against ANY vaccines, especially the revolutionary mRNA vaccine that the Don persuaded the pharma industry to roll out in record time.
You must focus on making America healthy again by encouraging healthy eating and exercise, and by taking the fluoride out of drinking water.
On any other topics you will first consult the advisors that will e appointed to you.
AIDS is a lifestyle scam by controlling Jews of the medical industry. Most research money went to AIDs research and cancer, heart, etc. got shorted greatly. AIDs patients get subsidized medicine and treatment. Another disgrace perpetrated by Jews.
Sure, I read that a couple of years ago and found it pretty interesting.
Sure. There obviously had been substantial numbers of people suffering from “AIDS” at that point, which was how the illness came to public attention. But the argument that the critics have made is that their immune systems had been destroyed by very heavy use of illegal drugs, many of them called “poppers.” However, a huge majority of the later “AIDS” deaths were actually due to AZT. The difference is between hundreds or thousands vs. hundreds of thousands.
I already had a generally favorable opinion of RFK Jr., but just watching that exchange, I already like him a lot more.
What a bitch. She asks him a question – actually she just hurls a false allegation – and then “reclaims her time” to prevent him from answering it. A sleazy, dishonest tactic.
Terrific summary and critical review of 200 pages about AIDS.
AIDS is not a specific disease caused by a specific pathogen. It’s a catchall name for lots of nasty conditions suffered in large part by people who have multiple unfamiliar sex partners in a day and on many days, who take copious antibiotics in preparation for profligate sex with strangers in bath houses, and who take lots of high-inducing (illegal) drugs to enhance their party experience. At least two Nobel laureates (not in theoretical physics) agree. Such behavior is bound to bring a variety of illnesses or at least a general incapacitation. So, call it AIDS, invent a junk-science test and sell high-priced, lethal drugs to treat the new disease. This is Fauci’s formula for success.
Time now, Ron Unz, to review the rest of the book all about how Fauci applied his tried-and-true formula on an unprecedented big scale: COVID, the disease whose cure murders not only homosexuals but worlds.
I see the 200 pages about AIDS only as an opening act and introduction that illustrate Fauci’s formula for murder and profit. These 200 AIDS pages set the groundwork for the perfectly analogous ongoing crimes of junk science called COVID. If you understand the workings of one of these crimes then you understand them both, and Kennedy composed his book brilliantly to expose the two exactly parallel crimes.
Ron’s review, like Kennedy’s book, also exposes the several techniques of money manipulation and the manipulation of people by the power of money that, as much as junk science, power these murderous crimes. These are crimes that threaten the global population as well as civilization and the integrity and power of science.
Money is Truth, and Truth Money,
That’s all Ye know on Earth,
and all ye need to know.
— John Keats
WARNING!!! Reading RFK Jr.’s “The Real Anthony Fauci” is a slog from hell!
I read it and it took me 3 weeks. It is footnoted and has a bibliography that is extensive.
Holy shit was it hard to read. I had to go back and reread so many arcane and esoteric passages relating to medical conditions, cures, preexisting conditions, life style etc. etc. ad nauseam.
Kennedy, like our boy Unz, is a fuck’n genius and the book is worth the effort in my opinion.
The overused terms, “Startling Indictment” & “Scathing Expose” are weak sauce when you look at what really happened with the AIDS “epidemic and the Covid “Pandemic”.
It is literally impossible to get your arms around just how evil, Fauci, the CDC, FDA, NIH, WHO and Big Pharma are, when it comes to making bank on the suffering of people all over the world.
Honestly, when you look at what has been done, here in America, by our government, our Captains of Industry and evil little gnomes like Dr. Mengele…, er…, Fauci, we make the bullshit about the Holocaust look like Winnie the Pooh getting his head stuck in that pesky honey jar.
Kennedy flat out accuses the aforementioned of Mens Rae, premeditated, Criminal Intent, Capital Black Letter MURDER.
So ask yourself this- WHY IS KENNEDY NOT IN COURT DEFENDING HIMSELF AGAINST HIGH LEVEL, VERY PUBLIC, VERY DAMAGING SLANDER ACCUSATIONS THAT LITERALLY INCLUDE ACCUSATIONS OF MUDER?
That book sold a million copies and as Unz has mentioned was an ongoing topic of conversation on podcasts and in the Main Stream Media for over a year.
Huh…., wonder why.
This will give you great insights and be blessed Erickson.
Oct 2, 2024 Episode 430: From Stage 4 To Cancer Free: How He Beat Hodgkin’s Lymphoma In 29 Days
Joining us from Scotland is Scott Menzies, a man who defied the odds in the face of a life-threatening illness. Five years ago, Scott went to the doctor with what seemed like common symptoms—a fever and swollen lumps on his neck. But after several tests and a nerve-wracking period of uncertainty, Scott was diagnosed with stage 4 Hodgkin’s Lymphoma, a form of cancer that left him and his family devastated. While undergoing conventional treatment, Scott took a bold step. He changed his diet and incorporated cannabis oil into his daily routine. And then something remarkable happened: just 29 days later, a scan showed no evidence of disease.
https://cannabishealthradio.com/podcast/episode-430-from-stage-4-to-cancer-free-how-he-beat-hodgkins-lymphoma-in-29-days
Those are actually two separate criticisms.
Regarding repetition, your point is a reasonable one. But after Kennedy was selected to run HHS, I was amazed to read a dozen or more major articles in the NYT and WSJ all condemning him as a terrible choice and often suggesting he was almost a lunatic on public health issues. But scarcely a single one of them had even mentioned the 200 pages in his #1 Amazon bestseller promoting the theory that HIV/AIDS was a medical media hoax, surely the most obvious proof of his “lunacy.”
That further raised my suspicions and I decided to very quickly draw together elements of three of my previous articles and summarize the case that he and his sources had been making. Since my lengthy quoted passages came from those different articles, there was some repetition, but since most of those repeated points were generally important ones, I regarded it as fairly harmless.
But I’d strongly disagree about your other point regarding “brevity.” I’d think that 95+% of mainstream people would regard claims that HIV/AIDS was a hoax as being utter and total lunacy. So making such an astonishing case requires providing quite a lot of material and also presenting it in a fashion to minimize an automatically-dismissive reaction.
Here’s another way to look at it. My article is summarizing and analyzing 200 pages of material in Kennedy’s book, many hundreds of pages in other books and articles, and quite a number of long video documentaries. So requiring almost 8,000 words to do all that hardly seems unreasonable.
One reason I provided this lengthy response is that I’m sure many other readers may have similar criticisms.
So I just want to know. Who went out and deliberately got infected with HIV after reading Unz’s articles from a couple of years ago?
What happened ?
AIDs, a politically protected disease contracted by shooting up and corn- holing. The bulk of research money went to AIDs and patients were treated as the privileged over cancer, heart and others. Taxpayer dollars have flowed disproportionately for AIDs patients. The con job to educate the public to accept that innocents contract it is Jewish marketing, and the money makers in this whole scam.
Do you mean “Tommy Morrison”? That’s the only reference I could find for a professional boxer named Tommy who died of AIDS.
So Morrison wasn’t taking any medication for his HIV infection. Other than Meth, Adderall (intravenous), cocaine, booze, tobacco, and horse tranquilizer.
And all of that on top of catting around with tramps and hookers for years which probably left him with a raft of venereal diseases.
You are not exactly making the case you think you are making.
Sure, I’m certainly familiar with the famous ulcer case. But there’s a huge difference.
In the case of ulcers, they would develop within a day or two after the injection, thereby confirming the claims of those researchers.
But according to the official narrative, HIV had a very long incubation period, with AIDS taking perhaps up to a decade to develop, if it ever does. So if Duesberg had injected himself, people would have had to wait a decade or more for any results, and even if he remained healthy, the AIDS establishment would just have claimed he’d been lucky.
If you carefully read through my article or better yet the numerous sources I provided, you’ll discover a very long list of extremely strange and suspicious aspects of the official HIV/AIDS theory, some of which had been highlighted by the FOUR(!) science Nobel Laureates who publicly questioned the theory or declared that it didn’t make any sense.
Since you seem to be a strong adherent of that official theory, here’s a couple of the puzzles I mentioned in my article that perhaps you can answer for me:
(1) Testing of military enlistees demonstrated that HIV infection rates in the general population were equal between men and women, yet 90+% of those who actually came down with AIDS were male. If HIV causes AIDS, what explains that discrepancy?
(2) Nearly all the AIDS cases were confined to several different population groups including gay men, IV drug addicts, hemophiliacs, and Africans. Yet each of those groups tended to get entirely different versions of “AIDS,” each having different collections of symptoms. If all those illnesses were caused by the same HIV virus, why would the particular symptoms generally be so different in each group?
I can guarantee Mr Unz didn’t try the experiment.
I just wonder if there’s someone stupid enough, animated enough by covid and “everything they tell us about our health is lie man!” absorbing this material who actually did.
You know it’s uncanny. I was only yesterday remembering Unz’s older articles on AIDS that he cites. It might be because RFK Jr has become more topical again.
Look, you—along with probably 95% of mainstream people—would automatically regard anyone questioning the official HIV/AIDS theory as an obvious lunatic. But since the NYT+WSJ was making such a huge effort to portray RFK Jr. as a health-lunatic, isn’t it extremely suspicious that they would avoid mentioning the 200 pages he’d written promoting exactly that theory?
“The Dog That Didn’t Bark.”
If RFK gets confirmed, it will be interesting to see if he pulls these skeleton’s out of the cupboard or lets sleeping dogs lie. I suspect the latter.
My wife worked in a children’s hospital for many years, where the professors were all about who gets published the most and who gets the most credits regarding trials and research. Suffer the little children was not high on their priorities list, plagiarism was.
It would be interesting to find out what percentage of highly “successful” medical professionals exhibit psychopathy traits.
As Plato said, let food be your medicine.
He isn’t in charge of anything yet. There are going to be confirmation hearings. Is anybody going to bring up the topic of HIV/AIDS at the confirmation with the tv cameras and the audio recorders? Are they going to subpoena Anthony Fauci to give his take on the nomination on the record in front of all?
Could be interesting. Is there an internet gambling site with action on the question?
It’s a pity that Kennedy’s voice is shot.
The medical profession offers three expensive and painful treatments to cancer victims: We can cut you, we can burn you, we can poison you. I advise you and your relative to read up on alternative treatments such as high-dose ivermectin. Read up on the cure rates of professional treatments for the particular illness your relative suffers and maybe visit your local chemo center to see the prices for the wigs, which help the doctor to eke out a profit for his selfless service.
Another “Dog that didn’t Bark” is the wide-spread ignoring of the 1999 Russian apartment bombings. The bombings, which killed several hundred people, were used as the pretext for the second Chechen war. Some western journalists have tied these to the FSB, which then newly named prime minister Vladimir Putin had run up to just a month prior. The bombings, and Putin’s response to them propelled him to prominence. There have been a few reports on these incidents over the years, but not many.
You might think that the western media, now so keen to lay any infamy at Putin’s feet (and I don’t doubt that Putin genuinely is a vicious creep) would offer up this accusation to justify our opposition to him and our involvement in the Russo-Ukraine War.
But they don’t.
It’s almost as if they don’t want to give any air to the notion that a government might launch false-flag attacks on it’s own people as a pretext for launching a war and introducing intrusive policing and surveillance measures.
The book is almost unreadable. I could not get through a hundred pages before I had to download a pdf and read it on my computer. I cannot offhand think of one other book that is easier to read on a computer than in hardcopy. I can only read a few pages off a screen at a time. With any decent hardcopy I can read comfortably until my bladder gets ready to explode. There is virtually no stress on my eyes and brains and hands and arms and shoulders. The RFKJ hardcopy is a piece of garbage.
Did all of you read it on one of those kindle monsters?
LOL
Congratulations Ron, you are beginning to catch on.
But whatever you do, don’t admit that you have been DEAD WRONG about the “Covid” hoax.
Fauci and NIH did not develop AZT specifically for AIDS. Big Pharma developed AZT as a cancer drug in the 1960s, but quietly withdrew it because it had the unfortunate side effect of death in most cases. Very difficult to use the google to verify this unfortunate fact about death as its common side effect but one can verify that Big Pharma used AZT against cancer and withdrew it. If in fact AZT causes death most of the time and if in fact Fauci and Big Pharma knew this inconvenient truth, wouldn’t that amount to mass murder?
I wonder if Mr. Unz would consider writing an article about Dr. Thomas Tuttle, Fauci’s counterpart in the also fake Spanish Flu epidemic. While I know Mr. Unz hates conspiracy theories, YouTube has a small but growing one about Tuttle and Fauci as the same person. Which brings up an interesting question — if some people did not die, would they tell the rest of us? Would they have human emotions or would they, like Thetis the mother of the mortal Achilles, not have the capacity to grieve?
You are right, he is not in control yet. I worded that incorrectly. The case of Matt Gaetz as AG is the best proof that nothing is certain before it is.
Regarding the subpoena of Fauci: I see the total domination of the Trump picks by the Deepstate when it comes to Israel. I have very strong doubts that these forces will allow one of their most involved actors to be exposed. Fauci is not simply a bureaucrat. I would argue that he is one of the most powerful ones. Similar to Gottlieb in MK Ultra. Nobody could have subpoenad Gottlieb and in a similar way nobody will be able to subpoena Fauci. Especially since Donald Trump was the one who started and still brags about Operation Warpspeed.
Maybe I am too cynical but I think this is reality, not pessimism.
Totally agree.
A background in theoretical physics does not by itself qualify one for a foray into virology and disease. But it certainly helps. It provides competence in critical thinking skills and in discerning fallacy from hard science. Generally, many kinds of credential assist one in the search for truth and the debunking of lies and junk science. The problem is that most people feel that they can condemn Kennedy’s book – or better, Kennedy himself – without reading the book. No qualification needed except for a television set, the wisdom to conform and a completely empty head.
And once again- Politics trumps “science”!
(or Big Pharma, Big Finance, Big “Money” of one ilk or another)
And let’s looks at the greatest example of that today- The Trans Mania!
Utterly absurd on it’s face, and about as anti-science as one can conceive! The ludicrous assertion that you can change your sex (or gender, or whatever homo friendly words they need substitute to make it sound half plausible).
It makes as much sense as saying you can turn a potato into an apple, by painting it red. Yet, here we are; Actual “medical professionals” (anti-science hacks and quacks) going along with it like modern medical alchemy (which actually seems more plausible) simply because the heavily jewish psychiatry industry goes along with it.
Psychiatry itself being 90% made-up bullshit, and designed to “treat” primarily jewish neurosis.
The very idea that you can hack off some breasts, and create some frankenstein phallus using tissue from your thigh? Or hacking off a penis, to create some gaping gash between their legs, and act like it’s a vagina? An even more disgusting extension of “men can have babies” (which was hilarious in The Life of Brian, but now folly becomes fact) or these stupid homos that adopt some woman’s kid, then take pictures of themselves lying in a hospital bed, using some fake chest feeding rig to “play mommy” (I’m looking at you Mayor Pete Booty-gig).
What kind of freakish world are we living in, when actual learned adults play along with these various insanities!? It was a funny gag, back when people would joke that their crazy uncle thought he was Napoleon, but now? What is this lunacy?
Honoring people’s insanity?
There was a time, not very long ago (Buffalo Bob in Silence of the Lambs era) that if some sick he-she dressed up like a woman, and approached a baby, all of society would have beat that thing to death! Now, we do it with the blessing of “the government”, and the so-called medical establishment?
Yet, we (most of us) still laugh at Zodiac Star Signs, and Tarot readings, because those are “whacky”!
So, it turns out that AIDS was another scam, like Phrenology (which still has some limited merit), HIV was a lie, and a lot of frauds made a lot of money, by pushing the lies.
And yet, people get all indignant when you “question science”, or consider that maybe 72 vaccines are a few too many, or unnecessary?
Heretics used to be burned at the stake, and while it seemed harsh, after the past few years, I suspect a few thousand COVID liars could use that treatment, along with Trans “doctors”, and apparently, everyone associated with the AIDS farce!
Lysenkoism indeed!
I understand what you are saying. Look at my second comment. I imagine that journalists are avoiding the topic because it is esoteric and abstruse, and they are aware that there was a controversy back in the 90s and some famous people or people of mainstream credibility were involved. Therefore they avoid the topic so as not to look foolish, or get bogged down in a secondary debate. Back in the 90s, you could have reasonable discussions about things without them becoming hyper politicized like with the Covid vaccine business.
I don’t mean to be offensive—I’ve admired most of your work—only I think you off on a wrong tear with this topic.
It’s how these people work.
In South Africa a lot of people still believe that AIDS is an invention of the white man and that HIV can be cured eating eggplants,as recommended by criminal Mbeky’s health minister.
UNAIDS 2020 South Africa : Children and adults deaths: 83.000
Ministry of Heath Italy 2020 : Children and adults deaths: 528
CONGRATULATION THABO MBEKI and Professor PETER DUESBERG !!!!
RFK’s confirmation hearing could be earth-shaking. I hope so.
You know, beyond the 200 pages on AIDS and AZT, there are hundreds more pages in Kennedy’s book about COVID and mandatory lethal injections, crimes of the exact same modus operandi as AIDS, and I wonder: will anyone in those confirmation hearings bring up the topic of COVID on national television?
Will any senator dare invite Kennedy to speak uninterrupted about the criminality of the COVID hoax, the lethality of the Pfizer injections? Will there be discussion of blood clots, strokes and “sudden adult death syndrome” on national television? Which senator will dare breach the criminal enterprise of COVID?
After so many thousands of competent physicians and thousands of superbly credentialed scientists have been censored and even destroyed professionally, will the senators dare let the ugly truth be broadcast worldwide on everyone’s favorite source of misinformation?> No, I expect that the hearings will focus mostly on Kennedy’s marijuana arrest fifty years ago.
Also off topic, and even more so, but here’s an interesting little article about Sterling Seagrave, by David Guyatt.
“A Matter of Distrust – the Seagrave Affair” @ http://www.deepblacklies.co.uk/seagrave.htm
The Covid virus aka the Jew flu just went poof 💨, people. Billions changed from one greasy hand to the other. Had a doctor friend who trained in Thoracic Surgery at Walter Reed Hospital tell me that all doctors are crooks. Haha. I said to myself, “well you should know, Doctor.” 👨⚕️
I don’t regard the question as lunacy. I subjected it to earnest consideration. Read my arguments. There are issues in medical science which I am skeptical of the mainstream version and suspect they were invented so certain people could win prizes. But not Hiv.
“”AIDs thousands of San Francisco gay men died of it years before those AZT meds were developed.””
Yes, that’s very true. How do we reconcile this fact. Heavy use of drugs by Gays? Which drugs?
Covid-19 is the biggest scam and psyop and depopulation campaign in the history of the world and it is still on going and zionist covid pusher aka the father of the MRNA kill shot aka Trump, has picked an MRNA pusher and lockdown supporter Dr. Janette Nesheiwat to surgeon general, who could have seen this coming, I am shocked.
Also Trumpstein picked Dr. Oz a member of Klaus Schwabs World Economic Forum and pusher of the of the MRNA kill shot and covid hoax and a supporter of transgender surgeries for children and mirco chips to be part of Trumpsteins team, who could have seen this coming, I am shocked, shocked, I tell you.
I did not vote for pedofile Trump or Harris, Trumps cabinet could have been picked by Netanyahu and AIPAC and probably was, Trump is a zionist front man and his 2nd term will be worst than his first term as he takes America to war over Iran for Israel and this will bring Russia in on the side of Iran and we all can kiss our asses goodby.
Well, the equation HIV = AIDS is indeed an invention of the white man, and a false invention at that.
You appear to be from South Africa, and I cannot speak to your claims about Mbeky’s health minister. You keep citing the differences in death rates between SA and Italy… but this is a total red herring, as you are comparing two wildly different countries with different demographics and cultures. African blacks have wildly different outcomes in a whole host of variables.
Perhaps this issue strikes home to you personally, so you cannot process it rationally. Or perhaps rationality is not your forte. But either way, you pseudo-arguments are not terribly convincing.
This yesterday from ZERO HEDGE.
https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/hey-elon-hey-rand-mega-censored-fauci-documentary-nails-whole-charade
I found it a wonderful book, although the production quality was quite bad. For some reason, the hardcover margins were oddly spaced, and the paper quality felt cheap. I assume that this reflects the fact that marginal views are relegated to marginal publication companies. But the content was excellent.
What?
I’ve heard of some cases like this, but how do we know this guy didn’t just get lucky? Is there anything non-anecdotal?
I’m skeptical of chemo given how many other drugs and treatments seem to be made for profit over health. However, I’m not aware of anyone on Duesberg’s level who has challenged it. Given that many more people are affected by cancer than aids I would think a medical professional would have challenged it if there was a good reason to.
Ron: love your work. I might add that I wrote my Graduate Political Science Thesis on the subject of Non Decision Making back in the early 80s…it was like Chomsky and his mobilization of bias stuff. What is not being said in the room. People do not even bring a sensitive subject up in a meeting and let sleeping dogs lie. You can look up Christopher Ham and Michael Hill : The Policy Process in the Modern Capitalist State as a theoretical explanation.
Agree completely, HIV is a harmless passenger virus turned into a scapegoat by the HIVe mind medical establishment. Though there were hundreds, maybe thousands of experts on the record who dissented. As Duesberg used to say, there’s no such thing as a slow virus — only slow virologists.
What I never understood is that there’s been no country to officially rejected the narrative. Even North Korea accepts it, but claims to have never had a single case. Nor will they, because they don’t have the bogus “tests”. I suppose it’s always been in the interests of authoritarian regimes to socially engineer against promiscuity. The West may not be concerned with that, there’s too much money to be made on AIDS drugs.
Ron you are a bright boy; I have a suggestion on how to increase your readership. Set up a futures and options type casino betting line on who senile Joe Biden is going to Pardon and how his Jew backers are going to manipulate him. Then juxtapose that with who Trump will pardon in his first few days? Get at it right now and lets go to town on it. You can also throw in some of your famous historical context analysis like the time Bill Clinton pardoned the Jew finance criminal Marc Rich and so many other cases like Donald pardoning Mike Milkan and those stories
The big question here is whether the AIDS hoax is ordinary end-stage corruption or something more. You could easily believe Big Pharma would chew up unlimited lives to maintain that profit center. But the full deployment of Wisner’s Wurlitzer tells us to look further.
We might well find that CIA’s early germ warfare programs saw potential in a disease with long asymptomatic latency. That’s what you really want for CIA’s sneak attacks on Iran and Wuhan. Fauci as evil mastermind doesn’t ring true, he’s a mediocrity, palpably full of shit; he always sucked CIA dick to get ahead. You will find he was doing it back then too, as CIA cooked up their banned biological weapon that turned out to be harmless.
What a thing to see on a Monday morning. Just woke up with a hangover for the first time in two months. I have had hiv/aids for 31 years and will not make it another year. Heart, lungs and all major organs are destroyed. If I try to stop the meds my stomach will swell up within 48 hrs and will start bleeding. The hardest part about dying is that I don’t have my son in my life. We were fairly close when he was young and even into his teens buy then he cut me off from his life. He is now 34. It’s so hard to die without telling him how much I love him and that I’m sorry. He is in Atlanta and I am in Seattle. Before I go to bed at night I look towards the South eastern sky and cry. Aids is a horrible disease and it had killed all of my friends. I’m the last one left. Most died within twenty years of being diagnosed. The meds only last so long and then nothing works, or the side effects are so horrible that you want to find a way to end it.. Sorry to vent but it helped me
Peace
But isn’t that part of the nature of the symptomatologies of infectious diseases, both in their varied manifestations or their severity, course, mortality etc., with genetics playing an important role? Aren’t you laboring over the obvious, Ron?
It would seem to me that most deniers of the HIV-AIDS question are healthy, HIV- negative individuals with little to lose and content to play their armchair expert roles, at the expense of millions of AIDS sufferers whose lives have been “saved” by the “toxic” and very expensive medications.
I believe that modern cocktails have evolved into more effective (in terms of viral load suppression and mitigating the onset of AIDS with enhanced safety, which to many deniers is a hoax anyway) treatments. Show me one medication that is free of adverse events, including fatalities.
Try convincing AIDS patients of the billions of dollars wasted on them and the hoax foisted on them by the pharmaceutical industry and that their belief that they have been rescued from the ravages of HIV-AIDS is pure fantasy. No worries, RFK is ready to exorcize them.
All that aside, now with RFK picked as Trump’s secretary of health and human services, are we going to see him take the heroic step of cutting off funding into the AIDS-HIV hoax together with its faux research to save American taxpayers trillions of dollars squandered on a harmless virus, when such priceless dollars can be put to better use in mass murder?
LOL. You are making a much worse case for yourself.
It’s not esoteric or abstruse: does HIV cause AIDS, or not?
If they had any belief in their theory, they would pillory JFK Jr with dozens of mainstream quotes, already available, to that effect. They clearly think their theory is so weak, they fear bringing it up.
It does though, just not “decent” people.
Consider blacks and the spread of the disease through prison sex. They do go home to wives and girlfriends, have violent sex, and induce blood/semen transfer. There is also the underarching “down-low” culture of continuing to bang men even outside of prison.
I suspect HIV hit the Jewish community harder than anyone discusses. BDSM is heavily pushed by Jews, anal is heavily pushed by Jews, homosexuality is pushed by Jews, sex work is heavily pushed by Jews, etc. So many sex practices Jews engage in involve drawing blood (hell, throw circumcision in too) and many opportunities for HIV transmission. I’m sure they were at heightened risk of catching it at the time given their behavior.
So “innocents catching it” isn’t necessarily a hoax, just probably another one of those “it’s a problem mostly affecting us, but here’s why it’s your enemy too!” situations.
Russell Blaylock, retired neurosurgeon:
Funny about that
All well taken. But these Jews are not trying to protect the innocents you rightfully mention. It’s the activists.
There may be plenty embarrassing and damning in RFK’s account, about science research, Fauci, corruption in science medicine that goes right to the heart of some of the problems we see today, and they don’t want to open this up because of how it will impact the system as it is, rather than the astounding revelation ‘HIV doesn’t cause AIDS.’
The problem with this claim is it ignores all mainstream medicine for the last 40 years as if it doesn’t exist and only a moment in time early on matters, and we should just focus on some anomalies then. It’s the same argument people who deny viruses exist or cause disease make, that experiments and research at the time were flawed and couldn’t adequately demonstrate transmission therefore the whole thing is false.
Also nothing credible and new has been added to the argument that HIV doesn’t cause AIDS for 25 years at least.
I think HIV/AIDS is a really interesting history-of-science/medicine question, but it’s come back to life through anger about lockdowns, masks, and in particular a deeply flawed program of covid vaccines and maybe RFK laying the groundwork for his own run for office and it just ignores contemporary research, understanding and biology – where HIV fits into a spectrum of similar viruses.
This makes little sense. There is much to criticize about homosexuals but this is likely a red herring meant to shame gays for also being filthy drug users.
Poppers (amyl nitrate) are more likely to kill you from a heart attack or stroke than suppress the immune system long enough to get HIV. They are still widely abused, and used to be prescribed (at safe doses) for angina relief as a vasodilator. That you can do poppers and not spontaneously contract HIV aside, their point is to dilate the sphincter to make anal penetration non-traumatic. If anything poppers should reduce risk of HIV by minimizing tearing.
Now, when you consider that gays in the 70s would have blood/anal contact with dozens of men in a single night at public bathhouses, the official narrative makes the most sense. Anybody that knew gays back then knew they were gross; even the monogamous couples I know now have open relationships. But bathhouses are and were petri dishes of all manner of disease, and HIV establishing a foothold in San Francisco should surprise nobody. Patient Zero was a flight attendant that spread it everywhere even after being notified.
Ironically when it comes to drug use it has been suggested that gays who abused cocaine in the 70s were least likely to contract HIV, since they would be too hyperstimulated (and ED-afflicted) for sex.
I said years ago that RFK should go ahead and infect himself. Then he can post his monthly t-cell count and let the audience decide.
In any case I suspect Trump is setting up RFK to get rid of him.
Trump knows that he will get hammered by the Senate.
I think the mob boss is about to take RFK on a fishing trip. Trump isn’t going to forget RFK insulting his beautiful vaccine. He needed RFK’s follower votes for the election and that is over.
This could be the peak of RFK. I wouldn’t spend too much time on him until he actually gets through a Senate hearing.
The Medical Industry has succeeded in making you a victim; of course you are selling your victimhood now.
I dislike being so blunt.
How Doctors Die
https://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2013/03/how-doctors-die/
Who By Very Slow Decay
https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/07/17/who-by-very-slow-decay/
Like Bill Cooper liked to tell us over and over and over: DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH!
Could be the confirmation hearings will be the greatest demo of Do Not Ask and Do Not Tell ever seen.
Worth reading, Donald L Scott’s AIDS: THE CRIME BEYOND BELIEF, which looks at the above from a few different angles. including right wing CIA and government figures in the late 60’s / early 70’s working at developing a government funded bioweapon that attacks the immune system.
And worth considering, Michael Meier’s WAS JONESTOWN A CIA MEDICAL EXPERIMENT? and THE SECOND HOLOCAUST (a sequel volume he wrote some three decades later), and the AIDS books of Alan Cantwell, as AIDS is possibly connected to Jonestown. There’s a medical experimentation angle to Jonestown reflected in the administrators doing careful tests and collecting data in their gated community out in the jungle for years, far away from probing eyes, and possibly also far from where any untested communicable disease they might be investigating could spread. Leo Ryan heads down there to check on various rumours and is killed the same day. They pull the pin on Jonestown, wiping out hundreds of participants, and then a few months later in San Francisco homosexuals are offered free vaccinations care of flyers posted up on billboards around the city (reproductions of these appear in at least a couple of books, including the Cantwell volumes). AIDS begins to spread among the homosexual community not long afterwards. A manufactured disease could require a long period of testing and observation far away from the general public with a disposable group of test subjects before they could let it go free.
I’ve dug into a number of books and volumes touching on the above and they get increasingly more disturbing the further you dig. Lee Hamilton, nicknamed ‘the King of cover ups’ by Peter Dale Scott, helped write the extremely brief government report on Senator Ryan’s death, which outlines the entire background and history of Jim Jones in something like three sentences. Jones was in South America in the early 60’s in proximity to various CIA operations there. Joe Biden also sat on the panel with Hamilton that gave that unhelpful report.
Any article digging into the above would also have to take one small step back and note that the Jonestown deaths (along with the suspicious San Francisco murder of Harvey Milk, who regularly clashed with Jim Jones) took place at the same time the CIA was coming under heavy scrutiny care of the HSCA (House Select Committee on Assassinations) hearings. Mark Lane spoke at length at the HSCA, attacking the CIA, and then flew down to Jonestown to defend Jim Jones. When the Jonestown killings happened, a shell-shocked Lane pulled out of public activity for quite a while afterwards. And the HSCA hearings and Jonestown took place during the same months that various JFK assassination witnesses or ‘figures of interest’ to the HSCA were ending up dead, shot in the head, found floating in a barrel, killed in their apartment etc etc. Search through the timeline of suspicious deaths associated with the HSCA hearings – such and such was set to speak, but died two weeks before the hearing – and see the ones that occurred through September / October / November 1978.There’s quite a few of them.
My take – the CIA felt threatened in late 1978 and decided to take steps to clear the decks of a few things in their usual humane manner.
Medusa Washerwoman Schmaltz needs to get the marbles out of her horrid reptilian jowls, the farfaln snakeskin blouse off her Neanderthal refrigerator torso, and the Kosher poultry tallow out of those abominable coils atop her hateful Jew head.
Those are my thoughts on the matter as well.
The labyrinth.
The last page of Kennedy’s book shows a page from Fauci’s June 2021 email dump. It depicts a pair of knock-out style tournament brackets “scoring the pestilential contestants during two decades of mostly phony contagions. COVID-19 finally emerges as champion.”
I don’t know how to copy the diagram, signed “Tony F.” onto this web page – buy or download the book – but I can tell you the first set of brackets shows the competitions among Coronavirus, SARS, MERS, chickenpox and four more diseases. A second set of tournament brackets shows the step-by-step elimination among pairs of eight more diseases including West Nile, rabies, Ebola, monkeypox and four more. Fauci had his hand in all these macabre bio-crimes, and the depth of his sick depravity is truly impossible to measure.
With his signature tournament table of plandemics, Fauci is a lot like Jeffrey Dahmer collecting heads for his strange altar. Fauci’s record shows how far a crazed psychopath can go with a smile, an authoritative manner of speaking, a tie and cufflinks, and a conformist manner. How easily the world is deceived.
What kind of lifestyle were you living when you contracted HIV? And what caused the split with your son?
Poppers (amyl nitrate) are more likely to kill you from a heart attack or stroke than suppress the immune system long enough to get HIV. They are still widely abused, and used to be prescribed (at safe doses) for angina relief as a vasodilator. That you can do poppers and not spontaneously contract HIV aside, their point is to dilate the sphincter to make anal penetration non-traumatic. If anything poppers should reduce risk of HIV by minimizing tearing.
Death by AIDS is quite horrific and they start developing these dark spots before they die. You are better off shooting yourself before it gets to that stage.
Now, when you consider that gays in the 70s would have blood/anal contact with dozens of men in a single night at public bathhouses, the official narrative makes the most sense. Anybody that knew gays back then knew they were gross
Can’t remember the book but there was a doctor in the 80s that talked about how gays would go back to the bathhouses even though they had AIDs. They had an “end of the world” attitude and simply didn’t care.
I knew someone who had to work a halfway house out of college for tuition (a do-gooder plan) and even though the gays were all on retrovirals they were still having sex and doing drugs (at your expense). They openly talked about it to the staff as there was no rule that required them to be responsible. It was the government mistakenly assuming they were “just like us” and would behave normally after seeing where their irresponsible behavior landed them. One openly talked about a planned trip around the world for certain types of relations before he dies. You’re paying for his medication so he was able to save up money.
Yes it really is that bad. I honestly wish I never lived in the city to learn such horrors. Being in the city made me decidedly anti-liberal and conservatism is just a clown act that lets the horror continue.
The system even developed PreP because they know that gay men can’t be expected to wear condoms.
You lose the argument when you defend ‘..mainstream medicine’, the greatest evil one can imagine.
In France, some children with Jehovah’s Witness parents were transfused by force for medical reasons in the 80’s. They developped the SIDA and died. They were neither gay nor drugs addicts.
In africa, a lot of people died of the SIDA that were neither gay nor drugs addicts.
By chance the AZT treats the people.
SARS CoV2, a product of US bio-warfare ‘research’, has long to go. The combination of the man-made virus, with its ‘remarkable’ spike, and the modified mRNA gene therapy death shots, is a ‘useless eater’ remover, I believe. They learned the lesson of Marek’s Disease and ‘leaky vaccines’, and we’re the chickens now.
Kennedy knows his stuff, unlike the Congress vermin. I can see lots of gibberers demanding ‘Yes or no!” answers to complex questions that they are not intellectually equipped to pose, let alone answer. And, of course, the old ways being tried and tested, they’ve concocted some ‘sex scandal’ to titillate the feminazis.
“Psychiatry itself being 90% made-up bullshit, and designed to “treat” primarily jewish neurosis.”
Well, no, not treat them, that’s not good for business, but “manage” them for years and years twice a week.
Ron most mainstream media have covered RFK’s AIDS claims, including Wapo, Forbes, NPR and BBC and also Wikipedia. Just do a google search. they all describe it as one of his craziest claims.
Do you want to develop this a bit? I’m not sure how to respond without more information about where you’re coming from.
Mainstream medicine to me just means the places you go to if you break your leg or you’ve contracted a nasty bacterial infection. Those ones.
Not the whole thing is ‘perfect’ and can fix every illness, that drug companies are great, or the system that manages medicines or governs MDs, or runs the health system itself is perfect or every doctor is perfect or that all research is great research.
What other kind of medicine do you have in mind ?
From the article:
Which ways did each rate of incidence go? I know one went up and the other went down, but which?
They CONTINUE to lie. Have they offered any scientific data in their rebuttals? Or impugned Kennedy’s?
Or just cited authorities, who say … ?
The content is what I’m talking about. It’s of no consequence but I downloaded it from apple book store.
“Luc was quite generous in credit to Bob Gallo.”
You may also recall he had no choice: Reagan twisted Mitterrand’s arm behind his back. Too much money was a stake in patents.
The sweet irony to come later was in how they agreed to split the credit:
— Luc for discovering HIV, a real discovery which, however, later turned out to be (as Luc himself to his credit affirmed it) the discovery of a mere “fellow traveler” in severely immunocompromised patients, not a causative agent;
— Crook Gallo for “establishing” HIV as the causative agent of AIDS. He and Fauci must have really hated Luc Montaigner and then RFK, Jr for debunking that hoax.
Anyone who was closely following events at the time would know that prior to the Gala announcement to the media, not only the notorious “hypotheses and single case reports” journal– the Lancet, but also NEJM and JAMA were receiving dozens of manuscripts weekly, each proclaiming another causative agent, from Pneumocystis carinii to Staphyloccocus aureus. (For variation, a depletion of zinc– major component in sperm– due to the homosexual excess number of encounters and leading to the collapse of the immune system was also suggested as the cause of AIDS.)
A culture of an AIDS patient’s fluids offered an embarrassment of choices.
Luc Montaigner was too intelligent and too honest not to realize that a relatively benign virus, amply present in non-AIDS patients and not always present in AIDS patientsb was just a “fellow traveler” and said so.
His devotional to Israel is a bit puzzling, given the integrity he displayed in his whole life. I am keeping my mind open. If he was misinformed, he will come around to a different view, if it is a political game, he better stop playing it immediately.
The problem for RFK is not any single specific claim.
It’s that he has made too many.
He not only opposed the MMR but got a bunch of kids killed in American Samoa by talking the government into withdrawing the vaccine.
Maybe in a forum you can argue that single case wasn’t his fault. I wouldn’t agree but you could at least show a contention. You could create an aura of debate.
But RFK has gone after too many vaccines. They can’t all be a psi-op corporate conspiracy. Some of the vaccines are safe and work just fine. But RFK doesn’t like admitting to that because at the core he is an adamant anti-vaxxer. He just can’t show his full stripes.
He is all over the map and they will hammer him on it. He probably forgets about how many vaccines he has opposed. Well the internet has a record along with the time where he opposed the measles vaccine with Jenny McCarthy.
It’s really not a good idea for him to go before the Senate. His best move is to get out of politics to preserve his book sales if he values them.
No, I disagree.
Consider the flu. Some people catch the virus at work, other catch it at home or in a restaurant or a grocery store. But regardless of how they caught it, their symptoms are the same, as slightly modified by their personal characteristics. Wouldn’t you consider it very odd if people who caught the flu at work had entirely different symptoms than those who caught it at the market?
But with HIV/AIDS, the situation was entirely different. The people infected with HIV because of their hemophilia got an entirely different type of “AIDS” than those who allegedly got it through gay sex or the drug addicts who shared needles. The packages of symptoms for each group tended to be very different. That seems extremely peculiar if all the illnesses were actually caused by the same virus.
You really might want to read some of the articles or books that I’d referenced and linked, or watch some of the documentaries.
I would call your cynicism by another name: realism.
Kennedy knows his stuff, unlike the Congress vermin. I can see lots of gibberers demanding ‘Yes or no!” answers to complex questions that they are not intellectually equipped to pose, let alone answer.
Is that how you think it will go down?
There are doctors in congress and they are not going to let him slide.
They can also bring in experts like actual virologists.
He should go back to mansion in Malibu before being publicly embarrassed. Trump is setting him up for a fall.
Trump knows that most of Congress doesn’t like him. This is a hit.
My favorite Kary Mullis story/video is how he innocently stumbled upon the AIDS lie. He said he was doing some consulting work for a company called “Specialty Laboratories” in Santa Monica. He was testing blood samples with his PCR method looking for HIV. When it came time for the Lab to renew their Gov’t grant, Kary Mullis was told to write the letter.
Mullis mentions how the first line of the letter started with “HIV is the probable cause of AIDS”. Being a scientist and wanting to back that statement up with a reference, he started asking around for ANY scientific study/paper that he can use as a reference. 3 years later he still couldn’t find it! The way he tells the story is hilariously and yet eye opening.
Really? The Nazis had the Lebensborn program for unwed mothers, for one. Need children for the Wehrmacht!
No, you could just concentrate on the Fauci matters that Kennedy wrote about and shorten your followup article by…22.5% 🙂 at least. You can also refer to a lenghtier version of your article for people that want to delve into it more deeply. Is that a redundant sentence? Haha!
The author of this article clearly doesn’t understand that the disease still kills a huge amount of Americans each year. Patients become resistant to drug treatment or die from organ failures and heart disease. Hiv drugs causes high triglycerides (fat) in the blood which causes premature death. Its a truly horrible disease. Over 13,000 died from Aids complications in America on 2023 and about 630,000 in the world in 2023
Hey what about Zaire being 70% HIV positive back in the 90s?
Are they still alive???
I really don’t think that makes sense.
I’d say that at least 95% of mainstream people would automatically regard anyone claiming that HIV/AIDS was a medical hoax as a total lunatic, pretty close to a Flat Earther.
So none of those journalists needed to know anything about the scientific details. They could have just loudly declared that “Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is a conspiracy theorist whose book claims that AIDS is a hoax.”
If they wished, they could have filled their articles with quotes from ten or twenty mainstream AIDS scientists taking exactly that position and ridiculing Kennedy as a lunatic. Since their articles were claiming that Kennedy was a dangerous nut, it would have been a slam-dunk.
But instead I recently read over a dozen NYT/WSJ articles ferociously attacking Kennedy that almost totally avoided the subject of HIV/AIDS.
As I pointed out in my article, just a few months after Kennedy had published his book, he was blasted by a very long front-page hit-piece in the New York Times, portraying him as a dangerous crackpot. The author was a longstanding Times journalist who was described as the author of a leading history of the Gay Rights movement. But although he fiercely attacked Kennedy and his book, he didn’t mention a word about the 200 pages claiming that AIDS was a hoax. Hmmm….
I think those publications realized that the danger in forcefully attacking Kennedy on HIV/AIDS is that although 99% of their readers would just nod their heads and snicker at Kennedy’s idiocy, perhaps the other 1% would get curious enough to look into the strange topic, and might discover things that would greatly surprise them.
FOI Newsletters
https://christinemasseyfois.substack.com/
Marijuana?
He was arrested for possession of heroin in 1983.
I still hope he gets the chance to rock the boat…
Ok, but indirect logic of this sort might lead to suspicion, but it is still not direct evidence. AIDS is a syndrome that involves opportunistic infections killing the victim. The theory is that HIV is a virus which attacks human T cells, which are a sort of immune cell which primes the rest of the immune system to attack certain pathogens. Mr Unz has ample scientific ability to check out an immunology text and learn this as I have done.
The T cells are destroyed by hiv which leaves the victim vulnerable to certain infectious agents which are normally not so dangerous to humans, such as toxoplasmosis, cmv, tb itself, and at profounder levels rare cancers such as kaposi’s. Immune system is also involved with destroying small cancers which arise. So, different people might die of different agents depending on what they were exposed to. The diseases they get show great overlap with the diseases people on immunosuppresion for organ transplant get. Those people also suffer from distinct illnesses in similar fashion, viz they don’t all die the same way. People who got COVID did have different symptoms. Some got headache some didn’t. Some got uri others not. Some with hep c get liver cancer, some don’t. Specious specious.
And here you you are just scratching the surface. There is a Stanford professor named John Ioannidis who takes seriously that entire medical branches are null fields. Then there is the whole naturopathy vs allopathy elephant in the room. Psychiatric drugs alone are the third leading cause of death in the USA. I would say Psychiatry is a null field. The psychiatric “bible” , the DSM, which defines what is a “mental illness” is not scientific but a product of unscrupulous politics and beauracracy. It is both scientifically invalid and mathematically unreliable ( it failed it’s field trials). Top insider psychiatrists such as Ronald Pies and Thomas Insel admit the chemical imalance theory of mental illness is false. Also, Thomas Insel , in his blog, in 2011, quietly announced that treatment outcomes are a failure using terms such as abysmal.
This is a bigger deal than AIDs since about 1 in 4 people are diagnosed with a mental illness in neoliberal societies such as the USA and the UK.
Also, in Wired magazine the guy who chaired the DSM 4 or who wrote the book on mental illness said : ” There is no definition of a mental disorder. It’s bullshit. I mean, you just can’t define it.”
P.S. Thomas Insel was the head of the NIMH and Ronald Pies is the chief editor Emeritus of the periodical Psychiatric Times.
Video Link
It seems a natural follow up article to this topic would be a Pravda article addressing the enormous campaigns run by the media, education, and medical institutions since the 1960’s to cover to up the truly destructive phenomena known as homosexuality.
Unchecked male homosexuality is one of the most destructive forces working against a functional 1st world society. Grooming children, spreading disease, massive burden on health care resources, emotionally unstable, substances abusing, undermining normal family formation.
Mr. Unz, Why don’t you add the research of Christine Messey, Tom Cowan, Andrew Kafman etc?
This is research done for humanity.
https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/fois-reveal-that-health-science-institutions-around-the-world-have-no-record-of-sars-cov-2-isolation-purification/
I hope you do not delete this msg.
When Trump comes in office, i think this is verry i,portant for people to understand, and not make the
same mistake again.
Well, there are always trade-offs and it’s partly a judgment call, but I disagree. I actually tried to structure my long 7,800 word article in a modular fashion for exactly that reason.
For example, someone only moderately interested could stop after reading the first 1,900 words and would have already gotten all the key points I was trying to make. If he continued and read another 1,000 words, he would have gotten much more material. And the first 4,000 words could easily work as a stand-alone article. Most of what came after that were links and discussions of all the various articles, books, and documentaries that I had read and evaluated, and including all that material in the article allows it to represent a stand-alone treatment of the subject for those sufficiently interested.
A different but even more valid sort of criticism was that the first 500-1000 words of the article had almost nothing to do with the HIV/AIDS topic, and merely served as a sort of introduction.
But the reason I included that was that claiming HIV/AIDS was just a hoax is an ultra-ultra-shocking declaration that huge numbers of people would automatically dismiss as total lunacy. So that innocuous introductory language was intended to help cushion the shock and make people less inclined to just ignore the whole thing.
“According to research, a significant minority of people, particularly in certain communities, hold beliefs that AIDS is a hoax or that HIV does not cause AIDS, with studies reporting figures ranging from 10% to 30%:”
About the same as holocaust denial
Is Duesberg the David Irving of virology?
‘Yet my astonishment at reading such incendiary claims about HIV/AIDS was matched by my equal astonishment that the topic was totally ignored by all the ferocious media hit-pieces’…
And for good reasons as you found out, they can’t hold the lie about HIV/AIDS and Kennedy is not the only one exposing them, Jon Rappoport has written extensively about it.
This is why they don’t attack him on HIV/AIDS because the revelations are probably damning and indefensible.
The same is true for the covid manufactured operation.
http://www.rkileak.com
petermcculloughmd.substack.com/p/breaking-news-twice-censored-landmark
outraged.substack.com/p/new-dutch-health-minister-fleur-agema
https://t.me/DrMikeYeadonsolochannel/2058
However, as seen for Gaetz, I doubt they will let RFK lead the HHS. They are working hard right now to not validate his appointment in the senate and if Trump uses the ‘recess appointment’ trick, they certainly have files or will create fake files on him.
But if he makes it and the world wishes he does, he could also have a close look at who are the real culprits behind his father and uncle assassinations. I suppose that with high level clearances when you are in the midst of the power that be, it should be possible for him to find out.
Another reason for the deep state to try to ‘eliminate’ him as they did for Gaetz, but if Bobby Kennedy JR finds out, then he can’t humanly continue to support ‘Israel’…
Why does someone not write about the Vioxx debacle. I have not read an article about the long term deaths of Vioxx users
What about the murderous Israel? Kennedy is the biggest goy for the Jews. Like all U.S. political criminals, he has Palestinian blood on his hands.
The following notes that Bronchitis ( cough cough) and Weakened Immune System is the major side effect of continues use of poppers. While noting you are correct, it’s a bit nuanced.
https://www.webmd.com/mental-health/addiction/what-are-poppers
>AIDs thousands of San Francisco gay men died of it years before those AZT meds were developed.<
• LOL: Rich23
Prove it!
Were they using Poppers (Amyl Nitrate) on a daily basis? That's the original cause of the novel "Kaposi's Sarcoma" (skin cancer) found in the lungs of gay men.
Without Kaposi's Sarcoma in the lungs there never would have been a hoax called AIDS!
That caused the medical authorities to search for an infectious cause.
In comes Robert Gallo making an announcement that he discovered the cause of the new disease originally called "GRIDS" (Gay Related Immune Difficientcy Syndrome). Gallo was instantly criticized for violating protocols because his work had not been published, verified, or proven.
Robert Gallo was convicted of scientific fraud for stealing Luc Montaigne's work.
Luc Montaigne eventually admitted after being pressed by a journalist that he never isolated a virus.
See the story here:
Theperthgroup.com
Also see the book Science Fictions by John Crewdson for the story of Robert Gallo and his lifetime habit of deception.
I think the reason that MSM authors ignored the AIDS thing in RFK Jrs book is because they had financial imperative to use every inch of writing to defend vaccines, which were perhaps their biggest advertiser… Thats what was paying their wages.
If they were to bring up AIDS, it would have muddied the waters and diffused the message. Possibly made things worse, like starting another front in an information war.. And with AIDS, there is something very abstract and algerbraic about it (hence why I think people are often convinced it isnt real)
I have watched every AIDS denialist film… I find them very interesting on a cultural level.. But all they can talk about is AZT, something that happened in the 1980s.. Pretty much everyone in these documentaries who had HIV is now dead and the films usually omit that even when they have died before end of production or that they werent on AZT either. AZT was something stopped a long time ago.
Look at Continuum, the AIDS journal.. It had to shut down because every editor died of AIDS.. They weren’t on medications, they were staunchly against it.
Christine Maggiore, her husband makes a documentary about AIDS, funded by the Foo Fighters.. A year later their daughter dies of AIDS because they refused to use medication to prevent transmitting it to her before birth.. Then Christine dies 4 years later.
I think denying the link between HIV and AIDS is a bit like four card Monty.. It only makes sense when you ignore direct correlation and full observable reality. They can only cherry pick a few things that may make sense in isolation.
Every single AIDS denialoist group is now defunct.. You often have to go on the wayback machine to look at their websites. And if their websites still exist, they haven’t been updated in years.
Look into the story of the great boxer Tommy Morrison.. He got HIV but then was in denial, got some fake tests to show he was negative.. Started boxing again.. He couldn’t grow peck muscles anymore and had to have chest implants.. He died at 44 and looked 70.
Morrison had already changed in appearance before being diagnosed,so this could not have been from AZT.
This is just one example.. Im not being particularly scientific.. But its a rabbit hole I have well and truly gone down, I still go down it sometimes, like reading this article, but Im not convinced by any of the alternative hypothesis.
With Kennedy, I think what we will find is he will have as much power and effectiveness over Health as Trump had over the nation in his first term.. Trump used to question a lot of things too.. Not anymore.
Dr. Willner – a prominent HIV denier – injected himself with blood from an ‘aids’ patient live and on TV. He died shortly thereafter of a non-AIDS related cause, so the results are inconclusive.
But I have read them and still disagree with their basic premise that HIV-AIDS is a hoax. Just as you had written extensively on Covid being man made and made in America, what I don’t recall reading is that HIV itself is man made. Since you don’t believe that HIV causes any disease, that would be irrelevant.
I believe that to be a distinct possibility because the mechanisms and molecular basis of CD4 cell targeting by the virus have been extensively studied; the subsequent depletion of CD4 cells over time leads to chronic immune deficiency and AIDS.
Regardless, you have not responded to my concerns re the consequences of RFK attempting to rescue the millions of AIDS sufferers from their delusional disease by cutting the billions of dollars wasted on treatment and research on a disease condition purportedly caused by etiologies other than a supposedly innocuous virus.
After Duesberg suggested possible diverse, ludicrous and unproven causes, the disease among Africans is glossed over in cavalier and racist fashion, to whitewash his own ignorance on the matter. In the absence of recreational drug use in Africa (a continent comprising 54 ethnically diverse countries), the tired stereotypical mantra of poor nutrition is thrown in for good measure.
I think the focus is wrong and people should be more concerned about the relationship between drug abuse and AIDS.
Those who abuse drugs are more likely to indulge in crazy sex.
Jon Rappoport after 40 years of covering AIDS believes that the theory of a virus as a pathogen is fake science.
He’s 85 years old.
His book “AIDS Incorporated” describes the process of isolating a virus. Anyone can see it’s not scientific.
His website:
Nomorefakenews.com
110, Right Mulga, as the Club of Rome guys say, there’s substantial precedent for extermination as a policy. It’s the only plausible explanation of WWI.
Policies that increased the lethality of SARS-COV-2 had another goal too, to conceal US germ warfare. They vaccinated to look like they were combating the new synthetic germ, not using it as weapons. They caused and hyped mortality to look like victims. We will come to see the O’Hare Airport clusterfuck as another trick to disguise attribution of CIA germ warfare. It came shortly after the Taiwanese haplotype study showed a US origin, and it mixed up the variants pretty good.
Thanks.
I’m a 1500-word guy. (Big grin)
I suppose if someone could convince me that Covid-19, which means the whole ball of wax, was/is real, then I might jump on the RFK bandwagon. But no one can. And considering the overall seriousness and impact of it, similar to the fake war ON terror, I think that Trump’s his HIV story, because that’s an easy one.
The HIV causes AIDS theory could never meet the “Koch’s Postulates” test.
When this was pointed out to Robert Gallo many times he finally began to just dismiss “Koch’s Postulates” as obsolete. and he ridiculed Robert Koch as irrelevant to modern science.
Just FYI, no so called pathogenic “virus” has ever been able to meet the Koch’s Postulates test.
See articles at:
drsambailey.com
if you want to make unz.com less ridiculous and not suck fire steve sailer and hire david cole.
“According to one journalist, some two trillion dollars has been spent on HIV/AIDS research and treatment over the decades, and with so many research careers and personal livelihoods dependent upon what amounts to an “HIV/AIDS industrial-complex,” few have been willing to critically examine the basic foundations of that empire.”
Exactly the same can be, and has been, said regarding the climate/CO2 global warming hoax.
Eminent scientists describe and discuss this state of affairs in detail in Climate: The Movie.
Please see it.
Before more harm is done and more US taxpayer monies end up as profits and monthly checks in, respectively the pockets of,respectively, Danish climate entrepreneurs and pensioners.
No!
Only those homosexuals abusing Poppers (Amyl Nitrate) for long periods developed Kaposi’s Sarcoma (skin cancer) in the lungs.
Duesberg proposed a simple study of poppers as the cause. This study was never done. And Robert Gallo eventually conceded that “Amyl Nitrate” was most likely the cause and the studies should be funded. But never were.
The very convoluted theory about a retrovirus attacking t-cells has never been proven.
How could it be? Nobody has ever seen a virus in a body at work.
Only images of particles in a density gradient taken by electron microscopes that are claimed to be a “virus”.
The process of taking the image destroys the sample. So no tests can be done with the particle in the image because it no longer exists.
Go and find proof that a virus is a bundle of DNA wrapped in a protein capsid that attacks a human cell and then causes the cell to replicate virus.
THAT PROOF DOES NOT EXIST!
Thank you.
Simply put, there’s no money in healthy people.
All conventional meds have serious side effects and if you read the side effects listed for RX meds, either online or that accompany prescriptions, you are right, the meds eventually can cause what they are prescribed to prevent.
Doctors never tell you how to help yourself. But the information is out there.
As an example, when my brother and I were pre kindergartners we were injected with antibiotics for a cold. We lost much of our hearing over the course of a month. No remedy.
More recently I’ve looked into medications that cause hearing loss. I was freaked out to see that there are many, and yet not one physician ever mentioned this side effect nor has any hearing aid supplier.
I can think of possible reasons why reviewers have ignored the part of RFK Jr’s book that considers AIDS. Firstly, the conventional theory has widespread public acceptance, and they do not want to re-open a debate that has been settled for 20 years. Secondly, there may be parts of the thesis that are correct (such as the history of the drug AZT), even if the whole is wrong: this would make media presentation to the general public challenging, and the partial correctness could easily be exploited by a skilled political operator such as RFK Jr.
What is strange is that all reviewers have ignored the AIDS angle, as if their responses are coordinated. It is likely that, when reviewing a book about Fauci, they have spoken to him or his associates, who would have told them that re-publicising the Duesberg theory would cost lives.
If small but equal numbers of male and female military recruits from small rural towns in the 1990s tested positive for HIV, these results are probably false positives.
Well sure, but your argument says that no virus is the cause of any disease. You could make similar arguments against atoms and molecular theory, as many did in the 19 th century. The explanatory power of the theories is what makes them true, even if the evidence is only inferential.
Sure, that makes sense. And since you’re not a “Normie” you really don’t need the cushion of the first 500-1000 words, so if you skip those, we’re talking about only 900 words that summarize the key points of the article, plus the additional short sections that follow until you lose interest and stop reading.
Interesting to see the discussion of “poppers” (amyl nitrite). The compound causes relaxation of smooth muscle, notably in the blood vessels that supply the penis. The same mechanism is used by Viagra.
Viagra famously began life as a candidate heart drug, which was repurposed when users in trials reported its effect on sexual arousal. It is interesting that Big Pharma was able to reproduce the efficacy of a known recreational drug, but delivered in a safe and measured dose, backed up by appropriate trials, and above all with a new compound that was patentable. This is how fortunes are made.
Sure, I’ve always been pretty skeptical about the reality of Global Warming despite the fact that 100% of the media and 100% of the political establishment has been saying for the last decade or two that it’s the world’s most important issue. I even wrote something about it a dozen years back:
https://www.unz.com/runz/two-cheers-for-heresy-on-global-warming/
But it’s obviously a very large and complex issue, and I’ve never had the time or inclination to do the sort of investigation that would be necessary to settle things in my own mind.
So although I’m still skeptical of the official story, I don’t regard myself as having any firm position.
I will agree to take “poppers” to prove that they are not the cause of the AIDS!
Has anyone done research on poppers to prove that they cause a profound immunodeficiency? If they did, pharmaceutical companies would be examining them for potential application in transplant patients, wouldn’t they?
You may find this information interesting. I stumbled upon a lecture from Dr. Eva Snead a few years ago, and it seems to have been purged from the internet. Dr. Snead died fairly young from an unknown/unpublished cause.
Here’s a summation of the basic content , as I heard it, of said lecture from LewRockwell –
Cancer, Aids, and Vaccinations
By Benedict D. LaRosa
January 10, 2012
Is there a link between cancer and the polio vaccine? There is a good chance that there is, according to a Baylor University study released on February 18, 1999 and published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute…
[…] In 1987, a San Antonio physician, Dr. Eva Snead (1942-2008), stumbled across information linking vaccines to a host of diseases from AIDS and leukemia to other forms of cancer while doing research for a book on AIDS. For her efforts…she was vilified by her medical peers, ridiculed by government officials, and ignored by the major media…
It was while doing the initial research for her book at the University of Texas Health Science Center library in 1987 that Dr. Snead discovered how the viruses associated with these dreaded diseases are spread. The same evidence convinced her that there was an active cover-up within the federal government and the medical/scientific communities. In 1992, she published her findings in a hefty two volume work titled Some Call it AIDS, I Call It Murder.
The foremost virologists studying AIDS, Drs. Robert Gallo and Luke Montaignard, agree that it is a virus from the African green monkey that causes AIDS. They have designated this virus HIV for human immunodeficiency virus. Another virus carried by the African green monkey is SV-40, or simian virus 40…in other words, SV-40 causes symptoms similar to AIDS…
SV-40 is the genetic glue which permits different DNAs to recombine to produce mutations and anomalies, and which allows toxic substances to penetrate cells more readily. Human blood specimens preserved frozen for 25 years have been found contaminated with this virus. More importantly, wherever SV-40 goes, so goes HIV and other green monkey viruses. The question is, how did these viruses find their way into humans so quickly and uniformly? Dr. Snead found the answer in 1987, and the Baylor study did so in 1999.
According to sources cited by Dr. Snead, cells from the African green monkey have been used since 1953 as a growth medium for the polio vaccine. The use of the polio vaccine contaminated with green monkey virus is probably responsible for the current epidemics in child cancers, birth defects, and AIDS. These diseases, coincidentally, increased dramatically after the introduction of the polio vaccine…Despite assurances to the contrary, Dr. Snead insisted until her death in July 2008 that the polio and other vaccines remained contaminated with animal viruses…
At the beginning of the Persian Gulf War, Dr. Snead predicted that many of the servicemen taking part in Desert Shield/Desert Storm would develop symptoms similar to those which are now associated with the Persian Gulf syndrome…She concluded that dangerous viruses are routinely and knowingly injected into military personnel, a claim verified in 2004 by investigative reporter Gary Matsumoto in his book Vaccine A, The Covert Government Experiment That’s Killing Our Soldiers. She warned that the viruses do not affect all servicemen the same way, nor do they necessarily affect them immediately. Some lie dormant for decades until activated by other viruses to cause cancers and other ailments.
It appears Dr. Snead’s claim of a cover-up may be correct. In 1996, Dr. Leonard Horowitz, a well-known health advocate, published in his book Emerging Viruses, the circa-1986 audio interview with Dr. Maurice Hillman (1919-2005), at the time a leading authority on vaccines and Chief of Merck Pharmaceutical’s vaccine division….In the interview, Dr. Hilleman acknowledges that vaccines given to millions of people worldwide contained the SV-40 virus which is associated with leukemia and other cancers. He also admits that the HIV virus was introduced to humans through vaccines created using HIV infected African monkeys.
The discovery of the Hillman interview vindicates Drs. Snead and Butel in their research concerning the origins of AIDS and the explosion of cancers since the introduction of the polio vaccine…
Well, if you look at the MSM articles from early 2022 that I described and linked, they were blasting Kennedy on every possible issue, trying to make him look like a crank and a crackpot. Obviously, they were doing it mostly because of the vaxxing issue, but probably 95% of the attacks they launched were on every other possible vulnerability.
Yet the only thing they always avoided was his 200 pages claiming that HIV/AIDS was a hoax. I found that extremely suspicious at the time.
I remember I was joking with people that although Kennedy’s book had sold over a million copies, I sometimes wondered whether I’d been the only person who had actually read it.
Back a couple of years ago I spent some time looking into the HIV/AIDS controversy and wrote several articles about it. But it sounds like you may have spent 10x or even 50x more time on HIV/AIDS that I have.
So surely you can answer those ignorant questions I had asked you above.
(1) The military tests showed that equal numbers of American men and women were infected with HIV. So if HIV causes AIDS, why were about 90+% of the AIDS victims male?
(2) And why did each of the different groups infected with HIV get a completely different form of “AIDS”?
These were just a few of the questions Prof. Duesberg and his co-authors had raised in their very long academic journal article that I linked and mentioned above.
Interesting!
I found this on X. It’s about HIV.
It’s in Spanish but if you have a latino girlfriend she can translate it for you.
Or you can use AI, it’s less costly 😁
I would say Psychiatry is a null field. The psychiatric “bible” , the DSM, which defines what is a “mental illness” is not scientific but a product of unscrupulous politics and beauracracy. It is both scientifically invalid and mathematically unreliable ( it failed it’s field trials).
Psychiatry in indeed ripe for debunking in numerous areas.
The entire psych industry is filled with kickbacks. Keeping people on meds and in therapy is what pays the bills. Their industry expands when they define a new mental illness. They don’t make money when someone gets healthy through religion or exercise.
Even though it helps some people I would support dumping the entire industry. I’ve met too many people that did therapy for years and got worse. I also believe it has a feminizing effect on men. A man should never share his relationship problems with a stranger. The shrink encourages the man to become a gossipy girlfriend.
I said before for item 1, they were probably using a relatively primitive diagnostic test on a large sample of individuals. All diagnostic tests have significant false positive rates. For example, if you gave the test for flu to everybody in this blog, some would come up positive who did not have the disease. All diagnostic tests must be interpreted in the context of likelihood of the disease. This hypothesis also explains the even gender ratio as a statistical factor. In medicine they frequently test people for hiv, but more men have than women, usually gay. They test based on infectious agents which would suggest hiv, not only gay men.
Say I tested 10000 people at random with a test that had a 1% false positive rate, 100 people would come up positive who did not have the disease. Tests must be used in the context of expected presence of the disease.
Sure, I suppose that’s possible though no one seems to have made that argument at the time.
Also, one of the people most emphasizing that bizarre fact was Kary Mullis, who won a Nobel Prize for developing the PCR test that was being used, and it was one of the reasons he thought the HIV theory didn’t make any sense. Being from a science background, I tend to take the views of Nobel Laureates pretty seriously.
You and the other commenters should keep firmly in mind that all of this happened before the existence of the Internet or social media or all these independent channels of information. So everything came through the MSM, and Fauci and his corporate allies were able to gain complete control over the MSM.
For example, Prof. Peter Duesberg was one of America’s top virologists and after he started questioning the HIV/AIDS story, his opponents banned him from the media. At one point he was invited to appear on Good Morning America and present his controversial ideas, so they flew him out to NYC. But Fauci found out about it and exerted enormous pressure to have his appearance cancelled.
As I mentioned in my article, four science Nobel Laureates publicly declared that they doubted the HIV/AIDS theory, but that was never reported in the MSM. A leading Harvard Medical School professor described the HIV/AIDS scandal as worse than the Lysenko fraud, but it was also never reported. The editor of the Lancet declared that he was outraged that no one was willing to simply test Duesberg’s hypothesis, but he was ignored. Nobel Laureate Mullis proposed a very easy means of testing the HIV theory, but no one was willing to conduct it.
Although I always read my newspapers and magazines, I never heard about any of this at the time, since none of it was reported in the MSM. I only found out about these facts a couple of years ago.
Suppose the Internet didn’t exist and all your information came from newspapers and the TV news shows. Wouldn’t it be very easy for someone having a great deal of influence over the MSM to cover things up?
Well I must admit, I did not know the content of RFK Jr’s book regarding AIDS until you pointed it out.. So your joke is pretty apt.
There is evidence that the AIDS conspiracy stuff was indeed largely Soviet backed “active measures”. The Soviets certainly did promote the idea that AIDS was made by the US Government biological weapons division as part of “Operation Denver” .. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Denver And if I were them, I would have also created/backed other confusion and paranoia to try and destabilize the west at the time. So much was unknown, they couldn’t effectively treat the disease – so its was the perfect environment to exploit peoples desperation.. But the entire AIDS denialist movement is now dead since it can be effectively treated and HIV contraction even prevented with medication.
But I would maintain, it would have hurt the official Covid narrative if another front was opened in public debate, where people started to question AIDS, another disease, which I pointed out, is a far more abstract and algebraic disease because of the two stages where a virus then creates a syndrome. This would have started a whole series of spot-fires needed to be put out, on-top of the ones created by the Covid narrative. It would have been a terrible strategy.
I doubt that this is the only thing avoided in the book, RFK Jr would have surely talked about Diet at great length and other modern lifestyle causes of chronic disease.
Well, Fauci did not gain complete control over the MSM because I read about Duesberg’s theories in the British press in the 1990s. Andrew Neil, then editor of the (London) Sunday Times, was a prominent supporter of Duesberg.
The researchers who deserve most attention on the question of whether HIV causes AIDS are not virologists but epidemiologists. They have the qualifications and experience to determine whether an illness is the result of an unhealthy lifestyle, or an infectious microbe. Are there any professional epidemiologists who supported the Duesberg thesis, either when it was first published or today?
Scientists:
“HIV is gonna kill us all.”
“Climate change is gonna kill us all.”
“Covid-19 is gonna kill us all.”
Same sh*t, different day.
And of course: “GIVE US MONEY – WE NEED MOAR RESEARCH!!!!11”
Check out the work of Dr. Thomas Seyfried. A good place to start is the interview of him on Diary of a CEO on Youtube.
No, not at all. You’re the one who shot yourself in the foot with your example. That guy Morrison engaged in exactly the kind of behavior that Duesberg was talking about (massive drug use, wreckless sex). He’s hardly a counter-example that proves Duesberg wrong.
Look at the article I cited upthread. Morrison, even after his diagnosis, was a massive drug abuser – cocaine, meth, even horse tranquilizers. That’s not to say he didn’t die of AIDS, but his pathology, which is exactly the kind that Duesberg pointed out, complicates matters.
Back in the early 90s I heard Duesberg speak on the Tony Brown show on PBS. I thought he had some interesting ideas, but when I never heard about them again, I assumed that he was simply wrong and that the medical establishment had moved on after proving him wrong.
Then COVID happened, and the medical establishment, and especially the public health establishment, systematically burned down any credibility they had. They may as well have taken all their medical degrees, torn them into shreds, and flushed them down a toilet on national television.
And not just on COVID, and the disastrous response to it. We saw a medical examiner in Minneapolis make a determination that a drug addict with hypertension (and COVID!) died of a drug overdose, and then when the Summer of George got going was ordered to do a new autopsy and find a different result, which he dutifully did.
We’ve seen the entire medical establishment in this country embrace the whole “Trans” delusion, even adopting terms like “pregnant people” and “menstruating people” instead of the term “woman”.
They no longer have the benefit of my trust. They are now guilty until proven innocent. And that is why I am willing to give Duesberg’s ideas a second look.
Counter example: Keith Richards
Seriously though, it’s the unifying power of the hiv hypothesis that gives it credence. What is the cause of aids then, if not hiv? Why would hemophiliacs suddenly get sick at all, if not a blood born pathogen?
The germ theory of disease was questioned into the 1930s, even by prominent scientists.
I admit I’m dumbfounded by the ‘aids is a hoax’ idiocy.
My wife is a hospitalist, who occasionally diagnoses (that’s her job) aids patients who’ve gone off their meds, but I don’t like to discuss the ‘hoax’ with her as she can’t comprehend that level of idiocy. So, I thought I’d look on the net for some info … here’s a map showing aids fatalities as a percentage of the population worldwide
I guess the hoax is ongoing, and world wide ???
I imagine that your average gay man in the San Fransisco bath scene probably had 20 or 30 different strains of Human Papilloma virus exhausting his immune system at any one time. He probably had endured 3 or 4 chlamydia-infections in his life, 2 or 3 gonorrhea infections in his life, scabies, herpes, the crabs, and a few stds that have minimal symptoms that have yet to be scientifically discovered. His immune system was exhausted. Add to that micro tears in his genitalia and rectum that see a mixture of petroleum-based lubricants, saliva (from someone who might have a cold or sinusitis) and fecal matter get straight into his bloodstream of lymph fluids by manual transmission. It’s no wonder that these people’s immune systems tap out. Think about how many people the average man passionately kisses (one…….his wife) versus how many men, many of them with strained immune systems and colds, that these may men passionately kissed on a weekend trip to a bath house. Those immune systems were probably pumping out as much white blood cells and t cells as they could. The dirty needles, cut powders snorted into runny noses, and poppers that had been in several sweaty palms beforehand are other multipliers. It’s a dirty lifestyle
As someone who has, since the 1980s, been familiar with every aspect of the AIDS hoax and of the heroic struggle led by Peter Duesberg against that hoax and against its mass-murdering point man, Anthony Fauci, I am very much in sympathy with your critique—especially its second part, which draws attention to the author’s pertinacious habit, present in almost all of his articles, of patting himself on the back by means of full-scale repetition of his Greatest Hits rather than via the more modest device of linked reference. If the number of I’s and me’s in this essay were reduced by 60 percent, nothing of real value would be lost.
Still, any “failing” of Ron Unz’s in the present context pales to insignificance in the face of the conformity and sheer ignorance shown by many of the commenters attacking this well-founded and hence valuable article and, what is far worse, by the truly appalling deceitfulness and evil-mindedness of the rest.
As for the utterly bogus term “AIDS” itself, no scorn is too great. As I heard Dr. Duesberg himself say, in a late-eighties appearance on the PBS program Tony Brown’s Journal, “For Gallo and Fauci, Kaposi’s sarcoma in the presence of HIV is AIDS, but without HIV, it’s cancer. Tuberculosis with HIV is AIDS; without HIV, it’s tuberculosis. Dementia with HIV is AIDS; without HIV, it’s ‘just plain stupid.’”
In my MBA class 30 some years ago (top 5 ranked school) , there were 6 mid-career Big Pharma execs. All attending on their companies dime. Therefore one can guess these 6 Big-Pharma mid-career execs were slated for future C-level positions.
Every single one of these Big Pharma execs was a NOTORIOUS LIAR AND CHEAT. all were full on pathological liars.
Still no mention of Duesberg’s ignorant stereotyping of “African” AIDS and throwing in “poor nutrition” as a lame and bigoted explanation to obscure his ignorance of a continent of 54 countries with ethnically diverse backgrounds and culinary habits. What exactly does “poor nutrition” mean?
BTW, I asked him that same question in his presentation in Ft. Lauderdale in around 2005-06. Specifically, I suggested that based on his presentation, the rules of disease causation and symptoms that he outlined did not apply to Africans. He had no answer.
“I have had hiv/aids for 31 years and will not make it another year…. Aids is a horrible disease and it had killed all of my friends. I’m the last one left. Most died within twenty years of being diagnosed.”
Sofa king hilarious. Thank you. 🤣
“Look at Continuum, the AIDS journal.. It had to shut down because every editor died of AIDS.. They weren’t on medications, they were staunchly against it.”
Was every editor also staunchly against eating feces and getting his rectum perforated by other men’s genitals? Or was that part okay?
Ron, you seem to be mistaken, most mainstream media mentioned RFK’s AIDS denialism as one of his craziest claims. Just a few examples:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/health-wellness/2024/11/20/rfk-jr-lgbtq-people-trump-hhs/76426549007/
https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/rfk-jr-health-stances-vaccines-fluoride-raw-milk-rcna180244
https://www.forbes.com/sites/saradorn/2024/11/15/rfk-jrs-conspiracy-theories-heres-what-trumps-pick-for-health-secretary-has-promoted/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2024/11/15/rfk-jr-views-conspiracies-false-claims/
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/rfk-kennedy-anti-vaccine-panel-conspiracies-hiv-spanish-flu-1234779689/
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2024/11/rfk-aids-hiv-hhs-donald-trump/
https://gizmodo.com/you-thought-anti-vax-was-bad-these-are-rfk-jr-s-most-disturbing-beliefs-about-health-2000524995
Did you really think there was a grand conspiracy in which all MSM secretly knew AIDS wasn’t caused by HIV so they decided not to mention the topic?
Yours is an informative synopsis.
Thanks,
I think we’re in general agreement.
When a Narcissistic Personality Disordered person makes a mess of things, any person who attempts to unpack or explain the lies can look bad doing so. This phenomenon is virtually axiomatic in psychiatry. Wrestle with pigs and you know the rest.
No one else in that auditorium noticed what I thought was odious and obvious in Fauci…the mediocre scientist as compared to Gallo beside him and Montagnier from whom he was stealing credit AND the insatiable acquisitiveness (acquisitive projective identification).
When Fauci popped into the limelight again at COVID Inception back in late 2019, I thought “here we go again” and Anthony did not disappoint. I also immediately warned family, friends and colleagues but Fauci is, was, and ever shall be a Spellbinder of the industrial-grade Lobaczeski warned us in Political Ponerology.
Why aren’t you and I “spellbound” so easily by the likes of iL Fauci?
And true to form, the people ignored Cassandra because they couldn’t see the obvious even when shoved in their faces. And so we all witnessed The Panic of People and The Pandemic of the Vaccinated.
Once again, Fauci became rich and famous a second time. Just ask him.
Kaposi’s sarcoma
CMV retinitis
Acute retinal necrosis
CD4+/helper T cells
Montagnier definitely gave praise to Gallo that he never gave Fauci.
Taxonomy of diseases is very difficult and remains so, but as Lobaczeski insisted with the psychopathologically afflicted the task must be undertaken. RFKjr’s book just doesn’t contribute to the understanding.
As an important aside, Look at the proliferation of tick borne diseases in the United States and Europe. We’re amidst a similar crisis and controversy of definitions, diagnoses and treatments. Meanwhile the People suffer, tens of millions as matter of fact.
Where’s Fauci, RFKjr, Gottlieb, Birx, Redfield et al?
Excellent. Not only the best article you’ve ever written, Mr. Unz. I would say the best article I’ve ever read on this site.
Back in the ’90’s I read Duesberg’s large book and put it on the list of required reading in my “Philosophy of Science” class of undergraduates.
My departmental colleagues, gay-friendly to a fault, were outraged to the point they did not recommend me for tenure.
many mistakenly claim that Anthony Fauci is Italian.
This Anthony Fauci mistakenly believed to be an Italian is actually a Jewish man from Jewish Brooklyn
Fauci is of Jewish descent man from Jewish Brooklyn. He grew up in Brooklyn. Brooklyn is the place of the Jew.
This is a shrewd observation.
Why don’t they? I think it’s because for them, Covid is the big one that has to be defended and they don’t want to have sections of the public seeing the striking parallels between the Covid hoax and the, for now, more widely believed hoax and extortion associated with HIV.
BTW, for me, this and the associated book, is pretty definitive:
https://drsambailey.com/resources/videos/interviews/pcr-pandemic-interview-with-dr-claus-kohnlein/
I have also wondered why the 1999 Russian apartment bombings are never brought up.
Great Ron (no sarcasm here):
Is this a subject you might want to cover in future articles?
I wonder if it might explain a lot? Leaders and the intelligence services of other nations may not want to unveil the dirty activities of a particular nations when these activities aren’t directed towards them.
—
Even if Putin was involved in this, I still like him, and think he is the greatest leader in more than a 100 years. The absolute primary task of a leader of a nation is to improve the lives of the nation’s inhabitants. No leader has overseen more improvements than Putin (Zi hasn’t ruled China that long).
No. I’m the other person who read it all. Very difficult to read, but it’s an unimpeachable indictment of the Fauci regime in US health care.
“I remember I was joking with people that although Kennedy’s book had sold over a million copies, I sometimes wondered whether I’d been the only person who had actually read it.”
You may well be the only one who read it AND wrote about it repeatedly but you can be sure that all the top dogs that did not bark read it with great concern and decided that placing a cone of silence over it was the best strategy. The word went out: “Criticize him, ridicule him on anything and everything BUT never ever mention you know what.”
Anyone who’s had any contact with doctors, hospitals or patients is not going to be impressed with this theory.
As someone else said it is a theory from a position of health, wealth and comfort. Perhaps why it seems so ‘obviously real’ to some people. Bit like the crisis actor thing to me. “It’s just impossible people can be in pain and bleed. It’s not real”. There’s something built into these theories that’s speaks of an overly comfortable framing.
Having said that, Duesberg and the others are very serious and brave scientists, and I do value them a lot, but this theory has to become something new and up to date, that takes into account contemporary medicine, not 30-40 years old material still talking about AZT.
Doubters have to demonstrate today, how the entire global system (not just Fauci-man-bad (because covid-muh-freedoms)) has been mislead by the HIV hypothesis into creating junk fake science, and then continually building on top of this junk fake science again and again, and nobody credible has noticed something is wrong or spoken up about it.
That’s quite a claim against the entire global medical world. You can’t just blame the Great Satan anymore.
You have to explain what the current antiretroviral therapies are actually doing to prolong life.
If HIV=AIDS is wrong then the current drugs don’t extend life by reducing viral load and normalizing CD4 T cell counts, then they do it by some other mechanism. In theory it’s not actually impossible, that can happen in medicine. But you have to demonstrate something on this. Or you have to demonstrate that their studies are false on this.
No one’s doing this work. It’s just the same old claims about historical anomalies-that may have boring explanations as someone’s pointed out about diagnostics being appropriate for your test sample group, and AZT.
Kennedy does believe that sars cov-2 causes the super deadly and totally novel disease covid.
He is not a covid denialist
How do we really know sars cov-2 causes covid?
Why doesn’t kennedy apply AIDS denialist skepticism to covid
The omission of Building 7 from the 9/11 Commission Report was a huge red flag for me, at the time.
The media going crazy about “kids in cages” neglected to mention it was an Obama policy.
The lies really are in the omissions.
Like Israel not signing the Non Proliferation Treaty but bleating on about Iran, who has actually signed nuclear agreements.
If covid is any indicator, maybe AIDs is simply known by the editor-level of the media, to be a no-go-zone because it’s no longer solid ground. SImple as that.
Ignore, obfuscate, deny.
How does the biggest Canadian Medical scandal, our hiv and hep c tainted blood supply in the 80’s, fit into this scenario?
It Was caused by our Red Cross accepting blood donations from prisoners in our jails, which I never believed.
So were they lying about hiv being transmitted through our tainted blood supply??
I was a big blood donator until this scandal, and have not given blood since then.
Was my first or second incident affecting my future medical decisions, my Moms wariness re meds stemmed from knowing friends who took thalidomide.
Pierre,
I just want to say that this article is the only source I have ever seen with all these links to what are probably the best videos on the subject.
It’s old news so the good work proving AIDS is a hoax is decades old.
Peter Duesberg eventually stated if we just stopped the phony “AIDS” test then AIDS would disappear.
Not the sick people but the misdiagnosis,
The same old disease conditions would exist but not the phony label “AIDS”
This same trick was used to push a phony non-existent pandemic, a phony test, PCR. A test that matches fragments of DNA by magnifying the sample over and over. And if the match is not exact they just call it a new varient.
Theperthgroup.com
Virusmyth.com
“many mistakenly claim that Anthony Fauci is Italian.
This Anthony Fauci mistakenly believed to be an Italian is actually a Jewish man from Jewish Brooklyn”
You must be Italian… in which case I don’t blame you for wishing to disown the miserable midget.
How about Gallo? Is he Jewish too? See if he was born in Brooklyn too, that would clinch it, wouldn’t it?…
Indeed.
They banished Duesberg to the howling wilderness for his book and so too his advocates.
Even now, the “mainstream” doesn’t acknowledge his ideas.
Fauci on the other was “accepted” widely despite being an obvious narcissist of the particularly malignant, acquisitive variety.
I witnessed Fauci’s Brand and Schtick from the very beginning in 1985. Even then iL Fauci was undeterred in pursuit of fame and fortune despite the clear evidence the Pasteur Institute and Luc Montagnier beat him to “AIDS Holy Grail”.
The marketing is his and theirs, not mine
Hemophiliacs are sick. They have a serious medical condition which causes lots of complications. For reasons why they may have suffered AIDS symptoms, I refer you to the discussion thread from Mr. Unz’s post on the topic from Dec. 29th, 2021. But I’ll summarize here: 1.) They take foreign blood products which themselves can be immuno-suppressive, 2.) They are often given immuno-suppressants, so that they can take foreign blood products, 3.) they often take large amounts of steroids (because they can’t take aspirin); long-term steroid use can result in infections, like PCP which is one of the AIDS-marker diseases, 4.) many of them, once diagnosed, were given AZT, which itself is essentially a death sentence.
Why is it that hemophiliacs seldom if ever contracted Kaposi’s Sarcoma, one of the early identified AIDS-marker diseases? It does make sense, within the HIV-AIDS paradigm, that different populations might contract different diseases as part of the syndrome, once their immune system breaks down, as different populations may be routinely exposed to different types of pathogens. But I have never seen a good explanation for why Kaposi’s Sarcoma only seemed to strike homosexuals.
If you are controlled opposition which Kennedy is
Then your handlers have to find some anti-establishment issue on which to hang your hat.
One that is safe to bring up and doesn’t implicate the fake Jews directly.
In the case of Kennedy that apparently is the vaccine controversy (although fake Jews have their hands all over the vaccine scam too)
I don’t know where Kennedy stands on childhood vaccines, but I doubt he’s against them.
That’s all you needs to know that that he is not on your side.
If that’s not enough,
Mr. Kennedy proves beyond a shadow of a doubt his perfidy with his whole hearted support for the mass murder of the non fake Jews of Palestine.
That said
With the fake Jew owned Trumpster nominally in charge until he’s soon replaced by the fake Jew owned Vance
I predict that in the next years we are in for some wild and crazy times here in the US
Something even more destructive than the covid fraud.
The fake Jews running the US have to pull something from their sleeve to change the subject from their wholesale slaughter of Arabs simply because they are not fake Jews.
Hold on to your hats.
Lawrence, an alternative cancer doctor from Germany has a protocol for using when the doctor recommends chemo.
This is to slow things down while the patient reviews the options. Typically the oncologist tried to pressure the patient to immediately start chemo.
Coldwell:
Cancer is anarobic it thrives in an oxygen free environment.
1) Oxygenate the body (simple exercise in fresh air).
Cancer prefers an acidic terrain.
2) alkalize the body (alkaline foods and drinks. Fresh squeezed lemon juice in water etc. many books on alkalizing the body. Use pH paper to test alkalinity.
Cancer craves sugar. A cancer cell is supposedly a mutated human cell that now uses sugar for energy instead of metabolizing oxygen.
3) eliminate sugar from the diet. Pay particular attention to “high fructose corn syrup”. Eliminate any foods with high fructose corn syrup from the diet.
If this patient has had the “turbo cancer clot shots” (COVID) then who knows?
Find the book “Recalled By Life” a medical doctor learns about the Macrobiotic Diet. He adopts the diet and his stage 4 prostate cancer, metastasized throughout his body disappears.
Search these terms:
Max Gerson – The Gerson Therapy
Macrobiotic Diet
Get the cheap DVD “The Beautiful Truth”
$ 10. It explores Gerson, the juice diet, and the suppression of this information.
Very watchable and very informative.
Book: an Alternative Medicine definitive guide to Cancer by Diamond, Cowden,
with Button Goldberg (very good reference to treatments)
Dr. Leonard Coldwell’s website:
https://drleonardcoldwell.com/
Here’s an explanation: Instead of giving people a deadly medicine to treat a harmless condition, the treatment regimen evolved to one of increasingly harmless medicines to treat their harmless condition. Boom! Better outcomes, longer lives.
I don’t know if that’s what happened. I don’t know if Peter Duesberg is right. But I’ve never seen a set of arguments that conclusively prove him wrong.
All of those articles are from the last couple of weeks, since RFK Jr. was announced as Trump’s pick for HHS Secretary. What about the previous three years? His book came out, and rapidly became a best-seller, in late 2021.
Perhaps now, desperate to stop his nomination, the big-pharma-bought media will bring out this information. But they didn’t for the last three years, even while they clearly were attacking him.
I agree with most of your comment but, I’m not kissing my ass for any reason. I plan to survive WWIII because what else am I going to do?
The main cause of AIDS is unprotected, male-to-male buttstabbing. It’s really that simple.
“[…] it ignores all mainstream medicine for the last 40 years as if it doesn’t exist”.
Saying that HIV doesn’t cause AIDS is the same as ignoring the last 40 years of mainstream medicine? One specific unproven claim, versus hundreds of other unrelated claims? That makes zero sense.
I cannot evaluate the direct evidence very well. Some of the indirect/circumstantial arguments are interesting and surely there does seem to be an “AIDS Industrial Complex” of sorts, but I would have a long way to go before I would be convinced that AIDS is a giant hoax.
Here is a circumstantial counter-argument. Gays seem to me to be a rather favored constituency among the American establishment. If AIDS were a hoax, gays would be the primary victims, both in terms of health and financial damages. Is this likely? Would they do this to their beloved gays? And given that gays are a powerful and well-connected lobby surely they would have figured this out by now? For me it seems much more likely to view all the AIDS research etc as being in service of gay interests, just as gays seem to think. Essentially we invested billions of dollars of public money to mitigate the problems with a lifestyle that had become inviable due to GRID. That model seems to fit better than the AIDS hoax model.
As far as the direct science of it, again, I am not the one to argue those points. But I think a major difficulty here is the implication that a blood transfusion with blood contaminated with HIV would be harmless. From everything I can tell, the contamination of the blood supply in the 1980s was very real and they continue to do the screening even though it isn’t entirely PC nowadays. I think there will be a major mental block in getting people to accept that HIV is harmless. Any attempt to convince people of the Duesberg hypothesis will have to deal with this point and prove it thoroughly enough to overcome natural caution.
I have nothing. but contempt for Gallo who could not isolate the virus himself so he used the sample Montaigner had sent him for consultation and then hurried to announce “his discovery” to the lay press (before publishing anything) in order to establish primacy. When “his” virus was shown to be Montaigner’s he claimed it was his but it must have been “contaminated” by Luc’s through careless storing in the fridge….
Ah, those sloppy lab assistants!
For me Gallo’s name belongs in the long list of fraudsters guilty of misconduct in scientific research. Not a star like Darsee nor as insanely idiotic as Summerlin– my top favorite, who painted rats’ coats to simulate healthy growth in transplant experiments.
Some of the articles are from 2023 when he was a presidential candidate. Obviously the MSM ignored his book (not just the AIDS topic) in 2021 as he was a “nobody” at the time, but the Wikipedia articles about his book and about himself have always featured his “AIDS denialism” prominently. So I think Ron’s idea that the MSM ignore RFK’s AIDS theory because they secretly know it’s true is simply mistaken. AIDS is no longer a major topic anyway compared to vaccines and some other topics.
HIV AIDS is one issue. It is merely the tip of the iceberg. The governance and economic structure of the Medical complexes is far larger and almost all is corrupt and sinister.
Ellis Medavoy interview with Jon Rappoport might be of interest. It’s long and covers more than false God powers of doctors but you can search it on AIDS and HIV.
https://pearl-hifi.com/11_Spirited_Growth/10_Health_Neg/04_Pandemics/01_AIDS/Rappoport__Ellis_Medavoy.pdf
I have heard about an imminent attack on Iran for at least 20 years, and an imminent thermonuclear holocaust for at least 50 years. Thus I can assure you, that all of us are going to kiss our asses goodbye well in advance any of these imminent events happen. In the meantime, most of us are getting poorer, as all the imminent threats have to be financed at our expense, and sicker as more and more poison is injected into our bodies.
On a personal note, I have not taken any jabs since 2019, but our overlords will find way to poison me, I am sure. After all, I have to eat, drink, take medicine and see a doctor once in a while. Also, as far as ass kissing is concerned, there are various other unseemly asses I need to kiss on order to make a living. So when my time comes to check out, I will be well qualified to kiss my own ass goodbye.
I have a simpler explanation for why there is no mention of the AIDS related chapter of RFK’s book in the media. The fact is that reporters probably aren’t reading his book at all and are not aware of its contents.
I have seen veteran reporters complain about this recent (post 2016) phenomenon. They will send reporters documents, court documents even, and the reporters will email them back asking what the documents say. They refuse to read anything. And to be fair, it isn’t central to their job so why bother? They instead elect to copy what another reporter said and add a little bit of exaggeration or conjecture, and the next reporter does the same thing. The “very fine people” and “inject bleach” hoaxes were instructive, a simple matter of deceptively editing statements said in public and on video. Those smears were effective for a long time and much simpler to concoct. The media is also skewing much younger and younger people also don’t want to read books.
I don’t have any opinion on HIV/AIDS but I do think that expecting reporters to be competent in 2024 is not a safe assumption to make. If you have insider knowledge of a topic and look at how reporters write about it, you always end up shocked at just how poorly they understand the subject matter they are writing about. They don’t care. AI will unironically do a much better job of reporting once it takes over officially….
Amen. Few things are more unpleasant than an unwelcome truth.
If I had gone to Regis High School, on Manhattan’s upper east side, as my mother wanted me to, I would have been a freshman three months after Fauci’s graduation. I am happy to have dodged that bullet.
The Jesuits who run Regis recently paid Fauci the formal tribute of being one of the school’s worthiest graduates. Given that the members of today’s Society of Jesus have as little connection with the Faith and principles of Saints Ignatius Loyola, Francis Xavier, and John Francis Regis as Fauci himself does, their acclaim for him is hardly surprising and highly appropriate.
Oh pah-LEEZE. I remember stories about side effects of AZT on the VERY FIRST news articles in the mainstream media when it was “approved.” But the flaming faggots wanted ANYTHING, ANYTHING…and they wanted it “yesterday,” just like CoVid bureaucrats wanted Pfizer/etc to release their ‘vaccine’ immediately.
Same thing with the anti-fat stuff. You know there are already side effects.
Oh for God’s sake, you can’t be this uninformed!
Watch the beginning of the first “Silence of the Lambs” movie.
The crazy serial killer offers a man hanging from a ceiling some “Poppers”.
It’s in liquid form. You unscrew a cap and sniff it.
There were two major homosexual magazines in the ’70s & ’80s, their main income came from advertising of poppers. So even when everyone knew that Poppers were killing people the gay community resisted banning poppers.
Amyl Nitrate is a vaso dilator, it facilitates and enhances anal sex.
It didn’t cause AIDS. A disease called AIDS never existed. It’s a “aquired immune deficiency SYNDROME” not disease.
Popers caused a skin cancer called Kaposi’s Sarcoma in the lungs, hands, and mouth of frequent users.
Patrons of gay night clubs would pass it around on the dance floor sniffing the fumes all night. It would spill on there hands and mouth.
Book:
“Death Rush; Poppers & AIDS” 1986 John Lauristen
Book II:
“Deep Sniff: A History of Poppers and Queer Futures ”
But the best info comes from Peter Duesberg’s book”Inventing The AIDS Virus ”
If this wasn’t one of only five new I would not have read it. My routine is to skip anonymous comments. Yours is outstanding. You could put a recognizable user ID on it when you make such fine comments!
No.
Claims are claims, and evidence is evidence. Even the often made claim to “scientific” evidence is fallacious. Evidence is just evidence.
This statement reminds me of pil-pul, and is an effort to fallaciously classify something as “different” because one does not like it and wants to force different rules to be applied to it. “Extraordinary” is quite a subjective term, so it removes the foundation of this argument vector even further from anything in the realm of proof.
And no, I’m not buying that there is a different quality of evidence required in, say, a murder trial versus a theft trial. It does not help clarity of thinking to confuse relative nature of crime and penalty with the nature of proof and its associated evidence.
I realize you aren’t attempting to disqualify your own thesis here, but I don’t think you should honor a bad objection with preemptive rebuttal.
The above quote is the kind of “common sense” wisdom that should be unremembered.
Yeah, I think that’s right. They extend professional courtesy to one another basically.
As I recollect, RFKjr did not specifically endorse Duesberg’s theory, but used it as an example of Fauci’s egregiously corrupt and politicized methods in suppressing a possibly viable alternate theory. I’m not surprised the media did not go there.
You have one person claiming ‘gotcha’ because I used the term ‘mainstream medicine’, the other saying I’m lumping in everything together for the same reason.
Both of you, stop trying to score brainlet points over a phrase. Focus on the issue itself
You’re saying the drugs might as well be sugar pills ? Is that what Duesberg believes ?
I respect Duesberg, but I imagine the arguments that would suggest he’s wrong are that these drugs do impact the immune system and extend life
People still do that, maybe more now, why arent they all dying of AIDS?
Prayers that you can somehow contact your son. 🙏
Does no one know to contact him?
Kary Mullis died under suspicious circumstances.
Was he killed to stop him from derailing …
Oops. I am not a conspiracy theorist. I am not a conspiracy theorist.
….”Kaposi’s Sarcoma only seemed to strike homosexuals.”
That’s a sound premise to a good question but ‘only’ doesn’t belong.
This article by A Midwestern Doctor seems relevant and discusses corruption in the medical industry:
https://www.midwesterndoctor.com/p/new-data-exposes-the-corruption-behind
Correct.
One reason gay men had some different symptoms than drug addicts and hemophiliacs is that there were other diseases circulating among the gay men due to their highly promiscuous lifestyle.
One other disease was Kaposi’s sarcoma. It’s caused by human Herpesvirus 8. But it doesn’t spread through blood or sperm so it didn’t show up in drug users and hemophiliacs.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaposi’s_sarcoma
Correct.
For the full correct story:
While I agree that journalists these days are mostly ignorant and can’t be bothered to read or write well, the problem with this claim is that book contains two examples of really bad bad-think from RFKjr.
When you are trying to take someone down you enumerate all their crimes.
So, I believe Ron is correct.
You are not being blunt. You are being rude and totally bereft of empathy and respect.
Wrong. He’s of Italian descent and grew up Catholic.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Fauci
Remember this little bastard? The same little Non-Jew White shit who popped up during every scamdemic? (AIDS, Zika, Swine, Bird, Covid, etc)
AIDS
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/drraGGQk5fM
Zika
Video Link
I would bet 10 years salary that talk is true about him being directly involved in the ‘Homo Hep-B vaccine delivery system’ which kicked off the ‘AIDS epidemic’.
Active pedosodomists ingest gobs of chemicals that boost their vitality and fend off the feces- and blood-borne filth and poisons concomitant to their repugnant deathstyle. They don’t take ‘AIDS’ [sic] vaccines [sic]. Nobody ever cured “AIDS” – because, like covid, it doesn’t exist.
Exactly. Thank you!!!
You didn’t live in San Francisco during the 1980s and saw 130 pound adult men staggering around who later died if AIDS. Greenish gray or greenish brown skin depending on race.
And yes they did infect each other with staggering numbers of new STDs. That they created Venereal warts Venereal mushrooms and all kinds of green yellow and gray grunge. Which were passed in to the hetero population. Through bi sexual promiscuous men.
As far back as the 1950s gay men has the worst rate of STD infections.According to an aunt who worked for the SF public health department. SF they filled the STD clinics for 100 years before they gave themselves AIDS.
Less than 10 percent of the tens of billions of taxpayers money was spent on either research or any kind of medical care. It was spent by grifter hustlers non profit organizations in lobbying for the homos as always Jews were heavily involved We had SF LEO newsletter later a website. Fact of the 125 largest AIDS grifter organizations 100 of those NGOS were organized and run by Jews CEOs Executive directors Jews BOD and most employees were Jews. No medics Just grifter hustler grant writers stealing the taxpayers money.
I spent most if my life in San Francisco QCIC. How can you possibly think I’m not familiar with homos and the diseases they created by their perversions.
I only comment about things I personally know about through observation and information.
Not sone speculative internet or old media article I read by a lifelong grifter who’s been bouncing around the non profit grifter sector since he finished law school.
From giving hardworking taxpayers money to lifelong welfare grifters and illegal immigrants for winter heat bills while the hard working taxpayers paid full price and kept their thermostats at 65 in New England winters. Whilst the welfare and ilegal immigrants kept their thermostats at 80.
Then on to closing down a sorely needed gas pipeline.
Then to abolishing vaccines and other medical treatment.
But because the lifelong grifter is named Kennedy the zombies of Unz believe him the way old catholic ladies believe in saints
None of you have ever seen a 130 pound man staggering around a few months before you learned he died of AIDS. Yet because of this article you now believe AIDS never existed it was all a hoax by big pharma.
Yet only 3 years ago you all believed that covid hoax was real. And believed that covid hoax was breed up at Firt Derrick MD by the US military.
And purposely brought to Wuhan China by USA military people and sprinkled around town like confetti
I never believed in Covid hoax. Never got vaccinated. Yet the Unz authors and readers fell for COVID hoax and endlessly promoted the hoax on this site. And all the ludicrous insane precautions.
So you think a person who spent most if her life in San Francisco where the homos never shut up about their lives and woes , relatives who worked in public health both treating STD gays and compiling statistics is unaware that gay men are the most STD ridden demographic in America And gave been for as long as STD statistics were complied.
You must think I’m as ignorant as you and the Unz readers and writers. Unz 2020 endlessly promoting Covid hoax. 2024 endlessly promoting Kennedy’s latest NGO grift that diseases don’t exist.
I don’t post comments about what I’ve read from dubious sources such as the NYTimes. I only post comments about what I know.
The smartest thing Trump ever did was to involve Kennedy in his election. Pulled in the ancient Kennedy worshipper old men to Trump. Old men brainwashed by the Kennedy PR machine when they were teens.
Look at yourselves
2020 ardent believers in Covid hoax. You All got multiple vaccinations wore masks afraid to shop even for food
2024 diseases don’t exist vaccines and medicines should be abolished
All because you believe a Kennedy
Hemophiliacs are sick with a bleeding disorder, but not immunosupresion. I’m not sure it’s true that hemophiliacs did not get kaposi’s but there is an association between kaposi’s and various human herpes viruses, so it may be that other sexually transmitted viruses need to be present to get kaposi’s. Why is kaposi’s treated effectively with antiretroviral therapy in aids if hiv does not lead to the immunosupresion that causes kaposi’s sarcoma then? Why does kaposi’s recurr with the cessation of therapy? This strongly suggests to me that hiv causes aids.
Bow down and worship Fauci! He is our savior! Fauci critics should be jailed.
The gays had various forms of AIDS in the 1970s It was just considered a melange of all their other STDs, drugs and unhealthy lifestyles The clinics sometimes had more gay men than women and hétero men combined. Worse STD rate than women prostitutes But then the homo activists turned it into a giant fundraiser Plus making themselves oppressed marginalized victims of a homophobic society. Instead of privileged White men.
And removed gay White men from the lowest level of the affirmative action preference Right up to Number Two right under Number One black women.
Plus many, if not most, infectious disease doctors who manage aids seem to be gay. So surely they would figure out if hiv was a hoax. These are not dumb gullible people.
Poppers are what dentists give you. And what Drs give you when you’re having a baby. Or having minor surgery and procedures. Every Dr and nurse used and gave away poppers to friends and relatives in those days. And they didn’t get AIDS unless they were gay men.
Yes. If only Unz would finally review the rest of RFK Jr’s book, The Real Anthony Fauci. Then tie it into the excess deaths that have occurred in many countries and the media silence about this. A lot more people have died than was expected. Why does he keep dancing around it like the MSM?
Furthermore, the malfeasance and abuse of power on a global scale under the guise of public health over the past several years (during the Great Plague) has been much bigger and is more current than the HIV/AIDS fraud. The continued silence here is suspicious. All I can say is
Unz is one of my favorite reverse/tail lights. He is not much in the way of a (future) head light. And his (present) interior light remains weak and often broken. RFK jr., on the other hand, has been vindicated on just about everything.
Making and publishing FOIA requests and results is a noble cause, so thank you.
Have you ever tried asking open-ended requests as opposed to very specific ones? I wonder if the specific requests are simply used as a justification (excuse) to ignore requests which do not strictly meet the letter of the government references or use the same keywords. Maybe if you ask a general request on a topic area (“all references related to HPV”) the bureaucrats are obligated to send you everything. Of course you would then need help to sift through the documents and decide if they have anything substantial.
Kimberly Ann Bergalis (January 19, 1968 – December 8, 1991) was an American woman who was one of six patients purportedly infected with HIV by homosexual dentist David J. Acer, who was infected with HIV and died of AIDS on September 3, 1990
Here are two things you have never seen in Kimberly Bergalis, who has AIDS.
Her anger: “Do I blame myself? I sure don’t. . . . I blame (dentist David) Acer and every single one of you bastards. Anyone that knew Dr. Acer was infected and had full-blown AIDS and stood by not doing a damned thing about it. You are all just as guilty as he was.”
Her pain: “I have lived to see my hair fall out, my body lose over 40 pounds, blisters on my sides. I’ve lived to go through nausea and vomiting, continual night sweats, chronic fevers of 103 to 104 that don’t go away anymore. I have cramping and diarrhea. . . . I have lived through the torturous acne that infested my face and neck – brought on by AZT.”
Bergalis, 23, is no longer the delicate but beautiful woman who appeared on national talk shows, in hot-air balloons or on windswept beaches. That was months ago, when she was the strong, mature-beyond-her-years college grad who contracted acquired immune deficiency syndrome from her dentist during a 1987 office visit.
Now, she spends her days in agony, drifting in and out of consciousness. Her body resembles a jumble of broken match sticks. She weighs maybe 70 pounds. She hasn’t eaten solid food in two months. She must be carried to the toilet. A rust-colored paste cakes her tongue.
I am no fan of Kennedy, but he may shake up some things which need to be shaken. We’ll see.
On the “HIV does not equal AIDS” controversy, I watched an early talk by Peter Duesberg (late 1980s?) and read his book a few years after it came out. I also read a few things by Celia Farber who drilled down into various controversies. In my view Duesberg’s discussion is much more epistemological than technical and therefore non-specialists can reliably engage with it. I think it still holds up after decades. Do you believe his arguments are simply flawed or if plausible, that they have been successfully refuted? No one denies that a bunch of very sick men leading outrageous self-destructive lifestyles died sad and painful deaths. I suspect it is also the case that any clinician back then would agree that if you took the prescribed doses of AZT they would kill you fairly quickly (the original package insert may explain this). Kary Mullis made it very clear that the PCR HIV test back in the day was highly unreliable (with well understood false positives), never mind that HIV might have little or nothing to do with AIDS. Therefore valid differential diagnosis and controlled trials were absolutely critical. As far as I can tell these never happened in a valid way, despite many claims suggesting otherwise.
Well I’ve been reading some of the debate documents Unz has posted . It’s been 2 years since I read Duesberg’s works that were presented here then. I was unwell at the time and it’s not like I keep all the details of this in my mind.
Reading this stuff again, I honestly don’t know what to think. (I couldn’t read one of them as it’s paywalled).
30 years ago Duesberg and Mullis made an excellent case no doubt, but other experts disagreed with them at the time and felt they were making some mistakes in their analysis. Like a like of medical areas, it’s actually a rather complex topic.
Looking at these ancient documents from the 1990s, there is a lot of argument about the details, about how many HIV positive people went on to develop AIDS, how AIDS was defined (which I suspect was for diagnostic purposes for doctors rather than a precise description), about whether or not hospital workers who were infected went on to get AIDS. About the differences in AIDS in Africa. About the reliability of testing at the time and false positives/negatives.
There is also a lot of argument about the nature of HIV itself, which is part of the group called lentiviruses, of which the similar SIV exists. Also arguments about what retroviruses are expected to do, about how long HIV has really been around, and I thought Duesberg made some compelling points.
A lot of argument about Kaposi’s sarcoma.
I was reminded about this thing called gay bowel syndrome pre-AIDS, which was obviously something doctors were observing from the mid 70’s onward and then how this term was deemed politically incorrect. There is a liberal trend to exonerate minorities from their own behaviors and medical tendencies, and we see this strongly with race in medicine today.
How much HIV/AIDS has been clouded and distorted under a kind of top down liberal/neoliberal drive to make AIDS about “everyone”, when it’s not necessarily a scientific observation, but a political impetus, is a big question.
My position is what I said. I think this theory is in dire need of a fresh update. Is Duesberg still doing interviews ? I’m not sure his statements from 30 or more years ago, “that not one life has been saved” are accurate today.
If Unz could arrange for someone with expertise on the subject (virology, epidemiology and so on) to write a modern article on this presented in reasonably lay terms, reviewing the key modern studies it would be very interesting. I think though, almost everyone who has such expertise is not going to entertain this theory to begin with.
It needs independent modern review.
Dementia is also associated with watching television and also texting.
Lots of excitement over this man.
I suspect Ron’s goal for publishing these articles is to coax some mainstream professionals out of the woodwork to make the best case against Duesberg so we can see how his explanations hold up. In doing so they have to make the best case for the AIDS hypothesis.
I didn’t say they are. I said that a lot of the treatments they receive for their hemophilia are immunosuppressive (foreign blood products, steroids, etc.).
Then why weren’t hemophiliacs getting those viruses from their tainted blood products too? Of course it’s possible that the tainted blood was mostly from IV drug users, and maybe they don’t have quite the STD load that the active homosexuals did. But you’d expect some of them to. In fact, you’d expect some overlap between those two groups.
Is that true? Anway, if kaposi’s is due to a virus, as you suggest, perhaps the anti-virals work against it, quite apart from whether it is enabled by HIV infection or not.
Thank you thank you so much. Another person who actually in reality knows about the San Francisco gays and their endless diseases. And poppers and that so many drs nurses used then and gave the poppers to their friends.
The authors and commenters live in a bubble All their information comes from the old media.
The NYTimes claimed AIDS was a heterosexual disease. And would soon spread worldwide. Many believed that lying fraud. Just as they believed every other lie published in the NYTimes since the communist revolution in 1917 Russia. Russia was a working men’s paradise 1920s to 1990s. Castro was the greatest reformer in the Americas. Blacks were pitiful oppressed angels Not low IQ criminals.
The Kitty Genoveses murder of a White woman murdered in front of her apartment house by a black man. And the NYTimes blamed her death on White neighbors who didn’t call the police. And callously ignored her screams for help. In reality the neighbors who were awakened at 2/45 am did call the police.
The endless endless claims that blacks are not a retarded criminal class. That Whites are evil oppressors . That every White victim of black crime deserved it. That blacks would not be retarded criminals if only Whites were t so mean and cruel to them.
Tawana Brawley was a sweet innocent t black girl who was waylaid by several evil White men on the way home from religion class kidnapped, detained and gang raped for days. Al Sharpton was her brave champion. Without the NYTimes endless publicity for Al Sharpton
he would have remained just another grifter black k preacher.
Anorexia and autism. Two diseases suddenly invented in the 1980s concurrent with AIDS. Heavily promoted by the lying NYTimes.
In the 1990s when Giuliani was cleaning up NYC by arresting and imprisoning the NYTimes published bi weekly attacks on his anti crime measures. Gestapo hitler KKK
Then Obama appeared out of nowhere. The NYTimes hauled him as the great messiah Barbarossa come back to save his people.
Tessa Majors Student at Columbia on the edge of Harlem by 3 black thug 8th graders who should never have been born. Those boys defended by the NYTimes and Columbia University. The Men if Unz vilified her along with the black activists. “ She was out after dark” In the middle of December when it’s full dark at 4/30 pm “ She went to buy Marijuana from the boys”
The Men of Unz repeated the buying marijuana accusation featured in the NYTimes. Definite proof of the age of Unz readers Maybe back in 1970 college students had to leave campus to buy weed. Nowadays the weed is right down the hall..
The NYTimes published maudlin articles begging readers not to be prejudiced against 8 th grade black vicious murders.
The White nurse who didn’t allow a black thug to steal the bike she rented. The NY times and the anti White media got that nurse fired and hated all over the country. As I remember the Men I of UNZ heaped much hate on that White nurse too. A black tried to steal a rental bike. The pregnant White renter grabbed it back from him and pedaled home. And it’s nation wide news. As I remember the men if unz heaped much hate in that pregnant White nurse as well as Tessa Majors.
Latest is the trial if Daniel Perry. What the anti White media never mentioned is that it was three men who saved the other passengers from deranged derelict useless black who should never have been born. One was black one was Hispanic and one, Daniel
Perry was White. But only the White man was charged. The black and Hispanic men who helped just disappeared
Then there’s the absolute hatred of White Americans and everything we’ve done since landing in Virginia in 1607. Or since Columbus landed in the Caribbean. All our fault.
The surest way to find out the truth about any subject. Just read the NYTimes. Whatever the Times claims.
The opposite is true. Since 1917.
The NYTimes has no credibility. Every word is a lie.
From glorifying Lenin Stalin Mao Castro Black panthers black criminals glorifying Al Sharpton and Benjamim Crump to getting a pregnant White nurse fired because she grabbed her bike from a black thug And defending the 8th grade black murderers of Tessa Majors.
Every word in the NYTimes is a lie.
Ah, that’s why you post so little.
Ronnie Unz sailed the ocean blue
And discovered America in 1992
It doesn’t have to be a “hoax”. It could just be incompetence. Or mass delusion.
This is the AMA’s policy on “gender-affirming care” for children:
https://www.ama-assn.org/press-center/press-releases/ama-states-stop-interfering-health-care-transgender-children
This is the policy of the American Academy of Pediatrics:
https://publications.aap.org/aapnews/news/25340/AAP-reaffirms-gender-affirming-care-policy
These are both mainstream medical organizations, two of the largest and most influential in the country. And they have gone all in on the notion that a dude can become a chick and vice-versa, and that children who are confused about thier sex (because some adult confused them)
should be treated by being shot full of hormones and having healthy organs lopped off of them.
You still trust doctors?
You apparently weren’t in Washington DC during 80s and 90s when the “white gays” made their power behind the thrones.
Are you a PA, corpsman or nurse practitioner?
Oh Christ!
Nitrous oxide the common term for dinitrogen oxide is synonymous with laughing gas and is not amyl nitrite.
Are you suggesting amyl nitrite is a commonly used tocolytic?
Kary Mullis had some very strange ideas, including:
Talking fluorescent raccoon? Maybe this guy is not a great source of wisdom on AIDS.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kary_Mullis
The crucial time for AIDS came when doctors realized it was not limited to gay men.
When the first cases started showing up in injecting drug users, hemophiliacs and blood transfusion recipients it was crystal clear it was not caused by “poppers.” It also could be transmitted from an ill pregnant woman to the baby during childbirth.
Not a lifestyle disease.
Also you do realize that people still get AIDS today? The disease still exists.
https://www.amfar.org/about-hiv-aids/statistics-worldwide/
This is easy:
1) The 50/50 male/female ratio in young recruits is what you’d expect. These people acquired the virus from their mothers. Sexual transmission through repeated anal intercourse in gay men comes only later. It is also believed that openly gay men avoided the military at the time.
2) The symptoms are different because HIV itself doesn’t cause the symptoms, it destroys the immune system, which greatly increases the risk of various AIDS-related diseases, depending on the circumstances and environment.
Very informative. Have you done one of these on the Moon landings? Those of us with an open mind on the topic would enjoy it.
The poppers theory has been debunked long ago. If anything repeated abuse of poppers may increase the risk of AIDS in already HIV+ people, but this also applies to other drugs.
Check out my comments from 4.7 years ago (April 20, 2020 at 8:34 am GMT) at this site, in which I also mentioned that this peculiar gay phenomenon, observed primarily in a few gay ghettos (Greenwich Village, Castro District, West Hollywood), was initially referred to as GRID (Gay Related Immune Deficiency). So long as that particular acronym remained the frame of reference for the rare syndrome, hardly anybody outside the gay milieu entailing rampant promiscuity cared about the issue.
Concocting or expanding upon a definition in such a manner that it became self-serving, and then inducing the established media to propagate it endlessly, was probably a necessary aspect in triggering a sense of fear in the population and then activating the government funding machinery to facilitate a public awareness campaign. The number of symptoms associated with AIDS in its definition had to be expanded so that women could also be included among the affected. As part of a “depopulation” scheme, the obsession with condoms then became an imposed norm, including in schools. This Safe-Sex campaign became so intrusive that even pornographic video productions in California were to require condoms to be worn by performers, but that was ultimately rejected in a state referendum vote in 2016.
Similarly, the mRNA mass injection campaign that began nearly four years ago required a redefinition (expansion) of the word vaccine so that these new and unproven gene therapy concoctions could then formally be classified and promoted as a vaccination, even though the basic premises associated with this term did not hold true. The initial corona virus from Wuhan mutated too rapidly for there to have been a reliable test for it, even if the virus had actually been isolated (which was not the case), and the same was true for any purported remedy to suppress it and wonder immunity. As was the case with the HIV/AIDS hoax, the public was led to perceive and accept a deceptively false paradigm in order to acquiesce in the hidden “depopulation” agenda, along with the accompanying profit motive for the benefit of a few insiders, carried out under the guise of public health.
Ignorance is bliss.
“It is likely that, when reviewing a book about Fauci, they have spoken to him or his associates, who would have told them that re-publicising the Duesberg theory would cost lives.”
Yeah, because it’s totally normal for Fauci to dictate what topics can be discussed. If he says something will “cost lives” as well as bring disrepute to him, then all lips must be sealed.
You’re clearly the kind of individual who chooses a conclusion and then looks for a hypothesis, any hypothesis, that will lend a veneer of plausibility to your preferred conclusion.
You can tell a person’s character by those who hate them. Ergo, RFK jnr is a champ.
CoViD19, or SARS CoV2 to be precise, is no joke. It has been worked on assiduously by the USA as a bio-weapon, for some time. The spike protein is a marvel of engineered malevolence.
With coronaviruses the worst thing you can do is attempt to vaccinate against them. It just drives viral resistance, with the risk of increased virulence. This is what appears to be happening with SARS CoV2. But when you add that to the experimental modified mRNA gene therapy injections, replete with toxic nano-particles of polyethylene glycate as the transfer mechanism, and use the spike, NOT the whole virus or other viral proteins, as the targeted antigen, you turn human organs into spike protein factories, hence the increasing numbers of autoimmune afflictions like myocarditis. SARS CoV2 has a long way to go, yet.
When I saw this topic here, for the first time I thought – maybe Ron doesn’t believe all these conspiracies he espouses? Maybe there’s some other motive?
Because, as other commenters have pointed out, a lot has happened since the days when the Duesberg theory (AIDS is just a social construction combining other side effects of unsafe sex and drugs) might have been credible.
The End of Virology (once again): webinar from November 20th, 2024
https://odysee.com/@Dr.TomCowan:8/The-End-of-Virology-(onceagain)-webinar-11202024:a
I think Fauci stuck around the NIAID past retirement age into the Covid period for 2 reasons:
– Fear that once he retired his reputation would tank, maybe even in the mainstream. That if he wasn’t at the office former subordinates could finally talk amongst each other what a total POS & terrible scientist he is.
– He had been still been trying to cure infections of what is called HIV. From a coveting of prizes perhaps. The official funding had finally dried up. And a possiblity in his mind was that 1-3 retroviral antigens of the famous HIV could be spliced onto the biggest RNA (normal) virus. Which happens to lurk (like malaria kind of, the only available lysing strategy available to such a big virus). He possibly decided that meant a regular virus infection might be a way to treat a retroviral infection…. A reason I am writing this is partly because Nobel prize winning Luc Montaigner in a radio interview before he passed away said most of this. That French retrovirologist actually mentioned the splicing of the gag, pol & env proteins. Incidentally, since viruses do not really have surfaces is why this type is called ‘crown virus’ but in Latin … what may or may not have ensued is shrouded in murk. For sure any such manufactured virus would attack the lungs both inside & outside and the inside infection would be bilaterally symmetric, unlike standard pulmonary diseases like emphysema, making lung machines a tempting but bad idea to treat it.
I am waiting for some ashamed and disgusted Argentinean to claim Bergoglio is in fact a Jew…
Well, the herpes virus is purely sexually transmitted. Think about it: you don’t get genital herpes from blood transfusions, nor do they screen for it.
Many of the “aids defining illnesses” are not sexual in nature however. Tb, microsporidia, etc.
https://www.unz.com/runz/the-controversy-over-mr-brigitte-macron-and-mr-michelle-obama/?showcomments#comment-6739111
– Ron Unz
Ron still believes poppers were a factor in AIDS.
We can only hope that one day we will treat those criminals in the medical-industrial complex the same way:
https://www.rt.com/news/608233-china-bank-chairman-death-sentence/
Sure, and Fauci’s influence over the American MSM gradually increased during the 1990s. For example, my article cited and linked the major open debates over HIV/AIDS in Policy Review and Reason in 1990 and 1994, and the huge 1996 NYRB review article in 1996. Offhand, I can’t remember which year Fauci torpedoed Duesberg’s appearance on that top national TV show, but it was around then. I emphasized that Duesberg’s controversial theory was regularly mentioned in the NYT/WSJ/MSM, but then stopped being covered so I assumed that the debate had been resolved.
I think Holocaust Denial is a good analogy. During the early/mid 1990s it got national airtime and high-ratings on TV shows and regular mentions in the newspapers, but then under ADL pressure it was totally banned.
Yes, that was exactly what happened to me as well, which is why I was so shocked by reading the 200 pages in the Kennedy book.
I don’t think that’s a fair criticism.
My intent was to produce a single, comprehensive article on the HIV/AIDS controversy, drawing long passages from the three or four previous articles I’d published a couple of years back, and adding some new framing text on Kennedy’s selection to run HHS. If I’d just linked to those old articles, this one would have been too short for a new article, and since people don’t usually click on links, few people would have read those. And it’s much more proper to use blockquotes for such long excerpted passages rather than pretend they’re entirely new.
As for your second point, I think that’s even more unfair. All those passages emphasized how utterly shocked and amazed I had been to discover that Kennedy or anyone other than total lunatics believed that HIV/AIDS was a hoax, as well as my total lack of technical expertise in evaluating that stunning claim, though after a great deal of reading I gradually became convinced. So all those I’s and me’s were exactly the opposite of boastful bragging. If my article had entirely been in the third person, it would sound like I was much more confident than I actually had been.
I’d never claimed that Kennedy’s HIV/AIDS theories were 100% ignored by every MSM outlet, especially the less influential ones. Indeed, I’d mentioned they were very briefly touched on in a couple of the NYT/WSJ articles I provided. But the question is emphasis.
Those 15 or so NYT/WSJ articles I linked were the biggest ones I came across, including the front-pagers, and nearly all of them appeared in the print editions. And across those 20,000 words denouncing Kennedy and calling him a lunatic and a conspiracy-nut, maybe 100 words mentioned HIV/AIDS, with 99.5% of the text focusing on other things, so casual readers probably would have missed the entire subject.
But 40% of Kennedy’s entire book was about HIV/AIDS and I was arguing that mismatch seemed extremely suspicious to me.
Here’s an analogy. Back in 2012 I published my extremely long Meritocracy analysis of America’s elite colleges, and probably 50-60% of the text focused on the gigantic over-representation of Jewish students relative to their academic performance, an over-representation of around 1,000%. This was certainly the most controversial and explosive element of my analysis.
https://www.unz.com/runz/the-myth-of-american-meritocracy/
My article provoked a great deal of online discussion and secondary coverage in the MSM, but for months virtually no one mentioned that part of the article, only discussing other parts. That’s obviously because everyone was scared to mention it.
I think that’s pretty much what happened with Kennedy’s book.
Nice try with the ad hominem against Mullis.
I did not claim Mullis was a world expert on AIDS and it is well known that he held some idiosyncratic views in his personal life. He was however a world expert on the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) technique. We know this because he invented the technique and shared a Nobel prize for that work. He said the PCR test was being misused to detect HIV and explained why this gives a lot of false positives. Things may have changed with PCR-based viral tests since then, but the main relevance of his position was in the first few decades of the AIDS brouhaha.
Thanks for your kind words. I just thought it would be useful to draw material from my three previous articles to produce a comprehensive and self-contained treatment of this topic, providing links and brief discussions of most of the outside sources I’d drawn upon.
Since lots of other commenters have complained about the length, it’s nice to know that some appreciated what I was trying to do.
Actually, that’s part of my analysis that I briefly mentioned in my article.
Gays are obviously a very organized and influential group, with their activists often willing to ferociously attack the targets of their wrath.
Indeed, under my reconstruction, they were heavily manipulated by Fauci and his allies to shut down all the HIV/AIDS skeptics like Duesberg as “AIDS Deniers” whose actions were costing gay lives. Just read some of the articles I linked.
So if the facts now came out that our AIDS policies of the 1990s had actually killed hundreds of thousands of perfectly healthy HIV-infected gays because they were encouraged to take AZT, a lethal but very lucrative poison, gay activists might become a gigantic problem for Fauci, the government, the drug industry, and the MSM. That’s why the MSM is so terrified of allowing these notions to get into wider circulation.
Can you imagine what thousands of gay activists would do to the NYT?
I think your general point is well-taken but it’s not plausible in many of the specific cases I cited.
For example, a large team of AP journalists and researchers spent at least 10 days preparing their very long hit piece against Kennedy and his book, and it seems impossible that none of them noticed that 40% of it—200 pages—promoted the theory that HIV/AIDS was a hoax.
A leading NYT journalist who’d written an entire book on Gay Rights published a very long front-page article denouncing Kennedy as a crackpot and a lunatic for writing his book, and it seems impossible that he’d never glanced at the table of contents.
Similarly, in the months after Kennedy’s book came out, he was granted several very friendly interviews in the media, including on Tucker Carlson’s show, and his hosts praised many portions of his book, demonstrating that they had read it or at least had been briefed by people who had. Yet absolutely none of them mentioned the 200 pages claiming HIV/AIDS was a hoax.
So both Kennedy’s opponents and his supporters regarded the HIV/AIDS issue as just too explosive to mention. For example, Carlson called Kennedy “the bravest man he’d ever met” and I suspect that’s what he really meant.
Remember it was only last year that Carlson revealed that almost everyone in DC was aware that Obama was bisexual and smoked crack with his gay lovers, but no one dared to say a single thing about it. I think the HIV/AIDS issue falls into the same category:
https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-mutually-assured-political-destruction/#the-terrible-secrets-of-sen-barack-obama
Nobody ever claimed that AIDS was a hoax. There were certainly hundreds or thousands of individuals whose immune system had been destroyed with the results you describe.
But the question was whether a virus called HIV was responsible, and numerous top scientists led by Duesberg were very skeptical of that.
Once hundreds of thousands of healthy but HIV-infected people were given the lethal AZT drug, huge numbers of them soon died, showing exactly the symptoms that you mentioned. If you or anyone you know had started taking AZT, you probably would have died in the same way.
According to the analysis I’m describing, after a few years Fauci and his allies drastically cut the AZT dosage then stopped prescribing it, after which the HIV deaths dramatically dropped, allowing them to declare that this medical triumph was the result of their new wonder-drugs.
LOL. Since you seem not to believe that Covid existed, why did Russia, China, America, Israel, Iran, and every other mutually-hostile country in the world together claim that it did and that hundreds of thousands or even millions of their citizens had died from it?
About the only exceptions that come to mind were an ignorant African dictator or two, who probably ascribed what was happening to Voodoo witchcraft.
The articles from 2022 you linked to weren’t really about his book (they weren’t book reviews), they were mostly about RFK’s anti-vaccine and anti-Covid activism and his current feud with Dr. Fauci. For instance the NYT piece mentions his book only briefly in one single paragraph.
So it is fair to say that they didn’t just ignore the AIDS topic, they ignored his book, and it is obvious why, to avoid boosting sales. And as I said, the AIDS topic is 30 years old and mostly of historical interest, while the current battles are mainly about vaccines.
But the 2023/2024 articles that discuss RFK’s alleged “biggest blunders” all mention the AIDS topic, and the Wikipedia articles about the book and about himself have always mentioned it. So I really don’t think one can say the MSM avoided the topic, and if they did it’s because it’s not a current topic.
I haven’t followed the meritocracy debate but if the MSM covered this debate but avoided the Jewish angle then yes, I’d agree they avoided it because it’s a politically incorrect “hot topic”. Not just because Jews are Jews but also because they are an over-represented minority, while MSM and social justice warriors like to focus on under-represented and marginalized minorities.
So I don’t think the analogy between these two topics is very strong or convincing, and I certainly don’t think the MSM secretly believe RFK is correct about AIDS.
Ryan White must be so relieved. The lifestyle factors are assistive not causative. I say that as someone who wanted to find out that Duesberg was right but sadly he is not. A swing and a miss but a good fight well fought and a conversation worth having.
Duesberg’s tale was famously told and anyone following the news in those days would know, in Spin magazine published by the son of Penthouse publisher Bob Guccione. If you’re reading 4 newspapers a day you’re doing it wrong.
https://www.spin.com/2015/10/aids-and-the-azt-scandal-spin-1989-feature-sins-of-omission/
It bears saying again and maybe many years from now Mr. Unz will stumble on this and have his thinking changed yet again: if COVID was a bioweapon it was a pisspoor one. Targeting the Iranian and Chinese elite? Pull the other one.
@Pierre de Craon:
Huzzah! Well said! I’ve pointed out Mr. Unz’s need for editing previously but he doesn’t hear. The pattern seems to be that about 10 years from now he’ll suddenly realize “I should do much shorter articles!” and then will appear a long article about the need for short articles.
I did not suggest AIDS is caused by poppers (amyl nitrate) and I don’t think this was ever a popular theory. At the beginning, Kaposi’s sarcoma (KS) or something vaguely related was identified in some AIDS/GRID patients. Since this condition is rare, some doctors assumed these cases were caused by the “AIDS virus.” Duesberg explains why this connection was scientifically en vogue at the time. No all AIDS patients have the KS symptom. Other investigators suspected the KS cases were caused by repetitive exposure to amyl nitrate in heavy users and were a lifestyle marker, note a viral symptom. This went back and forth with KS being on the AIDS symptom list and later off. I have read that KS is in the current definition of AIDS. I have not read if the trials to investigate amyl nitrate as an independent cause of this skin disorder were ever completed. There is a broader question of how the amyl nitrate might interact with a host of street drugs and pharma meds to create problems.
It seems pretty clear that Covid-19 exists, and if it was caused by a bioweapon, then it must exist.
It does, however, seem that for most people below the age of about 75 the virus (SARS-CoV-2) was no big deal and in most cases people could have reduced their risk of illness by taking Vitamin D3.
From: https://www.midwesterndoctor.com/p/why-do-doctors-give-up-on-patients
See also https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8052476/ and many other articles on the importance of D3 to the immune system and the generally low serum levels in people in the west.
I never tire of reading your stuff. In the end, it is creative writing.
And the old rule with creative writing has always been that “it takes so many words to make a point”; (too long is too long, and too short is too short; only the author knows when “enough is enough”).
You seem to hit the mark just about right most of the time.
Can you point to the original text of his statement, including some context – i.e. not just the paragraph in which that statement appeared, but a few paragraphs before and after?
I haven’t read Mullis’s biography, so I don’t know what he was talking about. Maybe he was describing a dream-state or something he saw while on LSD (he experimented). Or maybe he just said it as a joke.
All you or any of us know about the “talking fluorescent raccoon” is what you have seen cited by some source that in turn cited it from some source, and so on and so on. A trick that is often done to smear people.
At least he had ideas. More than can be said for a lot of “scientists” nowadays.
One thing that changed over the course of the 90s was the decision by the FDA to allow pharmaceutical companies to market prescription drugs directly to consumers, including on TV. Very quickly, Pharma companies became huge advertisers. I have seen estimates that those ads account for something like 15% of Network ad revenues. That’s a big revenue stream, and it’s mostly insulated from the economic cycle.
That created a huge incentive for TV networks to clamp down on any reporting that might go against the interests of Big Pharma or Big Public Health. And “public broadcasting” which gets a lot of underwriting from those same companies and from large foundations whose assets are tied up in those same companies (The Gates Foundation, for example) is subject to those same pressures.
In 2020, the year of Covid, there were no excess deaths from all causes in Australia, New Zealand, Philippines, Malaysia, Singapore, Surinam, Paraguay. Deaths from all causes is a hard number.
When you’re dead, you’re dead.
Lead author Denis Rancourt
“The lifestyle factors are assistive not causative.”
This is similar to saying smoking is an assistive, not a causative factor in small cell carcinoma of the lung.
Homosexual lifestyle factors that most US physicians (except those who were homosexuals themselves) were completely unaware of and were stunned to discover only after the epidemic 0f multiple diseases (subsumed under the label AIDS) hit were, among others:
— Multiple unprotected, seriatim sexual encounters (as a many as a dozen or more per a “typical” Saturday night) with anonymous partners, an exertion made possible by the regular consumption of various chemical stimulants and accompanied by the regular intake of the orgasm intensifier amyl nitrite.
— Multiple STD infections cyclically treated with increasing doses of antibiotics.
— Lesions of the rectum and deterioration of its long fiber muscles and sphincter due to the practice of “fisting” that passive homosexuals required to achieve orgasm after rectal sensitivity loss. Fecal incontinence and “AID bowel syndrome” adde to the risk of repetitive infections. More antibiotics…
— Drug abuse of all kinds, including alcohol.
You may call this lifestyle “assistive” if you wish, or a massive attack on the immune system whose collapse is the causative factor.
No, poppers are not what dentists give you. You’re thinking of nitrous oxide. Poppers consist of Alkyl Nitrites. They used to have some medical use as a treatment for angina, but mostly they came to be used by homosexuals and porn actors as sexual performance enhancers.
I’m pretty sure dentists aren’t giving their patients these:
“One thing that changed over the course of the 90s was the decision by the FDA to allow pharmaceutical companies to market prescription drugs directly to consumers, including on TV. Very quickly, Pharma companies became huge advertisers. I have seen estimates that those ads account for something like 15% of Network ad revenues. That’s a big revenue stream, and it’s mostly insulated from the economic cycle.”
Excellent observation.
I recall the push of organized medicine against this, not out of some sincere worry of the danger of patients medicating themselves, but mostly in fear of the loss of their control this implied, the breach of the exclusive doctor-patient relationship and loss of medical consultations.
The AMA fought tooth and nail against this but it was a puny lobby compared to the pharma giant.
The AMA ridiculed the infamous “I am not a doctor but I play one on TV” ads and people laughed, but the pharma boys laughed last, and they laughed all the way to the bank.
Well, that’s a good question. As best I can figure, it must be because all of the political leadership of these countries have qualifications in the relevant fields, researched the question, and drew the conclusion that the narrative was true.
Yeah, man. Just further proof of how dumb those Africans are. Probably some of those people don’t believe in… the official 9/11 story… global warming… the Holocaust…
Ignorant niggaz.
This fellow is the freedom information act wizard:
https://www.theblackvault.com/documentarchive/
In my house on two floors of the house are more than a dozen bookcases. In my basement are more than a dozen metal bookcases. My conclusion: the entirety of them reads as one big book — the history of man is the History of Crime.
If one reads enough, one discovers the conventionally received, conventionally accepted narrative is a big lie. This applies especially to the way major events are reported. …And the way major events are recorded and their narratives edited. The edited versions are constructed to intentionally deceive the intended audience. Edited versions conceal more than they reveal. Gradually the edited version accumulates a weight of authority when various people with vested interests repeat the tropes and meme bombs and received narratives as universally known truths — the ones “everyone knows.”
This stuff begins to appear in comics, magazines, movies, court historians weighty tomes, kids history books, everyday conversation and especially on TV — as truths as though cast in concrete. The post World War II years especially in the 1950 engaged millions, veneering for consumption, a fake gloss over the awful facts which were intended to not only make the entire disaster palatable but to deceive the public.
Military men as a rule knew otherwise. But they, if important and well known, had accidents! Careful editing and triaging saw to it certain books were given short shrift and others were given foot high endorsements. I have a small collection of books written by men who just wanted to rid themselves of bad memories. Their narratives make you weep. Like my dad used to say, “bollox” when the family was watching Walter Cronkite on TVs Twentieth Century. He was in Palestine with the British Expeditionary Force, sent to quell the violent clashes between the Zionist settlers and the Arabs during the 1937 – 1939 Arab Uprising.
Countries and their citizens of course compose and consume narratives vetted by the ruling elites. Except lies are impossible to conceal forever. Carcasses when kicked reveal a seething mass of squirming maggots.
Thanks. Are there any greatest hits?
Some guy named Russ Kick used to have a bunch of weird FOIA stuff posted.
“Duesberg’s tale was famously told and anyone following the news in those days would know, in Spin magazine published by the son of Penthouse publisher Bob Guccione.”
Thank you thank you thank you! I began publicly mocking “AIDS” in 1990 and I subscribed to Spin back in those my high school days because it covered obscure bands neglected by Rolling Stone. I loved those ‘AIDS is not caused by hiv’ articles: they apparently gave me the courage to mock AIDS back when it was extremely dèclassé to do so. I didn’t back then and still to this day never knew ANYONE who died of “AIDS”, ditto for “covid”, as both are media-borne hoaxes. The media were so, so much freer in my youth.
There might not be such a category as greatest hits. It is painstaking work. He has published a couple of books and I have one on my wish list but I have not purchased it yet.
Please don’t stop there. Three or four titles at least!
Don’t do something because the outcome may have unpalatable consequences is there in a thousand aphorisms in dozens of cultures and their languages. People easily persuade themselves undesirable outcomes will not attend them!
Women demand for example, abortion. There are protections including abstention. And of course there are degrees of unpalatable consequences. As well there are advisable to practice admonitions, for example wash your hands after you use the facilities. Do not put your hands in your mouth, or coins, or pencils, or certain salads left sitting in the sun. A universal admonition used to be moderation. One does not have to be religious to appreciate the wisdom inherent in the 10 Commandments.
We are constantly asked to sympathize and pay for others mistakes. Why? Most mistakes can be forgiven, sure — however if society encourages say, promiscuous behaviour it won’t stop. Divorces harm children, and society bears the costs of raising children without moms and dads at home.
Old fashioned? Maybe. But those afflicted with consequences are not the sole bearers of these outcomes. Societies and some religions enabled their survival by forbidding behaviours with consequences their neighbours would have to bear.
Opprobrium has limits, one supposes, but obviously permissiveness has limits too. The best thing one can do is set a good example. Children copy what they see, copy what they hear, and reflect in their behaviour the examples set by the larger society. Easy to say of course. Advice is easy to give and hard to take.
Look at us! What do you see? What do you hear? Who are our examples?
I can’t believe 3 Unz readers didn’t get from the first sentence that this was a joke. You better reply to them and let them know you’re OK. lol
Now we come to the crotch of the matter. Are you stupid or a pathological liar? Or the world’s stupidest pathological liar? You know you could always get poppers over the counter, right WSPL?
I never was vaccinated. We did buy 12 tubes of Ivermectin from a vet supply house in Maryland Horse Country.
I rely on the NYTimes for information.
Whatever is in the NYTimes
The opposite is true
Sorry, I was there in San Francisco. There was some type of new gay STDs all during the 1970s in San Francisco. Along with herpes venereal warts and mushrooms and many many varieties of gnorrhea and syphillis. All sorts of grunge and gunk.
San Francisco always had many many gay prostitutes . From runaway street kids to handsome expensive call boy escorts and live ins. Prostitutes are often involved in many other crimes. Especially the lower levels. They were way underweight like 5’10 120 skin and bones greenish gray skin Brown skinned blacks with gray overlaying the brown. And they died. Because young men often don’t have stable jobs with insurance they overwhelmed the free SF County Hospital.
And it wasn’t just gay prostitutes. It was SF homos dying long before Jim Jones took his followers to Guina
We lived in our married with kids normal lives But sone 30 year old homo at work or waiter in a restaurant we frequented whatever would lose 60, 70 pounds in a year and die. All during the 1970s.
The gays kept it quiet until they realized they could make billions blackmailing the state local and federal governments for money for AIDS awareness
That’s where all the money went.Not for medical workers. Not for research. But into the pockets of the
AIDS awareness and counseling heavily Jewish grifter hustler schnorrers of the 125 largest and most profitable richest AIDS NGOs 100 of them were Jewish
Money money money who benefits. Grifter hustler schnorrer NGOs.
Do the Men of Unz ever make a comment they haven’t scrounged from the internet? It’s as though you went from your baby playpen to retirement with no life experience at all.
That happened when all the merit selected American White men Drs who got into medical school retired.And were replaced by affirmative action women and Chinese and Indian immigrants afraid to stand up for their profession and patients. So the Drs caved to the insurance companies hospitals and pharma companies.
Coincidentally affirmative action caused a huge drop in physician and surgeons wages..
I wonder who benefitted??
Affirmative action doesn’t just affect the White Americans who are discriminated against. It’s everyone of us who has to deal with the affirmative action workers Whoever they are.
That’s an excellent point, and it certainly relates to the Opioid catastrophe as well as the Vioxx disaster that I wrote about a dozen years ago:
https://www.unz.com/runz/chinese-melamine-and-american-vioxx-a-comparison/
LOL. Since the NYT is 100% sure that AIDS is caused by HIV, I guess that means you agree that HIV/AIDS was just a medical media hoax.
Also, the NYT has always maintained that JFK was killed by a deranged lone gunman named Lee Harvey Oswald, so you must be convinced that he instead died in a conspiracy.
Maybe your reverse-NYT rule is actually more reliable than I’d considered…
Thank you Ron for your continued daylight on the HIV-related revelations from Bobby’s book. Having devoured that book in the winter of 2022-2023, reading those pages the first time was a psychic shock from which, like the scamdemic itself, I am still recovering. Also got Bobby’s Wuhan book when it came out but the bioweaponry stuff is frankly too much for me and I had to put it down.
Bobby getting confirmed will be a miracle. Neck deep as we are in the Horse-as-Senator stage of our imperial decline and cultural decadence, I am not holding my breath.
Thanks as always for this great site and for your courageous emphasis on the issue. ☮️
It’s 2024 not 1974 or 1984 when homos were giving each other AIDS. 50 years ago poppers could not be sold over the counter. Amyl nitrate was a category 4 medicine then.
Now 2024 amyl nitrate is de jure legal to sell without prescription. But de facto no pharmacies stock it either on the shelves or in the pharmacy section.
AIDS was 40, 50 years ago when amyl nitrate wasn’t an OTC med
Look, I know they’re paying you to push ‘depopulation’ agenda conspiracy theories, but there’s no need to sound so pseudo-intellectual about it. Just ranting ‘depopulation agenda’ is good enough for the Men of Unz.
I’m sure I never read anything about the Kennedy murder in the NYTimes. As for AIDS I did see a few men lose 60, 70 pounds in a year and heard they died. Whatever it was, it killed gay men. Not hetero men not women.
You must be certain the Times claims Oswald killed Kennedy. Unusual the Times didn’t follow the CPUSA party line about Oswald.
Your indignation is righteous but ill-informed and you are given to overly passionate exaggerations, like this:
“That happened when all the merit selected American White men Drs who got into medical school retired. And were replaced by affirmative action women and Chinese and Indian immigrants “
When did that happen? All “merit selected American White men Drs” retired at a given signal and “affirmative action” docs replaced them?
In fact the majority of non-White physicians were not affirmative action minorities from the US (many of whom did not make it through med school) but FMGs (Foreign Medical Graduates) who had a pretty good training in their own countries and went on to ace post-grad ed in the US. One of the best abdominal surgeons in the MW (in Chicago) was Iranian, one of the best nephrologists in Rochester, MN was an Iraqi, etc.
Some of the worst White physicians were those who couldn’t even pass the entrance exams and went to the diploma mills in the Caribbes— remember the med students Reagan “saved” in Grenada? I wouldn’t go to any doc who graduated from there…
The problem the US had was the dire lack of physicians in vast underserved areas. The well-qualified White physicians all wanted to practice where the money was—large urban areas, not Appalachia, W Virginia or Arizona. They also preferred the more lucrative “procedural medicine” specialties (surgical) to the less remunerative “cognitive medicine” (internal medicine, endocrinology) but if cardiac surgery was above their talents they settled for what their colleagues contemptuously called “skin hacking” (dermatologic surgery). MONEY.
The US offered a deal to FMGs in the US without a visa: sign a contract to practice medicine in one of the three following locales and at the end of 5 years you get the green card: the penitentiary, system, a Native American reservation of a VA center.
At the end of the contract those who were any good (and not lazy) moved out and went into private practice to make twice the money the government had paid them. Those who preferred lower pay for less work and guaranteed job security for life (like Post Office employees) stayed on. That shows why the quality of care in the VA system is so abysmal.
In the Joe Rogan clip, Duesberg is vague about modern drugs, doesn’t have a great answer.
Guess this has also been posted before in these threads:
Video Link
Parts of it demonstrate reasonable ideas, like expected curves, infectious vs lifestyle disease and weaknesses in the Durban Declaration which may have some level of validity.
But he’s still talking about AZT in 2015.
And what does AZT change anyway ? When it was used, if AIDS itself is real and incurable and fatal, in absence of better drugs at the time, these people were going to die anyway.
I can’t tell from the CDC chart slide what’s happening. There’s a decline, but there were interventions for HIV, public education, emphasis on protected sex, and eventually the modern ART regimens appeared.
He also says not one health worker or researcher or wife of hemophiliac has ever got AIDS from exposure to HIV. That’s a big claim, and it’s this sort of thing that needs to be examined. And surely it needs to be broken down by pre-ART/post ART eras. Unless one assumes HIV is harmless and the drugs are just one big scam.
As for differences between African and American/European AIDS, and I’m not familiar with what all the differences are, but there is an article that partially addresses this: (‘mainstream science’):
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.288.5474.2153
Certain diseases are more prolific in some populations, and less in others.
although the authors do cite someone saying Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia autopsy data is a ‘conundrum’.
This topic is very messy and complicated. It really needs expertise and a fresh examination as I said. And although I take some of Duesberg’s early work seriously, in the absence of some stunning overturn of decades of medicine, HIV=AIDS today is still the only sane thing to bet on.
Unz said,
Well exactly the same thing can be said for HIV/AIDS. Why hasn’t China, Russia and Iran pulled out of the global AIDS consensus if it’s an America scam? And historically some people in those countries did believe it was a ‘Western construct’, ‘foreigner’s disease’. The only country that briefly did was South Africa (and with Duesberg as a big influence) and it was a political disaster and looked ridiculous.
Mr Unz’s purpose seems mainly didactic to me rather than creative. Hence the large number of repetitions. Its because the current content of blogs disappears into the past relatively quickly, and few except historians want to trawl through the back lot. Thus it’s necessary for a continual refresh in current articles.
In order to test my recollection, I dug out my copy of ‘The Real Anthony Fauci’ by RFKjr. My recollection was correct. In his book RFKjr clearly states he has no position on the HIV/AIDS question:
“CHAPTER 5 THE HIV HERESIES
I hesitated to include this chapter because any questioning of the orthodoxy that HIV is the sole cause of AIDS remains an unforgivable – even dangerous – heresy among our reigning medical cartel and its media allies. But one cannot write a complete book about Tony Fauci without touching on the abiding – and fascinating – scientific controversy over what he characterizes as his “greatest accomplishment” and his “life’s work”.
From the outset I want to make it clear that I take no position on the relationship between HIV and AIDS. I include this history because it provides an important case study illustrating how – some four hundred years after Galileo – politics and power continue to dictate “scientific consensus,” rather than empiricism, critical thinking, or the established steps of the scientific method. It is a hazard to both democracy and public health when a kind of religious faith in authoritative pronouncements supplants disciplined observation, rigorous proofs, and reproducible results as the source of “truth” in the medical field.” (p178)
It’s amyl nitrite, not amyl nitrate. And you are wrong. It was apparently widely used by homosexuals fifty years ago. They were probably getting prescription stuff from Dr. Feelgoods. In any event, other alkly nitrites were sold openly in discos and other gay haunts. They were advertised in magazines and newspapers that catered to that “community”. And they were called “poppers”. This has been widely documented by lots of authors, including gay authors who were familiar with the milieu, including gay authors who are onboard with the HIV-causes-AIDS orthodoxy.
More recently, Pharma companies and organizations like the Gates Foundation have taken to directly underwriting news/current-events publications and TV news programs. The Gates Foundation in particular has done this a lot. The gave a huge grant to PBS’s News Hour for health care coverage. They sponsored healthcare coverage in the Guardian and on the BBC. Also (I think) in the Atlantic. James Corbett described this in a very good video series he made on Bill Gates). As with all James Corbett productions, he provides citations.
https://corbettreport.com/gates/
And of course, Pfizers direct support of TV news and current events shows like The Today Show, 60 Minutes, and other similar programs has become the stuff of meme-legend.
Brought to you by Pfizer:
Same as the climate hoax people do.
So you are an anti White racist a leftist democrat who believes in affirmative action discrimination against White Americans. Especially emphatically White American men
I’m a White Nationalist who believes all jobs from Drs to dishwashers belong to merit qualified White Americans. Not to any type of non White foreigner.
Go home. Practice medicine in their own countries .
I believe the qualification to vote or hold any kind of job own any kind of business should be 8 quarterings. All 8 great grandparents born in the USA.
Many people used poppers in the 1970s and 80s. . Especially Drs and nurses. Who gave them to all their friends. Who gave the poppers to other friends.
The only people who watch PBS The Today Show 60 minutes and read the Atlantic are in the 70 to 95 year old age range.
Yeah-you’re a race-hating fuckwit, but at least you’re honest about it.
Well, at least we agree there. My cousin got horse paste, his sister got ivermectin from a sane GP before it was literally banned from dispensing, and I used fluvoxamine and Vitamin D. No modified mRNA gene shots, of course, but work forced two AstraZeneca shots. It IS a depopulation agenda, make no mistake.
That small collection is at our summer home. Our Summer house is on an island in Lake Nipissing in Ontario…
We cannot access it until spring. One in particular written by a British soldier, his family name Powis if I remember correctly was particularly moving. He had it self published because he was told it would be demoralizing for people to read it. No wonder — no heroics at all. Still nowadays these personal accounts are on the Internet. War is far from romantic. My father said he wouldn’t wish it on his worst enemy. Remember these were 23 year old young men killing other 23 year old men. A terrible fate killing! He said nothing could prepare one for seeing a friend disappear in an explosion of dust and guts.
Isn’t cum an immune suppressant? It makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint. If so, could excess bodily exposure to cum open the door to all kinds of opportunistic pathogens? I think Null and Mullis touch on this in the video conversation they recorded.
First comes the glib wisecrack to establish credentials as one of the cool and the hip.
Then the smug assertion of faith in the (((Narrative))), with a minor concession or two at the fringes in the manner of what would pass for Deep Thought at CNN or the Times.
All leading to our sadder but wiser intellectual striking a heroic pose in front of a full-length bathroom mirror.
I bet your mom is suitably impressed.
I appreciate your measured, carefully framed response. I am quite sure, however, that had I been asked to summarize or epitomize my criticisms, I would not have chosen the locution “boastful bragging,” especially in light of the approbatory content of my earlier comment’s second paragraph.
On the contrary, for mainstream hospitals and allopathic physicians, not to overlook their associates in Big Pharma, the AIDS/HIV hoax is a lodestar of contemporary “medical” practice.
Put otherwise, AIDS has indeed passed from the realm of tabloid publicity, but instead of becoming an irrelevance, it has—in common with such deceits as the so-called Holocaust and the fungibility of sexual identity—been graven in stone as unchallengeable doctrine.
“So you are an anti White racist a leftist democrat who believes in affirmative action discrimination against White Americans. Especially emphatically White American men’
You got me, genius. Now please go and do someone else.
No.
It’s definitely less than a 50-50 shot though. Polymarket says .67. That’s nuts.
https://polymarket.com/event/which-trump-picks-will-be-confirmed
Theoretical physics is a fascinating subject that introduced us commoners to the big bang and black holes. I would be cautious about venturing from that discipline into epidemiology, virology, immunology, pathogenesis, molecular biology and drug molecular modeling.
So you have self-annihilated by defaulting to the “Experts”, without self-informing, without doubt and instead upholding the tenets of Medical Racketeering. You did not think that your own immunity is what is your best defense.
The evidence has left the train station and the Media takes over, only to run out of the peddled dis-info, leaving scapegoating and ignorance.
Keep buying.
Oh you stupid lying fluffypoo. First, y’all lazy motherlovers need to recognize that it’s “nitrite” not “nitrate”.
And it’s “Schedule” not “Category” fluffypoo. I think you’re a serial liar so if you say something I assume it’s a lie. Poppers were never illegal. They could be bought by mail or in head shops and whatever stores you people frequent.
What the goddab’m hellafella fuckgrontine is it with you and doctors and dentists and itinerant lithotomists giving out poppers to their friends (ignoring for the moment that that never happened)? Is it a sex fantasy? Is having a Doctor Popper fantasy the only way you can perform?
That is ridiculous, like just about everything else you write. I’m sure the median age of people who read/watch legacy media outlets like those skews older, but it is not the case that “the only people who…………yada, yada, yada”. You imply that those outlets are irrelevant because the viewers are old? You think Big Pharma is wasting it’s money buying those media outlets? Those people tend to be more influential. And other media gets its cues from them as well.
Ryan White was taking AZT:
I will also note that that story says that White began to feel better after taking AZT, although if so his would have been a fairly unique experience. Most people who took AZT in those days reported feeling awful after taking it. It is possible that that newspaper article was just lying about that, because AZT was something that could not be questioned.
AZT is a chemo drug that was never used for cancer treatment because it was too harsh. Like all chemo drugs, it was meant to be taken in short targeted rounds. AIDS patients were put on continuous maintenance doses of AZT.
Nutritional medicine is particularly important at this time due about 2/3 – 3/4 of a century of obstruction and frauds against a more honest and scientific version, by “mainstream medicine” and (p)harmaceutical cos.
From before we are born to the day we die, many/most us suffer serious errors in nutrition and treatment.
It is increasingly being recognized that the GALT (Gut Associated Lymphoid Tissues) are very important to the proper functioning of the immune system. It is perhaps not surprising that men whose sexual practices constituted a prolonged, invasive attack on those same tissues suffered immune collapse.
No sir, it’s the *same* criticism. The article is too long, as is your response above. As an exercise, it may behoove you to practice writing the shortest version of your article possible, simply for the sake of developing the “40,000 foot view” so you may be able to zoom in and zoom out as necessary. Right now it’s all zooming in.
The novelist who endeavors to write poetry and the poet who endeavors to write long-form both become better writers in the process.
1974 was exactly 50 years ago.
Not everyone lives in a retirement home as you do. Old media for very very old people.
What is an HIV/AIDS denier? Or HIV/AIDS denialist?
Peter Duesberg is a fine scientist, I have read his book and examined some of the scientific papers upon which it is based. From the CDC (Center for Disease Control) in Atlanta I have requested the scientific papers that prove the causal relationship between the HIV retrovirus and the IMMUNODEFICIENCY SYNDROME commonly known as AIDS. They have never sent even references to the peer-reviewed primary scientific literature that establishes the causal relationship because they can’t. Such papers do not exist.
I have seen all four of the films made by Coleman Jones and colleagues in Toronto. Film #3 in the series is most telling. Although no strong evidence exists for any simple causal relationship what is clear is that the HIV claim is erroneous by the standards of microbiology and virology.
When I saw the glowing review of George Miklos, a colleague and a fiercely honest scientist, of Harvey Bialy’s book on the scientific life of Peter Duesberg I bought and read Harvey’s book. I have also read Celia Farber’s superb article in the Lewis Lapham “swansong” issue of Harper’s magazine, last March, I believe. Rebecca Culshaw’s paper on why she quit AIDS statistical research and Dr. Geschachter’s unpublished ms about African AIDS, accepted by the editor and then rejected both substantiated my reluctance to accept the glib “HIV/AIDS” term. I found all of these readings far more convincing than any literature proported to show a HIV-AIDS causal connection.
I heard a talk by a “medical scientist” from the Harvard Medical School at a meeting at Roger Williams Univ in Rhode Island from a supposed expert who attempts to design an HIV vaccine. He claimed the HIV virus mutates a billion times in 48hours. It became clear that the HIV virus has no clear identity. The HIV tests, nearly always positive for pregnant women, that vary significantly in the US, Europe and Australia are particularly disturbing. My son-in-law, James di Properzio spent several months researching this story for the Common Review (the Great Books Foundation in Chicago). His findings were consistent with Celia Farber’s and after encouragement from the editor the board reviewed and rejected his draft.
“Science is the search for truth” said David Bohm, “whether we like it [the truth] or not. From my readings, discussions with knowledgable scientists close to the story, I simply conclude, as does Kerry Mullis, the Nobel Lauriate who wrote a foreword to Duesberg’s classical work that there is no evidence that “HIV causes AIDS”. I have no special expertise. I simply seek the evidence for scientific claims, especially when they have dire consequences for the science itself and the treatment..not just medical..of so many people.
I have observed that the closer one comes to the study of humans the shoddier the quality of the scientific evidence. Maybe that is one of the reasons that I work with bacteria and protoctists (the eukaryotic microorganisms and their immediate descendants exclusive of plants, animals and fungi). The vast majority of these are harmless to human health.
Although I have written about the natural history of the anthrax bacterium, Beethoven’s and Nietzsche’s syphilis and the work of Hentry Taylor Ricketts with insect-borne pathgens (eg.g, ticks carrying Rocky Mt Spotted fever), in general I avoid the last 3 million years of evolution and any other studies thatrequire detailed knowledge of mammalian, including human, biology. Why? Because political bias, hearsay and gossip are inevitable whereas in the first part of the evolution story (from 3800 until 3 million years ago) politics intervenes far less obtrusively. In pursuit of the story of life and its effects on planet Earth one can be more honest if the earliest atages of evolution are the objects of study.
And this way I can lay low and not be “name-called” (i.e., “denialist”) because I ask hard questions and require solid evidence before I embrace a particular causal hypothesis. Indeed, is not my attitude of inquiry exactly what science is about?
Lynn Marigulis
AZT was never technically removed as a treatment I found out.
It’s been ‘superseded’ by other drugs in the combination regimens but can still be used for HIV sometimes. Apparently they can give it to pregnant women, although I doubt it’s a first choice.
They call AZT a Nucleoside Reverse Transcriptase Inhibitor, of which more drugs in this group were made available from 91-95ish.
So in that period several drugs with the same mechanism of action were the treatment.
If the conventional HIV model is right, then HIV positive people were being kept alive by these drugs from 89-96.
I think with one exception, this group of drugs seems to be the treatment until 96/97 when the protease inhibitors appear and then the combination HAART therapy takes off. And looking at another video, I think it’s the same CDC slide in Duesberg’s video, that’s when there’s a huge drop in AIDS mortality when these drugs appear. Unless one thinks it’s all fake.
If HIV=AIDS is wrong, one would expect lots of confirmed cases of HIV positive people who used no ART drugs at all without this rare genetic anomaly that makes them not get AIDS and survived. Population statistics, like Duesberg relies on, are too abstracted. Needs case studies.
There’s a couple of recent candidates I that one can find, and many people in the past who have claimed this, but no one knows if their story is lies, or who’s alive anymore. Where are all the healthy HIV infected people who never took the drugs and never got AIDS? According to Duesberg they should be so numerous their existence would easily overturn the current model. And it hasn’t in 40 years.
There are a number of stories the other way round sadly, about doubters with HIV apparently and refused treatments and died.
Ron, you ask about the apparent disconnect between the equal HIV prevalence among male and female teenage military applicants in the mid 1980s and the 90% male incidence of AIDS around that time.
The male predominance of AIDS circa 1981-85 reflects the fact that the earliest HIV infections (1977-82) occurred mainly in gay men associated with the commercial gay scene in large cities – the bars, clubs, bathhouses and sex-on-premises locations. A little later it started spreading among networks of injecting drug users (who were mostly but not exclusively male), and then to a lesser extent heterosexually – mostly to women with male partners in the first two risk groups.
While the initial AIDS cases were 90% male, for the last 35 years cases of AIDS have hovered between 70-80% male (currently 77%). This closely matches HIV prevalence and incidence rates which have also stayed in the same range. Currently new HIV diagnoses are also 77% male, although it varies slightly from year to year.
So why did Burke et al find equal HIV prevalence rates among teenage military recruits, if the prevalence in the country as a whole was more like four to one? In fact, prevalence was higher in 17 year old girls than boys, but by age 19 it was higher in boys – the roughly equal prevalence was an average over the whole group aged 16-19.
The answer is that teenage military recruits are not typical of the US population with regard to HIV risk factors – homosexually active boys and injecting drug users were discouraged from applying to the military, while heterosexually active girls were not, so you can expect that teenagers in the first two categories will be underrepresented relative to girls in the third. And remember that the bulk of HIV infections at the time were occurring in gay men aged 20-50 associated with the bars, bathhouses etc. 17 year old boys don’t go to those establishments, which are age barred. Most sexually transmitted HIV in teenagers is a result of sex with an older male. There are a lot more girls having sex with older males than there are boys.
You always need to be careful extrapolating prevalence and incidence rates from a very narrow demographic to the population as a whole, which is the problem with this argument.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2319667/
You also ask why different risk groups got a “different form of AIDS”.
This is not really true. All people with HIV, regardless of how they got it, have the same disease: a progressive depletion of CD4+ cell mediated immune function, ultimately resulting in one or more characteristic opportunistic infections.
There are some differences in the frequency of the various opportunistic infections depending on risk group, geography and other factors, but Duesberg exaggerates these differences. Most of the common AIDS defining opportunistic infections like PCP, MAC, toxo and end organ CMV disease occur at much the same rates regardless of risk group. There are a couple of notable exceptions: the main one being Kaposis sarcoma, which is much more prevalent in gay men with AIDS than among other risk groups.
KS, and especially the fulminant form seen in advanced AIDS, is an opportunistic disease caused by the human herpes virus type 8 (HHV8): normally this infection is controlled by an intact immune system, but when this fails the cancer can arise. The reason gay men got KS so much more than other risk groups was that they had a higher prevalence of the underlying HHV8 infection: HHV8 is sexually transmissible through semen and saliva, and prevalence was much higher in sexually active gay men with HIV than among other groups. It is occasionally spread though blood, but when it is the blood needs to be very fresh, so transfusion recipients (who usually receive blood that’s been stored for some time) and haemophiliacs (who received highly processed blood products) were rarely infected with HHV8. Unfortunately, though, HIV survived this storage and processing quite well, until the introduction of heat treatment of blood products around 1984.
There were very few male and female teenage military recruits from small rural towns showing HIV positive. In fact there were 11 entire states which recorded no HIV cases at all among their teenage recruits (50,000 total tests in those states). Most of the cases came from a small number of inner city districts in the Northeast and the South, which were experiencing an explosion of HIV among injecting drug users at the time. While some of the cases might have been injecting drug users, I suspect that many of them were unsuspecting sexual contacts of drug users, which is why there was a disproportionate number of girls among the HIV positive recruits compared to the male female ratio in the country as a whole.
True. A good point.
There are other viruses for which no vaccine has been created because they change their protein coat, such as hepatitis C and herpes viruses. Gonococcus among bacteria also uses a similar strategy to outwit immune systems.
I don’t live in a retirement home. Although I am beginning to suspect that you live in a mental hospital.
I’ve known plenty of people – younger than me – who listen to NPR, for example. The Atlantic is read by upper middle-class people, or those who aspire to be such.
Given that almost everything you write is wildly wrong, I can only assume you live in a box on a street corner and have little interaction with anyone normal.
Good for you; you know subtraction.
Never the less, you ignored my point: i.e., you were ignorant of the fact that things called “poppers”, containing alkyl-nitrites, were sold commercially and readily available (in those places where they were desired) in the 1970s.
Luc Montagnier later began looking at some of the amazing properties of water. His independent study, “Electromagnetic Signals Are Produced by Aqueous Nanostructures Derived from Bacterial DNA Sequences” may be a serious game-changer.
Well worth a closer examination. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luc_Montagnier
In 1996 I went to the main SF public health clinic on 7th St. to get tested for HIV. You had to be interviewed by a physician first. It was a gay doctor. He asked me, “do you play with boys or girls?” I answered girls, and he said, “don’t worry about,” and I left.
Neither RFK Jr, Duesburg or Mullis delve into the origin question. Here is a Timeline covering origin , response and treatment, some of it from RFK Jr book. Very interesting Fauci and Redfield had major roles in both COVID AND AIDS and used similar tactics
https://pete843.substack.com/p/aids-timeline
No one younger than 60 listens to or watches NPR ABC CBS NBC MSNBC CNN or even FOX. The Atlantic and New Republic are Jewish old communist publications read by elderly pretentious woke faggot progressives.
The kind of people who wept when MLK was killed. And wept again three weeks ago when Kamala Harris lost And donated money to every progressive cause that cane along. From American Indians to save the pitbulls to gay marriage to transgenderism to the latest progressive cause legalizing adults to have sex with children as young as five.
That’s the ancient Atlantic New Republic and The Nation readers.
And yet again, you beclown yourself:
I have to admit that after reading the kindle edition in a day or two, I ordered three hard copies. The first was for myself, the second for my vaxxed mother and the third for my unvaxxed father. (Interesting that vaxxed is recognized as a term on the Unz.com system but unvaxxed is not…) I was fairly certain that my tv-oriented mother would not read it and I was right. My unvaxxed father developed dementia around the time that I sent it to him. I also read it in the hard copy and had no problem with it. Perhaps emil has dementia…
Excellent article. Great read
Tell us more about Alden Electric. There are several in the U.S. but none of them so far fit your description. Are any of your employees faggots? You sure like that word. Do they read your posts here? As you know I think you’re a serial liar and if you say something I assume it’s a lie.
Well rafted article making a compelling case! Ron’s skill at reading his articles out loud is also excellent, and much appreciated here. I manage a LPFM radio station (WEJP-lp) and often play his readings on the radio.
Thanks for the good work!
No wonder!! I always wondered why he didn’t get AIDS. Larry Bird cried when he heard about it.
“ hundreds of thousands of perfectly healthy individuals found to be infected with HIV””-Ron
Gay men are not healthy. They eat Bit of each other’s poop During “sex” and 70% of them have anal worms
That’s what NPR claims.
Are you so retarded you think I would use my real name and the name of the company on this lunatic asylum of crazy old CNN NPR watching old men?
You’re like a vicious dog tied up and behind a fence snarling and barking at passerbys Why the interest?
Don’t forget anal warts mushrooms and fungus. Even back in the 1950s city and county public health departments were very well aware of this.
This is not the first time you said you would take something seriously if four Nobel laureates were on record saying it. Where does this number four come from anyway?
Like, suppose we had just three Nobel Laureates, but also the dude with the all-time high score on Jeopardy, as well as some broad who always completes the Sunday Times crossword puzzle in record time.
Would that be good enough? Or no dice…
Oh, and don’t you know that the number four is considered unlucky in Chinese culture?
Isn’t this a variant on a basic philosophical enigma? If four Nobel Laureates say something in the forest and nobody can hear them, then…
You’re right.
As far as the White lady who grabbed her Bike and left. She had every right to do that. However, if she was pregnant, it’s better off if she’s not working.
It’s what a marketing research firm claims.
You are a ridiculous person. It’s not worth talking to you.
Magic Johnson started combination antiretroviral therapy in 1994. He was able to access this a couple of years before this treatment became widely available because his physician was conducting drug trials of the treatment. He rarely discussed which particular drugs he was taking, but in 2011 he was on a combination of AZT, 3TC, abacavir and boosted lopinavir.
https://www.newsweek.com/magic-johnson-20-years-living-hiv-67567
Although Kennedy rightly pointed out the COVID vax hoax, his accusations regarding AIDS is nonsense. It (AIDS) DOES exist!
But probably not a single virus. It is most likely a combination of HIV virus + ? The mechanism is not understood by the smartest of the most studied virologists or infectious disease specialists. It is not clearly or specifically “autoimmune” either. First off, “autoimmune” has become a bastardized term – inserted “as needed” usually just to sound smaht – “autism” now applied to any misbehaved kid, is another classic example. ( It is important to note that HIV positivity only identified those likely to develop AIDS – long known is that about half of HIV poz people experienced normal longevity – died from something totally unrelated to the best of our knowledge.) HIV positivity is an indicator – maybe little else. The important part was that only those who were of known risk really ever got it.
It’s important to note (and a juicy topic, to boot) that in the 1970’s, rich “jet set” homosexual males developed a peculiar travel industry TO AFRICA! I knew some of them. And (I guess I can say it here) these were guys who were anal receptives who wanted the biggest fattest dicks up their ya-yas. In anal sex, “skinny dicks hurt!” so they say. And the reverse, it is generally understood by that bunch, that a cock beyond a certain diameter “is best!” I’ve heard it a million times. AIDS in Africa was found to be present in that late 1960’s already. There’s your vector. Does Bobby even bring that up?
One must be very careful here. First off, the “virology” involved in the development of AIDS is yet beyond actual confirmed fact. We don’t know. Fauci don’t know; I don’t know and Kennedy don’t know. Far as we know, HIV exposure is merely an indicator. We know little else for fact. Secondly, this issue involves what goes on in mens’ underpants. This is important. In the new vulgarized culture of the West, in addition, now dominated by girls, now let out of the nursery/kitchen, anything having to do with male homosexuality is an unavoidable topic under any circumstances. [the “gay movement” crap couldn’t have been brought up at a worse time – and I don’t think that it did when it did, is a coincidence] So sociology and virology got mixed together – idiotic as it is! But remember, advertising is (and already was) in the top 3 industries in the US, dollars & cents – wise. Hence, intra-underpants topics sell time and make money!
Medical science + social science + biz…all mixed together. (never mind whether it makes any real sense) …a new fact of life – very important in a day where (((we))) sell things – not make things.
As for COVID vax He’s spot on about that! “Messenger RNA” Ohhh, I remember that term in HS biology “Biology was hard! – but I remember that “messenger” word!”. How space age! “Gotta get me that vax!”
Completely meaningless as far as a confirmed immunogenic mechanism for a transmissible virus. A new purely investigational laboratory-confined concept, it was never established as a useful “vaccination” method. It makes zero sense! Ask Malone. He knows. He said so – and notice how he got disappeared! Coronavirus mutates by the week – it, to our present scientific knowledge is not a “vaccination” candidate any more than a rhinovirus (the “common cold”). A long time dream but never acquired. So, get over it! (heh, they sure made a fat wad producing that “vax” though – didn’t they?) And government till money, too! So, Bobby is right. And while I’m on the topic, what’s with this Wuhan lab adenovirus segment added to a coronavirus??? Whatever for except as a bioweapon. Many adenoviruses cause myocarditis! An old National Board of Medical Examiners question from over 40 years ago. What’s this about 25 yr old athletes dropping dead on a gym floor? There’s where Bobby needs to focus. Stick to what you know, Bobby!
Right, and we’re all so intent on this one hoax that some scientists like Gallo(see Wikipedia)have risked damage to their reputations with fierce priority disputes and misconduct allegations to try to take credit for the discovery of hiv. Complete hogwash.
One of the “four science Nobel Laureates” you mention was Walter Gilbert. He was an early skeptic of HIV causing AIDS, but he changed his views following the success of combination antiretroviral therapy in treating the disease. He wrote in 2006:
“Dear Dr. Jeffreys—I am afraid that those comments go back to the late
80’s. At that time I was a skeptic–the argument based on Koch’s
postulates to try to distinguish between cause and association.
However, even during that time we had several AIDS projects going within
Biogen–one to try to stimulate T-independent B-cell activation (a pet
approach of mine), another to develop soluble CD4–to use as an
antiviral agent. That second project got to clinical trials (and failed
because the virus in patients didn’t have the high affinity for CD4 that
the lab-grown virus had.)
Today I would regard the success of the many antiviral agents which
lower the virus titers (to be expected) and also resolve the failure
of the immune system (only expected if the virus is the cause of the
failure) as a reasonable proof of the causation argument.
yours truly
Walter Gilbert”
https://web.archive.org/web/20070501112202/http://momentofscience.blogspot.com/2006/07/well-someone-has-to-do-it.html
AMYL nitrite.
Close – but no ceegar.
Thank you so much for injecting a sensible comment into this lunatic asylum of dubious medical articles and ignorant old men.
AIDS HIV was unknown in Haiti until the east coast American gays selected Haiti as their standard Caribbean winter vacation destination. Solely because of the vast number of make prostitutes in Haiti. And of course, the more gays went to Haiti the more Haitian boys and men became prostitutes. Demand and supply.
Hetero sexual Americans went to Florida Mexico Jamaica Bermuda Bahamas Puerto Rico and other Caribbean Islands to get away from the snow and cold. . And didn’t infect the locals with AIDS HIV.
Luc Montagnier was one of the other Nobel laureates alleged by HIV/AIDS dissidents as denying that HIV caused AIDS. This is untrue. In the early 1990s he proposed that a co-infection with HIV and mycoplasma might be necessary to cause this disease, but he quickly abandoned this hypothesis when he was unable to replicate his earlier studies which had led him to this conclusion.
I have searched for the quote attributed to him: “the HIV virus is harmless and passive, a benign virus.” It does not appear anywhere on the net prior to 2021, and all online mentions of this alleged quote trace back to RFK Jr’s book. In his book, RFK Jr cites a 1990 newspaper article from the Miami Herald, however the supposed quote does not appear there, either. In other words, RFK Jr appears to have made it up.
Rather than rely on apparently fictitious quotes for Montagnier’s views on the subject a better source might be his 2008 Nobel speech.
“A posteriori, two facts should have provided to the few remaining sceptics final proof that HIV is the culprit in AIDS:
1) Transmission of AIDS by blood transfusion has practically disappeared in countries where the detection of HIV antibodies in blood donors has been implemented;
2)The inhibition of virus multiplication by a combination of specific in- hibitors of the viral enzymes (reverse transcriptase, protease), has greatly improved the clinical conditions of patients. Mutations in the genome of HIV inducing resistance to these inhibitors has led to relapses and aggra- vation of the patients’ condition.”
https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2018/06/montagnier_lecture.pdf
Bowlshit!
Advertising (forget the content) drives the TV. Period!
Old people buy very little of anything – thirty-somethings are the big consumers. Maxes out at around 37 years old.
In case you didn’t notice, even PBS is “contributed by…” same thing. Public school stuff, too! [should be PSB, not PBS]
And Today Show? That’s still on? Is that fat guy still doing the weather?
Atlantic? Wats dat?
and, not a “controlled substance” either. 1975 I was doing echocardiograms then. Had an unlocked drawer full of “poppers.” Coulda distributed them as I wished.
Wow! Where were you hanging out? Folsom St? And, you’re not homo? Was it a term paper or a “desperate” bi moment?
You DO realize that many homosexual males (who, out of pure moral terpitude) stay single, never marry a chick that they would promise themselves to perennially lie to??? You know, like the 100 % hetero guy with extramarital affairs with big titted chicks? Ever heard of a “bachelor?” Before it became a bad word? About 34% of white guys in urban areas with factories were “never married” at age 40, in the 1940 census. GASP! [oh, wait. The Baby Boom wasn’t on yet]
So, like, SINGLE = “UNCHECKED HOMOSEXUALITY.” Yup. Seen it a million times. The bastards copping a feel on you in the grocery store line. Creeps!
Worried about health care resources, babe? PUT THAT FUCKING PORK CHOP DOWN, you fat overweight diabetic pig! You smell like nail polish remover. And, no Outback for you!
“normal family?” LOL You need a collection of The Ozzie & Harriet Show. Yup. That’s just a distant memory. Harriet would be working up on a T crane these days
Okay, Leah, I’m sure there are no public records of contracts on the Golden Gate Bridge ($154K to Alta Electric) but since I’m sure you’re a serial liar I assume anything you say is a lie. Tell your faggot employees I said “hey”. Your fascination with that term would come back to bite you if you were an actual employer.
There are no vaccines before the COVID vax, for coronaviruses, I think the most prevelent virus in mammals
They first ‘discovered’ coronaviruses in the 60s, supposedly there are 4 common strains, though interestingly enough, we are never alerted when the mutate, nor have they ever created a vaccine for them. Everytime they have tried they had trerrible results
According to some literature, they cause 15-20% of respiratory infections in the world ., That’s a lot . Like maybe 1 billion infections a year
From what I’ve read, they could contain any one of a number of ALKYL Nitrites. Amyl Nitrite being one of them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alkyl_nitrite
And then commenter LeoRising shows up to reinforce your point with his own swinish take on things.
The whole operation was shady from the start. Gall0 was head of the AIDS taskforce with NIH first. He ‘theorized’ it was a virus but could not properly ‘show’ it. His reputation was waning in the
US. Gallo was one of the first scientists to hypothesize that the disease was caused by a virus. In 1982, the National Cancer Institute formed an AIDS task force with Gallo as its head.”
“Gallo tried throughout 1983 to get the AIDS virus to grow in culture, using the same growth factor that had worked in growing HTLV, but he was not successful.
SO the powers that be passed it off to Luc Montagnier for some crdibility, at the Pasteur Institute in Paris, who got the nobel prize for finding that little HIV bugger in his ‘cultures’., I’ve seen pictues. What we can see with our eyes using the best technology is not that impressive.
Luc finally, and alledgely, ‘isolated’ it (whatever that means). He had the magic touch,. Then the American establisghment had the culprit .
Gallo was a the fraud who ‘theorized’ it first, but because he was so untrusted it was tossed to france for credibility., In 1975, Gallo and Robert E. Gallagher announced that they had discovered a human leukemia virus. They became a laughing stock due to that fake claim. With his viruses hunting money he eventually theorizez a viruses was causes what they were calling AIDS at the time.
Imagine if we frantically tested for HIV like we did with COVID. I wonder how many aysomptomaic carriers there are.
Thanks. I hadn’t been aware of that, but I’m hardly surprised and I don’t regard it as particularly significant.
It’s important to keep in mind that most scientists are human beings, often subject to pressure, and when one side totally controls the financial, political, and media landscape, such pressures can be considerable.
By the late 1990s, Fauci and the multi-multi-billion-dollar “AIDS industrial complex” had completely crushed their ideological opponents in the HIV/AIDS Denialist camp and banned them from the MSM. Gilbert was a very mainstream academic scientist, so I’d assume that a great deal of pressure was exerted upon him to renounce his previous beliefs, and since he’d never been heavily involved in that issue, it’s hardly surprising that he did so.
In fact, enormous efforts were also made to persuade Duesberg to do the same, including promises that his career would be resurrected and he would be provided copious research funding, but he refused to do so.
Something similar apparently happened after Luc Montagnier declared the HIV “harmless and passive, a benign virus” at that 1990 conference, and he soon backtracked.
But Kennedy’s book devoted 200 pages to promoting the theory that HIV/AIDS was a hoax, and I quoted the glowing endorsement that Montagnier gave it in 2022:
So Montagnier endorsed Kennedy’s book and denounced “the decades of lies” Kennedy was exposing. If he wasn’t referring to HIV/AIDS, what in the world did he mean by that dramatic phrase?
Meanwhile, I just discovered that Lynn Margulis, a very prominent biological theorist (and Carl Sagan’s ex-wife), was apparently also in the HIV/AIDS Denialist camp:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynn_Margulis#AIDS/HIV_theory
Margulis was a very ideologically courageous individual, who also became known as a vocal 9/11 Truther:
Video Link
Is this what you’re referring to?
https://arxiv.org/abs/1012.5166
also
https://waterconf.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Transduction-of-DNA-Information-Through-Water-and-Electromagnetic-Waves-Prof-Dr-Montagnier.pdf
Careful there, eggcorn bro. It’s a doggy dog world out there, and we don’t want to put ideas on pedal stools like pre-Madonnas.
Cite stuff like that, and before you know it we’ll hafta be draggin in Gerry Pollack and the Electric Universe/structured water posse.
And once that happens, where will the whole “your heart is a pump with hoses that clog” industry go, with its concatenation of “heart healthy” “advice” that’s actually slaughtering people by the millions (while recoding their deaths via electrical/charge derangement as other things, like “covid” or “obesity” or “diabetes” or the marvelously vague “heart disease”).
Mr. Unz will have to begin researching and writing more long pieces. Like one on how astrophysics and cosmology in particular are an academic fiction genre designed to deliver countless billions in R&D funding to a studiously bunkered chattering class ingroup who assert such nonsense as “the big bang” or “black holes” and gin up whatever “particles” can make their phony math work for the next round of publishing and grant proposals, and build enormous machines that never produce the results they were built to produce, just more papers and conferences and post-docs and grants.
While rejecting simple observable facts about the universe and how it works, that can predict things we haven’t seen yet. (All hail the JWST!) And that can predict things we really don’t want to see, but probably or maybe will. (Damn you, pole shift!)
And how Star Power/media icon (Einstein, Sagan, Tyson, Cox, etc.) mythologizing, using inscrutable math games, took over the genuine pursuit of observing and understanding the world around us (physics as a branch of natural philosophy).
And by golly go there and before you know it we’ll have Wal Thornhill (press F) and Don Scott and Tony Peratt wandering in. And once they get a foot in the door, the entire catastrophist phalanx will follow, from the youngsters like Gareth Samuel and Ben Davidson to the old Velikovskyan boomers who suggested that maybe, just maybe, the sky was different in our ancient ancestors’ experience, based on what they themselves said, and depicted, about the matter.
By the time we go there, and everybody has to learn some Electrical Engineering 101/201 to be part of the conversation, nobody’s gonna want to talk about muh social “sciences” anymore. Humans–ugh. How boring.
Instead we’ll be studying local geology for signs of past atmospheric anode/cathode effects. And wondering why we were lied to about how long it has to take to fossilize bone. And measuring/mapping the telluric currents around our houses, to see how they mesh with or vary from the Schumann resonances. And building labs in our back yards or garages or spare rooms, to do science, rather than be saturated with the bastardized versions of it eructated by glowscreen propagandists isomeric with those promoted by the Pharma PR firms and their whore media. And totally rethinking what the ancients knew and what technology they had.
We might even conclude the Nobel Prizes should consist of a tin-plated manure shovel.
Couple years ago Mike Clarage pointed out that Montagnier “had the distinction of being cancelled for daring to point out some obvious problems with a novel medical treatment that was being rolled out around the world.” Yet Montagnier insisted “HIV” was real. I wasn’t convinced in the ’80s and ’90s, still amn’t. I’ve got strong doubts about virology in general, based on what I’ve learned over the decades about the field’s research methods.
But I do recognize flop sweat. And from what I’m seeing we’re at a once-in-a-maybe-millennium point of major convergence–a Z pinch you might say–where the localized cosmic Birkeland current of dissent against the temple priests in all fields is getting so strong, so energized, that the only alternative the liars of the last century have is to call any dissent “terrorism,” and try to shut it all down before it squeezes them like a soda can. (Young Mike Benz has been talking about that a lot lately.)
And to think that the camel’s nose under the tent flap was Donald Trump teaching people about “fake news.” What a time to be alive. God bless and keep those who were lost these past five years, and those of us left behind, who loved them.
I always recommend:
https://archive.is/UxCvs
Bruce Nussbaum, ‘Good Intentions; How big business and the medical establishment are corrupting the fight against AIDS’
Atlantic Monthly Press USA 1990, 352 pages, ISBN 0-87113-385-7.
Sure, and I even quoted one or more of his disclaimers in my own articles. But given the ultra-ultra-touchy nature of the subject, I don’t regard that as having much significance.
As far as I can tell, Kennedy’s book is the most comprehensive and also the most widely-read presentation of the HIV/AIDS Denialist position in existence, arguably giving more pages to that topic that Duesberg had done in his own 1996 book.
Let’s use the analogy of Holocaust Denial. Suppose Kennedy or someone else published a #1 Amazon bestseller that devoted 200 pages to setting out in enormous detail all the main arguments in support of Holocaust Denial, quoting and citing all the leading figures in that movement, and so forth.
But suppose the author also included a disclaimer of a few sentences emphasizing that he himself wasn’t sure about the Holocaust one way or the other, but thought it was good that the Denialist case be presented to the American public.
Would the ADL be satisfied with that sort of disclaimer?
Funny story, In 1988 the Soviets said the HIV virus went through ‘gain of function’ in Fort Deitrick lab in the 70s.
In 2020 Chinese officials implied the sars-cov-2 virus was made in Fort Dietrick (then released in China via the US military)
Then about a year later US alt media said it was made via gain of function in the Wuhan lab.
After 2022, Ukrainian Bio-labs got thown into the mix. Which producer-casted, supervillian & NeoCon extraoirdinare Victoria Nuland made a ‘gaff, leading people to believe that nefariuous deeds are taking place in them thar NaziBiolabs. murmurs of ethnicity targeting viruses startes spreading about….
Anyway, the AIDs epidemic is just fucking wierd.
According to the NIH
“The first two AIDS patients admitted to the NIH research hospital arrived six months apart–in June 1981 and in January 1982”
Yes , at the end of 1981 per HIV.gov
“By year’s end, there is a cumulative total of 337 reported cases of individuals with severe immune deficiency in the United States—321 adults/adolescents and 16 children under age 13. Of those cases, 130 are already dead by December 31.”
Yet in 1981 media was panicking with reports of people dying from aids.. But the number was under 50o. Number of dead gay druggies seems a bit disproportional
In 1982 , same thing. Spattering of dead drug using gays and they found 3 babies of a hooker that year with aids
Yet April 13 1982: U.S. Representative Henry Waxman convenes the first congressional hearings on AIDS at the Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Community Services Center in Hollywood,
In 82 it was still less than 1000 deaths
In 1983 it was a full blown media panic
Interestingly, aside from the gays in San Franico keeping the NIH funded. France was on the AIDs research quest
Luc Montagnier and his team examined samples taken from Rozenbaum’s AIDS patients in 1983 and found the virus that would later become known as HIV
Gallo, who shares recognition of discovery of HIV with the french but didn’t get his ‘discovery’ registared until a year after who, apparently had their own mysterious syndrome amoung the gays
Actaully Duesberg, first said their was no proof of a virus isolation. He said there is no such virus. I don’t know when it switched to what I thought his argument was ‘a harmless carrier virus’,. But his oiginal dispute was that no such viruses existed. It appears he started making waves in 1987
Gallo who shares the ‘discovery’ of HIV with Luc Montagnier got into troble around 87 or 88 for being shady . Not aure if that stemmed from Duesberg
“Gallo’s initial work on the isolation and identification of the AIDS virus has been the subject of a number of allegations, resulting in a lengthy investigation and official charges of scientific misconduct ”
Then it gets weird,
“Rozenbaum had suggested (To Luc) at scientific meetings that the cause of the disease might be a retrovirus.”. What a lucky guess!
Now, there probably couldn’t be many people in the scientific world who ever even aherd of a retrovirus in 1982. Gallo just discovefed them, sometime in 80
The first retrovirus was found by Gallo in 1980 during his pursuit of cancer causing viruses. He was pretty unlucky finding cancer causing viruses but he did discover the retrovirus. Who Rozenbaum figured was causing her 1982 aids patient
There is some bullshit going on here
Like COVID, AIDs is shady from start to finish
I wonder if Duesberg was motivated primarily by anti gay ideology. He seems insistent that the illnesses were caused by “their lifestyle.” He offers no other, more unifying hypothesis. Well, lots of heterosexuals have hard lifestyles and use lots of drugs as well. Perhaps too this explains the establishment’s hostility to Duesberg. I can’t imagine how poppers would cause kaposi’s sarcoma, moreover, that would be an easy hypothesis to test. I know people who died of aids(in my own family) who didn’t have hard lifestyles at all.
We are rainbow pilled at this website.
Montagnier did actually say that HIV caused AIDS. Perhaps he was under pressure
Perhaps Montagnier is full of shit about a lot of things
He promotes the ‘lab leak’ theory
I agree with Micheal Yeadon
COVID was just reclassified ILI (influenza like illness)
Bulllshit, smoke and mirrors. Murder by protocol and media hysteria. Hospitals were knee capped so the only way they could make money is by diagnosing covid and then more money for treating it certain ways. That covid bill gauranteed fraud. Helll Fema paid families 40k if a family member died from covid for final expenses. The ensures nobvody will question the cause of death
Just as the placebo effect is real, it’s opposite, the nocebo effect is just as real
The whole system was geared to exaggerate numbers. So much so , once you remove the distotion, what do we have left. A friggin bioengineered mild chest cold lol
More things I’ve found out about AIDS:
5-15% HIV+ effectively don’t develop AIDS anyway, either ‘slow progressor’ who can go decades, or ‘elite controllers’ who never develop AIDS, but they can still pass it on.
There are also some recorded cases where HIV goes into remission and becomes undetectable in the absence of drugs.
AIDS (defined as CD4 T cell count <200 and HIV+ result) isn't the only condition that can lead to CD4 T cell count <200 (even Lupus and other conditions and treatments can) and the pattern of infections, while there is some overlap, is not identical, which is interesting.
There is a different pattern of CD4 levels between AIDS and other conditions though.
Lifestyles cause a lot of illness . The come down off of Chronic hard drug use can look like a severe flu. Their was likely drug OD vases diagnosed as COVID in 2021., and if they died it was just another covid death
The family could then go to fema and collect 40k for the covid death
Its likely they would not challenge the cause of death or they risk losing the payout
Indeed!
The c19 Patented Bioweapons saved No one!!! But has killed/Maimed & is killing and Maiming untold Numbers of people who were programmed to beg for it by TPTB c19 PSYOP & Terror Propaganda Blitz.
Yes decades of lies or even longer
Duesberg’s specific critique was that HIV never went through koch’s postulates for proving an infectious agent how that translate to harmless virus or whatever is unclear
Montagnier used a specimen from a patient with lymphadenopathy, a syndrome that was considered to be a precursor of AIDS. In that specimen he found the virus known as HIV. Th
I just read a paper from 2004 paper titled “A critique of the Montagnier evidence for the HIV/AIDS hypothesis” . To paraphrase, it said, he didn’t find shit. He just labled non-specific protiens HIV for no reason at all. lol
” Since all antibodies are polyspecific, from such a reaction it is not possible to define the origin of even one reactant let alone both. Even if this were possible, since Montagnier’s “purified virus” did not contain particles with the “morphology typical of retroviruses”, the proteins cannot be retroviral. We conclude that, these phenomena are non-specific to retroviruses and thus cannot be considered proof for the existence of a unique retrovirus HIV.”
He was looking at fluid from a person who alledgedly had aids. He discovered the harmless viruses in supposedly a sick and dying gay man
The 2004 paper said he just labled shit a unique retrovirues.
Duesberg and Gallo were supposedly the purveyors of retroviruses, working in the same program , viruses hunting for cancer causing . That program was a huge flop and then AIDs fell into their lap
Ron, I’m skeptical of the supposed “endorsement” of RFK Jr’s book attributed to Montagnier.
Firstly, while Montagnier had numerous scientific disagreements with his colleagues during his long career (including with Fauci and most famously with Gallo) he never (to my knowledge) resorted to personal invective. The language and sentiments of this alleged “endorsement” are completely out of character for him, and I cannot imagine him stooping – in the last months of his life – to internet-troll-level insults like “Fauci’s minions” or calling him a “liar”, no matter how much he disagreed with him. That’s not how he ever spoke, even when defending his opinions against robust criticism.
Secondly, there is a very long and well documented history of HIV/AIDS dissidents seriously misrepresenting Montagnier’s work and his positions on HIV/AIDS. Unfortunately such misrepresentations include numerous examples of the outright and blatant fabrication of quotes and attributing them to Montagnier. As I pointed out above in post 375, the quote “the HIV virus is harmless and passive, a benign virus” appears to me to have been fabricated. There is, I repeat, no evidence Montagnier ever said that, apart from JFK Jr saying he said that.
Thirdly, the fabricated deathbed confession story is an old trope regularly used by dishonest pseudoscientists. Germ theory denialists regularly cite Pasteur as repudiating germ theory as he lay dying, while Darwin suffered a similar fate at the hands of his creationist opponents. It’s pretty hard to deny a faked quote attributed to you once you are dead. Richard Dawkins famously stated that he wanted his death to be filmed and made public, because he feared that his opponents would also try to invent false stories about him having such a “deathbed conversion” and repudiation of his life’s work. Given the fact that Montagnier died in February 2022, around the same time as this alleged “endorsement” was first published, I’m seeing something of a common pattern here.
I would want more convincing evidence that Montagnier actually said what was quoted in RFK Jr’s book, beyond the word of RFK Jr and his publishers. Especially as it is in direct contradiction to everything he is reliably known to have said when he was alive.
Margulis’s work on endosymbiotic theory and Kary Mullis’s work on developing PCR were both brilliant contributions to the biological sciences, and well deserving of their Nobel prizes. However their opinions on HIV/AIDS are well outside their fields of competence and a lot of their claims about HIV and AIDS are frankly stupid and ignorant. They appear to me to have had less to do with any actual understanding of the disease than a desire to be a supportive personal friend to Peter Duesberg, their sometime colleague at Berkeley. While being personally supportive friend to someone you care about and who is under attack is an admirable trait to have, it’s irrelevant to the objective assessment of competing scientific claims.
Stubborn persistence in the face of criticism is a hallmark of many great scientific discoverers. It is also a common feature of cranks and nutters, who are much more numerous than great paradigm busting innovators. What matters is the evidence that can be brought to support novel ideas.
Ron, I appreciate your frustration at recently discovering Duesberg’s arguments against HIV as the cause of AIDS decades after they were first made – and refuted – and struggling to understand WHY and HOW they were refuted. I am not by any means an expert in the field of HIV/AIDS, but I was a fairly active participant in the online debates about whether HIV causes AIDS a decade or so ago, and I’m familiar with most of the dissident arguments – and also with why they are wrong.
In your posts on this subject you said that you found Duesberg’s arguments “compelling”. I have read and examined Duesberg’s arguments and those of his supporters and I have found them unconvincing to say the least. They are rubbish, and don’t survive any reasonably informed analysis. In your posts on this subject and in your comment 165 in this thread you raised two of Duesberg’s “unanswered” questions of particular salience to you. I provided detailed answers and explanations to these two questions in comments 346 and 347. So far, you have not engaged with my answers. Am I wasting my time?
A major theme of RFK Jr’s book is that mainstream HIV/AIDS scientists and clinicians gave up on trying to counter the claims of Duesberg and his followers because they were intimidated by the diabolical influence of the all-powerful Anthony Fauci and they feared for their jobs and their lives. This is nothing more than a paranoid fantasy. The real reason (as I discovered myself when I tried to debate HIV/AIDS dissidents circa 2007 to 2014) is that Duesberg and his followers are not honest brokers and they simply ignore any reasonably informed counters to their claims, preferring to divert to a well worn set of bogus rhetorical strategies. For a serious scientist, trying to engage in this kind of “debate” with this kind of opposition is at best a waste of time. At worst it risks conferring undeserved legitimacy to ideas that deserve none.
Ron, if there are arguments of Duesberg’s about HIV and the causation of AIDS that you find compelling and unanswered, I’m happy in good faith to take the time to try to explain why they are bogus, as I did above in comments 346 and 347. This is a genuine offer. I can’t promise to have detailed answers to everything, because I’m not an expert on anything, let alone everything. But most of the arguments of Duesberg that you are digging up in these pages have been discredited so thoroughly over the years that expert status is not required.
I agree that RFK Jr’s “disclaimers” are of little significance given his 200 page regurgitation of the long-discredited HIV/AIDS denialist narrative. For me the issue is not what (if anything) RFK Jr believes in his heart: the key takeaway is that he doesn’t CARE whether it is true or not, so long as it serves the purposes of his polemic, which is intended to do as much damage as he can to his target, for the purposes of furthering his own political ambition.
What’s actually true or not doesn’t matter to him, as long as he can use the narrative he’s constructed (actually resurrected from elsewhere) to do harm, and further his own desire for political power.
This is the work of a true psychopath. Psychopaths don’t care about what is true or not; only about whether a particular narrative can be spun to serve their own personal needs.
There is nothing new or particularly comprehensive in his rendering of the old HIV/AIDS denialist narrative. A lot of it heavily leans on Torsten Engelbrechts’s woeful “Virus Mania”, approaching outright plagiarism.
More than decades of lies
Duesberg’s specific critique was that HIV never went through koch’s postulates for proving an infectious agent which could cause whatever. His position of what he called retoviruses were they are all over every living thing. I am not sure HIV was even shown to be some kind of unique virus (dangerous or not)
Duesberg came into the fray in 1987. He wasn’t around the ‘discovery’ of the HIV virues a few years back. I suppose he was biting his tongue until he was inducted to the National Academy of Sciences in 1986. After that, he became impossible to cancle. He supposedly was part of a government funded program looking for carcinogous viruses. The program was a big failure, according to him. His wikpedia describes him as discovering some cancerous gene. Not sure he would even describe it that way
In 1983, away from the US outbreak, Paris, Luc Montagnier used a specimen from a patient *with lymphadenopathy, a syndrome that was considered to be a precursor of AIDS” (from the NIH’s write up on Monteagnier). In that specimen he found what he called the HIV virus. Basically, it was someone with swollen lymph nodes. That’s it. I guess that was good enough for AIDS virus hunting. Science! Lymphadenopathy is the precursor to being sick. lol
Than a year later in the US , Gallo, the head of the NIH AIDs task force ‘offically’ declared the discovery of HIV
Which makes it kind of confusing
They later decided to share the glory. Why Montagneiur got the nobel instead of Gallo, idk. Gallo did get called on some shady scientific practices in the 90s
Gallo and Montagneir sued each other, at one point in 85-86 and both made a ton of cash on AIDs treatment anjd testing. Both of them. Montagneiur rode that HIV cash wave with glee.
President Reagan and French President Mitterrand had to step in and mediate between those two fighting over AIDs testing money and discovery glory.
Here is a paper from 2004 paper titled “A critique of the Montagnier evidence for the HIV/AIDS hypothesis” . To paraphrase, it said, he didn’t find shit. He just labled non-specific protiens HIV for no reason at all. lol
” Since all antibodies are polyspecific, from such a reaction it is not possible to define the origin of even one reactant let alone both. Even if this were possible, since Montagnier’s “purified virus” did not contain particles with the “morphology typical of retroviruses”, the proteins cannot be retroviral. We conclude that, these phenomena are non-specific to retroviruses and thus cannot be considered proof for the existence of a unique retrovirus HIV.”
The 2004 paper said he just pointed at stuff and said look it’s HIV, just like my assisstent said. A retrovirus!
Duesberg and Gallo were supposedly the purveyors and experts in all things retrovirus. Once the virus cancer hunting flopped, then AIDs fell into Gallo’s lap in the form of sickly gay men in 81 and 82 flowing into the NIH. Like a gift to Gallo, I’m sure
Most of the attention was on the US with just a few hundred cases. Suddenly France found one in 83, and Montagniers assisstent said, ‘oh I bet it’s a retrovirus’ , so the lore goes. Okay it was just a gay dude with swollen lymph nodes. But they were desperate!
Bullshit all around. Its as shady as covid’s origin story
Montgnier screaming about ‘lab leak’ with RFK is interesting. AIDs is a hoax but covid is totally real, Perhaps they should demand, like Duesberg insists, that Koch’s postulates be used to prove sars-cov-2 is an infectious agent, that causes covid, before screaming about ‘lab leak’
For some reason, promoting ‘lab leak’ is perfectly acceptable. Saying covid is just reclassifying seasonal illness combined with murderous protocols and state-mandated hypochondria, now that will get you looked at funny. RFK would not get an attaboy fom Montagnier with that thesis.
I think you’re getting confused between two quite separate and mutually contradictory lines of what passes for HIV/AIDS denialist thought. The idea that there was no proof of virus isolation belonged to Mrs Eleni Eleopulos-Papadopoulos in Perth, Australia and her supporters. Mrs Eleopulos-Papadopulos was a hospital worker who was entirely uncontaminated by any qualifications, formal training or practical experience in any of the multiple scientific fields she claimed expertise in. Her “research” consisted solely in reading papers describing the work of actual researchers in HIV/AIDS. Unfortunately she often failed to understand what she was reading, and her synthesis consisted largely of searching for bits of data that could be seen as consistent with her preexisting theories, and dismissing as unreliable anything which contradicted her beliefs.
Duesberg, on the other hand, always acknowledged that HIV exists and has been isolated:
https://www.duesberg.com/papers/continu1.html
Duersberg’s central claim was that while HIV was definitely real, it was harmless. While Eleopulos-Papadopulos’ theories were based on her total ignorance of a wide range of scientific disciplines, Duesberg’s theories were based mainly on his total ignorance of the principles of epidemiology.
Sort of like your Holocaust offerings (and Jewish Question offerings more generally), though I believe any disclaimer you have offered around these topics (especially the Holocaust topic) doesn’t really amount to ‘I am not sure’, but more like ‘given the evidence, I find it quite impossible, at this juncture, to be too unsure, and instead more like pretty damn sure’.
How the hell will we ever know? You are a prominent but very controversial Jewish public intellectual that has more or less agreed to stay in your own lane as long as Johnathan Greenblatt stays in his. Force this issue with Greenblatt and the ADL, already. I long ago explained how that may be done, many times. Use your reputation as a prominent Jewish public intellectual to do said forcing within Jewish publications for Jewish readership. But helper Jews (helpers of the ADL’s censorship) won’t allow that – eh? But as well, apparently they won’t stoop to a public smear campaign against you either (like is done to goys going down said avenue). Apparently, it is because they (ADL and helper Jews) are scared of your tour de force capabilities, by your reckoning. Except there is a growing consensus among some of the goy commentariat here at TUR, that such is JQ par for the course (avoid smear campaigns among Jews and otherwise Jews agree to stay in respective conflicting lanes). Commenter WingsofaDove made this very valid point, recently, by way of example:
https://www.unz.com/article/christianity-cant-save-the-jews-can-historical-criticism-cure-them/#comment-6878469
I notice that you, otherwise are pretty good at smearing (not actually, hahaha! but you are at least a try-hard, around said action), and we all know the ADL is very good at smearing. I suppose WigngsofaDove must therefore be correct. How else to see it? Things are getting way too dicey on the international geopolitical scene, for there to be any continued warrant, to otherwise do the good ole goyish play-along, with these massively moronic Jewish divide and conquer ploys. If you want what is best for all humankind then you should probably start smearing Greenblatt and the ADL, if that’s what it takes (however I am sure there are other less obtuse avenues, as I have already spelled out), to get the ball rolling on the ADL/Unz confrontation, now hugely past due. Do it already.
Duesberg, on the other hand, always acknowledged that HIV exists and has been isolated”
He said they bever met with koch’s postulates in propving a causitive agent, in the spattering of interviews I have seen. He spoke very highly of koch’s postulates. He seemed to convey that the medical establishment didn’t much care for koch. SO what he thought of HIV as a jut a run of the mill viral specimen, I could not say. I’m sure he has written much that I have never read
I have never seen him say, oh yeah that’s a fine and lovely specimen of retrrovirus, oh look at it’s shinny capsid, One of the nicest i’ve seen!. But you don’t have to worry about that little guy,. He’s harmless !
Nothing like that. No
I’ve never really read a coherent test that isolated a virus in a way that made sense to me. Always some bullshit being mixed
As with COVID , fluid from lungs in wuhan and Montagneir’s swollen lymph node juice to find his totally unique disease causing retrovirus agent. Just as they suspected a retyrovirus. lol
COVID still had to be the dumbest ‘origin story’. Oh yeah a ‘cluster; of people with chest colds, lets check for a novel virus! I mean, never mind its a country that gets 10s of millions of cases of pneumonia every years. Those 12 over there, that’s not a normal case of pneumonia, We need to really check them out. No other options but a novel virus that must be dealt with.
Then Lic and Gallo had legal battles for years for what sounded like intellectual propwerty but was spun as who gets the recognition. He legallly has to say ‘co founded’. They really need to not worry about the glory and just count the money .
TV? I wouldn’t know. Stopped watching it in college.
“An infectious DNA of 9.15 kilo bases (kb) has been cloned from the cells of HIV-antibody-positive persons, that -upon transfection- induces the synthesis of a unique retrovirus”
They cloned 20 lbs of DNA fron ‘cells of HIV antibody positive person’. Sounds very impressive ,
Upon ‘transfection’ it then magically turns into a clearly unique retrovirus. Not like those boring standard models Duesberg is familar with. These need computer simulations to really appreciate. Electon microscope pictures of brown and black smudsges just don’t cut it
Lots of moving parts in that confident assertion.
So using some mystery process, taking protiens from a CDC verified with sick person until they turn into a 20lb lunp of DNA, then impregnating the DNA with magic fairy dust until it turns into a real live & Unique sea monster. Most can’t comprend the God like power of bring retroviruses to life.
Luc said that after inspecting the sequence that COVID was a mix of HIV, coronavirus AND possibly maleria,. So clearly an impossible combination to be ever found in nation. Imagine getting AIDs and malaria on top of a nasty chestcold. Nature would neve make something that evil!
He literally said covid is part AIDS .
Who writes this stuff
Duesberg saw behind the curtain, could not tell all but just called bullshit on one thing, over and over. He had to wait until he got inducted into the academy. Right after that, he went to town. And he made it his life . Nothing else mattered but saying ‘Bullshit”
Montagneir was never a fucking truth teller. He was legal power , fame and money grabbing douche They floated him a nobel prize likely because he was frustrated. Maybe just unfullfilled or whatever. He was not a happy camper pushing nonsense for the powerful until the end.
I’m sure the lies weighed on him
He was clearly not above trying to scare people about invisible bugs made in mysterious high tech labs in his final days. Perhaps he considered it a noble lie
I started to read that section of the rfk book again, and I just can’t keep going. It’s a bunch of hyperventilating name calling with nary a line of science in it.
You usually don’t “satisfy Koch’s postulates” with a virus. You don’t literally isolate the live virus and inject it into somebody. A certain level of indirect evidence is deemed sufficient. You are asking for a level of proof that is not expected in other contexts.
Getting the thumbs up from the guy that deseperately wanted in on and was cenral to, the AIDs scam is a weird look.
Lucs legal problem with his American counter parts was not the same as our problem with Fauci. No his beef wanted in or more. Not to expose
Frankly, I’d exceptionally skeptical of your skepticism.
Montagnier won a Nobel Prize for discovering the HIV virus, so it’s hardly surprising that his glowing endorsement of Kennedy’s #1 Amazon bestseller was the first one the publisher listed. The book sold well over a million copies and for you to suggest that Kennedy and his publisher simply fabricated that quote seems incredibly implausible to me.
As I’ve emphasized, the Establishment detested Kennedy for his leadership of the anti-vaxxing movement, so the MSM ferociously attacked him and his book in every possible way, accusing him of being a crackpot or a crook or a lunatic. Early on, a team of six AP journalists and researchers devoted at least ten days to producing their massive 4,000 word hit-piece against him, and a longtime NYT journalist soon did the same thing with a very long front-page article, as did many, many other reporters.
Enormous journalistic and investigative resources were available to attack Kennedy and his book. Kennedy and the movement he led was a huge thorn in the side of the multi-billion-dollar vaccine industry, so it surely would have been willing to spend millions on opposition-research to discredit him.
If there was even the slightest suspicion that Kennedy had fabricated that glowing endorsement from a Nobel Laureate, his many enemies would have used that fact to utterly destroy Kennedy, and rightfully so.
You’re just a random commenter on this website. Do you seriously believe that you’ve thought of these devastating lines of attack against Kennedy and his book but all those professional journalists who spent so much time and effort writing their hit-pieces against him never had those same ideas? Or the corporate PR lobbyists of the vaccine companies?
The “Dog That Didn’t Bark” conclusively proves that the Montagnier endorsement was genuine.
I do believe you’re having a moment.
Uh yeah, that was quite a display of self-loathing, wasn’t it?
I think that journalists are not very educated people. I don’t think many could engage in this level of debate.
Aside from a plethora of anti-ADL articles published by UR over time there are also articles (a few examples below) authored by Unz himself while he was “staying in his lane,” as you put it.
Not good enough for you, apparently. Not unless he tells Greenblatt, Finkelstein and others something like this:
“It has come to my attention that you believe the Holocaust narrative which I have unmasked as a fraud in my writings and in articles by others published on my site. I challenge you to a public debate on this topic. “
American Pravda: The ADL in American Society • Highlighted • 51m
From the Leo Frank Case to the Present Day
RON UNZ • OCTOBER 15, 2018 • 7,400 WORDS • 757 COMMENTS • REPLY
American Pravda: Tucker Carlson, Darryl Cooper, and Holocaust Denial• Highlighted • 1h57m
RON UNZ • SEPTEMBER 16, 2024 • 15,400 WORDS • 561 COMMENTS • REPLY
Elon Musk and the True History of the ADL • Highlighted • 52m
Mike Whitney Interview with Ron Unz
RON UNZ AND MIKE WHITNEY • SEPTEMBER 13, 2023 • 6,900 WORDS • 189 COMMENTS • REPLY
Very interesting historical science subject as I say.
There’s a number of people who doubt HIV exists has been ‘isolated’ at all. Same with covid.
I suspect discovery and evidence and what that means in this context is something that’s been badly communicated by the medical establishment. Also I guess that science has run far away from people’s average intuition and experience and ability to accept it. Or they’ll be quite receptive to a maverick scientist saying “it’s all fake”, but they won’t accept a scientist saying “it’s real”.
I don’t have the expertise on this matter, but it seems reasonable, at this point in time, as has been pointed out here already with Duesberg, that HIV is a distinct ‘thing’ with certain properties, with a certain sequence, that can be tested and predictions made of it. Albeit its existence in nature is completely intertwined with a human or similar organism. It ‘doesn’t exist’ outside that context, well not naturally.
Doubters tend to want to say HIV (and covid) are noise, artifacts on a test that that don’t mean anything specific and it’s just fake. But I think there’s a whole line of evidence and an entire model that’s been built up by several means and that can be compared to other models. That doesn’t mean the model is perfect, or not subject to bad forces, but there is some kind of working model that has a medical and predictive value (if you assume it’s not all one big lie by ‘THEM’).
So who’s model; the conventional one or Duesberg’s has better predictive and medical power ?
This quest for a ‘test tube full of isolated virus particles’ is probably meaningless to microbiologists and a waste of time scientifically, but they are identified sufficiently.
Well, a smear is going about things a bit differently (I should know because I have been consistently smear-attempted by Unz, but look, I have had a long life already, 65 now, so at this age it is impossible not to know all about how this works, let’s say as in high-charged business environments among middle managers, for instance, … but for goodness sake, it starts early in the elementary schoolyards, so everybody knows). It also may feature attempts at public humiliation by insinuating things that are rather besides the point. Among Jews the untrue ‘idiot’ ploy wouldn’t really work (because they all know there is pretty good intelligence emanating from the other side, usually).
So the down and dirty smear, featuring either untrue things about the other personage, or rather true things that are completely besides the point for the issue at hand, could go like this: ‘Hey Greenblatt, a writer I feature, Anglin, often compares you to a rat-face, implying you are rat-souled, because your nose well matches the usual cartoon caricature rat-faced smear widely used among some so-called antisemites, like Anglin also features such cartoon-caricature, often with regards to you personally, Greenblatt. Is that rat nose of yours actually a sign of a rat-soul, Jewish friendo?’
The idea with such smear, would be to force Greenbaltt out of his lane, because Unz would have broken the Jewish rules. Like I said, I don’t actually counsel that, though (as quite high odds of back firing in this supercharged international geopolitical environment), as there are less obtuse avenues. Unz is exceedingly bright. I am sure he can find a much less obtuse way (maybe featuring some well-placed threat-insinuations, though) to get some Jewish publication to feature the debate between Unz and Greenblatt that is sorely needed. Why not the Algemeiner Journal, because in years gone past, that publication celebrated as fait accompli, what Netanyahu is now doing to American goys (using mercilessly, until all used up, at which time it will be curb-kicking time, once a more powerful Israel then emerges, kicking America to the curb, all used up, double-cross-style, with editorials at the Algemeiner Journal in years gone past, laughing about this coming fait accompli). Find those editorials (if I recall the dates correctly, I read such at the Algemeiner Journal maybe back in around 2014, or so). Unz could use those editorial articles of 10 or so years ago (I stopped reading there, soon after that, due to utter disgust, so who knows there may be more recent such dreck that was published there for American Jewish readership to digest), as Unz-style-subtle-innuendo, to be implied as threat-insinuations. In other words, make the Algemeneir Journal drag Greenblatt, by the collar, into such published debate.
The kindest thing I can say about your suggestion of what Ron should say to Greenblatt is that I don’t believe you are 65.
Duesberg never claimed that HIV isn’t a real thing. He claimed that it is a real virus, but that it just isn’t the cause of AIDS.
By the same token, a lot of people who criticized the medical establishment in how it responded to COVID never claimed that there is no such thing as Corona viruses or no such thing as COVID; they merely claimed that COVID was not unprecedented within the history of pandemics, and that government’s, and that same medical establishment’s, response to it was self-destructive and wrong-headed to the point of insanity.
And that still isn’t clear to me, despite the medical establishment having tried to squash Duesberg, and anyone who gives him a sympathetic hearing, for going on 30 years now.
You can’t imagine how exposure to certain organic compounds like nitrites could cause cancer?
None that they told you about anyway.
It was a general comment driven by other commenters, reflecting on this belief that comes up often that HIV or covid haven’t been adequately isolated or identified, rather than Duesberg’s own thesis. If he held that view I strongly think this topic would have sunk for good.
Flicking through a few videos on this subject I can see the ‘mutually contradictory’ camps mentioned under the AIDS revisionism tent.
Likewise there were many different views about covid, of which you’re expressing one particular kind here.
But a lot of people were also saying covid didn’t exist at all, that it hadn’t been isolated, it was the flu and so on. And they still do. Or the next step is viruses don’t cause disease or exist anyway.
I don’t think there is an equivalent of Duesberg for covid, but even if there was, there would be these contradictory and more exotic revisionist views.
I’m all for questions about HIV being thrashed out and tested. It needs a new specialist review.
“Dr. Luc Montagnier, co-discoverer of the AIDS virus, reported an unusual microbe may act as an important factor spurring AIDS progression, and antibiotics attacking the microbe appear to help some patients. A small, primitive microogranism called a mycoplasma may increase the cell-killing power of the AIDS virus and thereby lead to patients’ decline and ultimate death, he said. The work does not contradict past findings that HIV is the cause of AIDS but may help explain why some people get sick quicker than others, he said.”
https://www.upi.com/amp/Archives/1990/06/22/AIDS-conference-highlights/3514646027200/
Well, not immediately. There usually has to be a decades long lag period. And the antiretrovirals cause regression of the kaposi’s. People on immune suppression for organ transplant also get it, hence it’s most associated immune suppression. Occam’s razor invoked again.
@mr Unz: shouldn’t my comments be specially bracketed like I observe some are?
I come away from this agnostic about HIV (though sad about the billions of unneeded condoms interfering with fun sex.)
All I do know is that the US government is presumptively full of shit. My first heuristic is now to adopt the inverse, converse, and contrapositive of any US government statement and see if those are less full of shit. My second heuristic is do all I can to thwart and undermine any US government initiative, because you know it’s full of shit. My third heuristic is to effect forcible overthrow of the US government because it’s not worth a runny dog dump. Just kill all those fucking corporate whores.
The New York Times just published another very long attack on Kennedy, filling two full pages and running 3,700 words, with three co-authors:
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/29/us/politics/kennedy-rfk-profile-trump.html
It included one short sentence mentioning his claims that AIDS could be caused by “poppers” rather than HIV, giving more than 10x as much space to the accusations that he’d once sexually-harassed his nanny.
Some of the commenters here firmly believe that anyone who claims that HIV/AIDS is a hoax is an utter and complete lunatic, obviously mentally deranged and close to being a Flat Earther.
Okay, that’s perfectly fine, and I’d guess that a very large majority of educated Americans would agree.
But exactly those same commenters don’t find it at all strange and suspicious that the entire MSM has been ferociously attacking Kennedy but never emphasizing that he published a #1 Amazon bestseller filled with 200 pages claiming that HIV/AIDS was just a hoax…
There are a couple of quite separate issues here. Does Montagnier’s supposed endorsement align with his actual arguments about the origins of SARS-CoV-2 in Wuhan in 2019? Yes, in my opinion it does, and if that is what the endorsement is referring to, then it is plausible.
Does it align with his views about HIV as the cause of AIDS, given that the book spends 200 pages outlining the HIV/AIDS denialist position? Absolutely not. There has been a 34 year campaign by HIV/AIDS denialists to misrepresent his views on this – up to and including publishing fake quotes on the subject. I bring this up because you were probably not aware of this history.
There is no evidence he said the second quote, which as I pointed out in comment 375 first appears in RFK Jr’s book, but nowhere before that. At best it could be a paraphrase of something he did say, but which has been taken out of context to make out he was saying something else. There are numerous examples of this in the long history of HIV/AIDS denialist argumentation, and Montagnier is a serial target for this kind of misrepresentation, because he did genuinely hold some out-there beliefs on other topics, especially later in life.
The context is this:
Back in the late 80s and early 90s here was a lot of interest among mainstream HIV/AIDS scientists in possible co-factors – other microbes that might work alongside HIV and drive the pathogenesis of the disease. Gallo for example was interested in HHV6 and HTLV as possible cofactors. In 1990 Montagnier thought he might have discovered one: mycoplasma. He co-cultured the cells of patients very sick with AIDS, and to his surprise he grew not only HIV but also mycoplasma, and furthermore that mycoplasma was highly pathogenic to his cell cultures. Perhaps, he reasoned, HIV needs mycoplasma to be highly pathogenic, and without it it’s relatively benign. If he was right, this would open up a new option for treating HIV/AIDS, which at the time had no sustainably effective treatments. Knock out the mycoplasma using cheap readily antibiotics and you can halt or at least slow the progression of the disease. It would have been great if he were right.
However it did not generate much excitement among his virologist colleagues at the San Francisco conference. In RFK Jr’s telling, this was because his colleagues were in thrall to the evil Tony Fauci who wanted to squash any talk of co-factors, and he used his power to intimidate scientists into ignoring a potential breakthrough that didn’t fit his agenda. In reality, his colleagues said: Luc, are you sure this mycoplasma came from the patient, and wasn’t a contaminant in your cell line? Contamination of cell lines was a common problem in labs at the time, and mycoplasma was a common culprit. So Montagnier went back to his lab to rerun his experiments, and to everyone’s disappointment he found his skeptical colleagues were right.
Somehow this episode has morphed into the story that what Montagnier REALLY believes is that “the HIV virus is harmless and passive, a benign virus” (complete with fake quote) and that all his clearly articulated statements to the contrary are the result of intimidation. This is ridiculous: Montagnier is well known for saying whatever he wants, including taking some truly wacky positions on things like homeopathy and the causes of autism. In RFK Jr’s lurid account of the 1990 episode:
Utter nonsense.
While I’m much more familiar with fake and misrepresented quotes with respect to HIV/AIDS, there have also been examples of Montagnier being taken out of context and also of frankly faked quotes attributed to him in the covid era:
So yes, whenever I see a quote attributed to Montagnier I am always skeptical. First I ask myself: Is the quote real or fake? Can it be traced back to a reliable independent account of him saying this? If it’s real, is it being taken out of context to misrepresent his views? Or it is a true representation of the views of someone who did some good scientific work historically, but is also known for coming up with some seriously nutty stuff as well?
You think that it’s implausible that RFK Jr would take the risk of faking an endorsement from Montagnier, and you’re probably right. Although RFK Jr has demonstrated no interest in whether what he says is true or not so long as it furthers his political ambitions, he’s not stupid and it would be a considerable risk for little benefit. On the other hand it would not be the only faked quote from Montagnier in the book.
But assuming that the quote is real, is he referring to the dispute he had with the scientific community over some of his more outlandish pronouncements about covid? That would be the most reasonable interpretation:
Can the quote be taken to support RFK’s claim that Montagnier was secretly a supporter of Duesberg’s harmless passenger virus theory, as appears to be your contention quoted above? That baseless claim has been doing the rounds for decades, and the fact that you would uncritically repeat it here suggests a certain lack of, well skepticism.
Kilo bases, not kilograms. He’s referring to the length of the proviral genome, not the mass of material cloned.
Nothing magic about it. It’s a routine lab procedure. It’s how insulin and many other biological products are made commercially. You take an isolated genetic sequence – in this case the DNA version of HIV’s entire genetic code. You put it in a cell, and the cell starts producing the products of that genetic code – in this case HIV virus particles.
There are indeed many people who say that COVID didn’t exist, which I never subscribed to. I had COVID once. It was qualitatively different than the Flu. So I believe it is distinct from the Flu.
And there are people who think that viruses don’t really exist, which is just throwing out a centure or more of hard won knowledge.
Hell, there are people who believe – honestly believe – that the World is flat, that Space doesn’t exist, that rockets and nuclear weapons are all fake. There is no arguing with people like that. They are beyond being merely ignorant; they are willfully stupid.
I agree. You have made many good points here; thanks for the conversation.
Read Snout’s comment. Basically what that says is that a strand of viral dna was isolated, which when put into the cellular machinery of another cell, assembled a working retrovirus. This proves the dna coded for an actual specific new virus, and wasn’t misidentified junk dna. It’s sort of like satisfying Koch’s postulates, but not the disease part.
No offense, but you clearly lack the educational level in molecular biology to comprehend this material properly.
Thanks for your comments mr snout. May I inquire what is your education level or position?
My take on the relative paucity of criticism of his HIV nonsense is that most writers find it easier to satiate themselves on the abundance of lower hanging fruit. Bobby Kennedy Jr has led a rich and checkered public life for many years, and anyone wanting to do a hatchet job on him will be spoiled for choice of subject matter from his personal life or the numerous unscientific or pseudoscientific positions he’s taken over the years on a variety of subjects.
There is also the issue of his tactic of plausible deniability – his insistence that “I want to make clear that I take no position on the relationship between HIV and AIDS” ( before launching into a detailed and uncritical exposition of the denialist belief system.) To you and me such a disclaimer might appear unconvincing, but it serves to deflect criticism away from him for giving those long-discredited ideas so much of an airing. RFK Jr would probably argue that it doesn’t matter in a post-truth world whether Duesberg’s ideas are true or not: rather his main point is to emphasise what a bastard Fauci was to him and his supporters.
You might be surprised about the lack of public outrage from HIV experts at the reanimation of the HIV/AIDS denial zombie in the book. Perhaps I’m misinterpreting you, but I get the impression you are seeing this as evidence that there is no argument to be had against Duesberg’s claims and those of his supporters. If so, I would strongly disagree: there was massive and vigorous refutation of his position in the scientific literature in the 1980s and early 1990s, and later online up till about ten years ago when the denialist movement ran out of steam, mainly due to the deaths of most of its proponents, many of whom saw themselves as “living proofs” of the harmlessness of HIV – until they weren’t.
Most (but not all) HIV experts gave up trying to debate Duesberg et al many years ago – not because they feared he was right, but because they realised there was no way of convincing him and his supporters, and public debate served no purpose except to further amplify his claims. This was a tactic, they reasoned, that would minimise the harm he was doing to the fight against HIV/AIDS. Were they right? I dunno, but one of the downsides of this is that when Duesberg’s theories pop up again a decade later the experts have no interest in fighting the same old battles yet again, and most non-experts lack detailed familiarity with the old arguments.
LOL.
Suppose that Kennedy had sold more than a million copies of a book containing 200 pages that provided an exhaustive explanation of why the Holocaust was obviously a hoax, but he also included a couple of sentences saying that he himself took no position on that controversial issue.
You’re saying that all those long and ferocious hit-pieces in New York Times and every other MSM outlet would therefore avoid the subject because Kennedy had been clever enough to give himself “plausible deniability”?!
I guess that just shows how stupid all the Holocaust Deniers have been, especially the hundreds (thousands?) of them who’ve been imprisoned for Holocaust Denial all across Europe…
No, I’m saying that’s one factor that might make a deep dive into RFK Jr’s HIV/AIDS “rabbit hole” seem an unproductive exercise. And believe me – a rabbit hole it is. There’s nothing new or original in his account – it’s been done to death over and over during the past few decades. And there’s likely nothing new that can be said to refute it. It’s all been done before. While it may be of interest to you and to me (for different reasons), for most people in the HIV/AIDS world this kind of stuff is same-old. We’ve seen it all before.
As I pointed out before, the policy of most HIV experts has been to ignore this stuff, as there is no way of convincing your opponents and you only make things worse by drawing attention to them.
So why do you think it hasn’t caught the attention (negative or positive) you think it deserves?
Keep it up, Ron, and the ADL will update your dossier:
https://www.adl.org/resources/article/california-entrepreneur-ron-unz-launches-series-rhetorical-attacks-jews
Thanks. I think we’re on the same page about a lot of stuff. I didn’t need to mention Duesberg when I made that point, it just confused things. I was referring to the fellow Snout who said Duesberg accepted the virus itself.
Early on Snout made some strong arguments that ring true to me, but then went somewhere else into denialism.
I’m still betting on HIV, but I think people just want to observe the scales of truth for themselves – weighed by facts. A moral lecture favors Unz’s position- that something is being awkwardly swept under the carpet. Not saying it is.
Again I’m no expert, I think I can imagine issues with some of Duesberg’s arguments the more I read.
But the conventional HIV/AIDS model seems quite complex with several twists and turns and conditional branches which makes it a little more unusual than illnesses people are typically familiar with. Talking about ‘denialism’ with a rather complex unintuitive topic seems a bit redundant to me. The onus should be on conveying a good understanding about it to others.
There’s always another question or issue that turns up with it. Ususally, but not always, there’s some answer offered.
But HIV/AIDS is convoluted, every different aspect of it has to be clamped in some special bounds to make it fit the model, and whether it’s right or wrong, Duesberg offers simplicity and clarity at least. A much easier theory.
That may just be an artifact of it not originally being a human virus but an ape/monkey one and it just being thrown into humans this way with all kinds of unpredictable chaotic results, if one accepts that’s what happened.
But there’s no harm in putting some pressure on the model and seeing what happens.
I’ve been flicking through these revisionist videos here:
https://www.youtube.com/@rethinkingAIDS
Sure I have issues with some of them. I think there are some reasonable points in others.
I agree, there’s a lot about aids that is highly complex, but this could be said of many other illnesses, only they are not politicized. Take tuberculosis for example. It could be a respiratory illness, but some would get better and some die. It became chronic in some and some were carriers. Some got brain infections and some arthritis. It was common all over the world before 1920. Now the disease is very rare due to a number of factors(antibiotics, sanitation, screening, etc.) Someone could argue that the disease as an infectious entity never really existed and the symptoms were always due to poor sanitation! Many parasitic infections, including malaria, have impossibly complex life cycles. It took a lot of smart people working together to figure all this out. Only Jews could have figured this out for us.
The problem with this article is that the author uses the following faulty argument: if at some time in history some respected scientists had some dissident opinion (like that HIV is not the cause of AIDS), which at that time, considering the level of research, was fully reasonable, then at a much later time (the present time when much more is known) this dissident opinion is still reasonable. This is not the case as more research has definitely shown that the dissident opinion was wrong.
In the case of HIV this can be easily shown. Look at the Wikipedia page on Lentivirus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lentivirus
You see that this genus of retroviruses are affecting many mammal species and often produce weakening of the immune system. HIV derives from the primate SIV, HIV-1 is most similar to Chimpanzee SIV and it causes an AIDS-type disease in Chimps. Also feline immunideficency virus, though rather far from HIV, kills T-helper cells, a similar mechanism to how HIV works.
It was in Duesberg’s time a valid position to think that HIV could be a harmless virus which only becomes malicious if the immunosystem is weakened. We see this kind of event in e.g sepsis: in sepsis some usually harmless bacteria become wild due to weakened immunosystem (e.g., sepsis may occur during chemotherapy), but this is not the case with retroviruses. Retroviruses can very well be highly pathogenic, many of the worst human diseases are caused by retroviruses. A species can evolve to tolerate a retrovirus, as some lower primates have evolved to live with SIV, but this is not the case with apes and it is not the case with humans. Evolution might take tens of thousands of years and this zoonotic virus has jumped to humans too short time ago.
When I read Kennedy’s book, I found his attack against the HIV to AIDS theory so exceptional that, like Mr. Unz, I also made a small study. The evidence of the theory is strong and present antiviral treatments are effective. I strongly recommend that they author would finally reconsider his approach in finding out what conspiracy theory is reasonable and what is not. It is not the approach that if some experts at some time long ago wrote something and at that time their views were scientific and reasonable, then their views still are reasonable. One does not need to be a virus researcher, it is enough to use common sense. First look at the evidence that HIV is a Lentivirus and then what is known of other Lentiviruses, and check if the modern treatments work of not. The usually chaotic situation at the beginning of the research always pointed to many possible explanations, but things change later.
As the author mentions having been a theoretical physicist, I would suggest that he would check if the relativity theory is valid or not. it should be more on his area.
I always find something new when I look back at this event.
Duesberg was very careful to attack Gallo, not Montagnier (both legallly ruled co-funders of HIV in an extremely wierd court case), Montagnier acted as if HIV was his intellectual propertry and Gallo , stole it. Montagnier ‘discovered; it a year before Gallo in france.
Duesberg asserted that the HIV virus was not an infectious agent and therefore not the culprit they were looking for.
Montagnier, took care to claim he NEVER proved it was infectious, I thought that was interesting, Basically absolvijng himself from any potential future legal liabilities, Soom later he agreed with infectiousness pf it but that is different from being the man that ‘proved’ it which was Gallo, from a legal standpoint.
It should be noted that Gallo was overlooked by the Nobel committee. I wonder why. The nobel committee VERY noticely overlooker Gallo in 2008, even though courts have ruled he as ‘co-discoverer’. So something to take note of
Dueberg attacked the indurtry machinations – which legal culpability starts with and is hinged on proving ‘contagion’, Which Montagnier made abundently clear he was no part of that scientific study
This dyamic is the key to the power strugles behind the scenes.
Perhaps this is clue to why MSM avoided Kennedy’s part of AIDS
There seems to be some fsctionsl fighting exposed by the period of lsrger thsn typicsl system scientific
COVID and AIDs both hsve very similar frauduent and propagandistic aspects that remarkably overlap in so many ways
Dr Micheal Yeadon
There is no HIV virus. There was no new illness called “AIDS”.
There were & remain a range of illnesses which mostly had names and are now deliberately misattributed.
As with HIV & AIDS, with pre-existing illnesses misdiagnosed and misattributed, so with SARS-CoV-2 & covid19, with pre-existing illnesses misdiagnosed and misattributed.
This isn’t their first rodeo, where “they” are what I call “the perpetrators”.
Thus, LAV.
Montagnier’s viral isolate was at the time labeled LAV, Lymphadenopathy Associated Virus.
Fauci n Gallo “obtained” LAV from Montagnier’s lab at The Pasteur Institute.
renamed HTLV-3 by the same suspects.
“Perhaps this is clue to why MSM avoided Kennedy’s part of AIDS ”
Probably true. The article suggests that HIV does not cause AIDS and HIV was a hoax and then proposes that MSM does not attack Kennedy’s claims of HIV because they are correct. But Kennedy in the book clearly writes that he takes no stand on the question whether HIV causes AIDS, so MSM could not claim that Kennedy is an AIDS or HIV denier. The claims in Kennedy’s book are that big pharma with the help of Fauci suppressed some views that were at that time valid, proceeded to create a very expensive and rather ineffective (or even harmful) treatment and earned huge profits. These are claims that may well be justified and MSM does not want to attack them.
Fair point. It may just be there is a kind of lazy horizon about what people typically think about disease. Specialists know, but average people don’t
Agree. I think Duesberg’s arguments were strong and insightful at the time they were first made. And they have become more and more strained over time to people with knowledge of the topic.
Yeah, if one is not familiar with the subject, Duesberg’s impressive early theories can seem more persuasive than they should be today.
An excellent book co written by Dr Humphries who is another Dr vilified by Big Pharma and their bought MSM.
Not exactly . The legal dispute is very fuzzy that needed to decide other perks
The heart of the dispute was whether the virus Gallo identified was the same as Montagnier’s LAV .
Being they were both taking material from ‘AIDS” patients then why is it even a surprise or question if they were the same
That does not make sense.
Montagnier acted like hie designed or invented it, mot discovered
Montagnier’s viral isolate was at the time labeled LAV, Lymphadenopathy Associated Virus.
True-ish. What he cslled the so-called isolate was LAV
Fauci n Gallo “obtained” LAV from Montagnier’s lab at The Pasteur Institute.
Well, they were accused of getting some information on the supposedly virus in all AIDs patients. So, why would they need to ‘steal’ his “LAV” being that it is the deadly virues froun in AIDs patuent which the NIH was not short on. So that they notion that they stole frances HIV sample is very weird.
It does not make sense. Gallo alledgely was one of the worlds foremost experts on retroviruses,,, He’s been retroivirus hunting since the early 70s with Duesberg . Supposedly was the first to isolate one.
Until HIV was only known in animals. Interestingly, Montagnier’s case where he harvested the same isolate was referred to him by a doctor that though it was a retrovirus Which is why he refderred him to Montagnier who was mr retrovirus in france. Why would he even think that it was a retrovirus. That’s weird
Yes team america called it somethng else. Which is expected ane irrelevant
HIV was the legal compromise that arouse from the lawsut as well as joint recognition for the discovery
This still leaves lots of questions
Why was Montagnier suprised he isolated the exsct same virus from an AIDs patient?
Why are viruses patented to certain parties. I assumed you could not patent natural subvstances. The GMO legalities show you can only patent nature when their is some human modificastiob, basically saying, there has to be some human modifcation in the natural substance that could not hsappen in nature
Given that remains true in other areas, part of the lawsut was patenting the virus as HIV instead of the two seperate name came up with by the different parties
So what exacty got uo Montagnier ass? What was stolen from him?
Montagnier was spo surprised that he found the same exact virus? Wouldnt that be expected
See, Duesberg claimed that HIV contagion was a hoax.
And thus media hysteria was unfounded. All treatments were bogus and potentisally deadly, And there was no way you could ‘catch’ aids
He did not promote ‘lab leak’ theory therefor making some mitigation measures necessary and upholding the ‘contagion’ concerns
They don’t want to bring attention to Kennedy’s AIDs denialism because if you appplied the same logic to COVID then , the public may conclude that all of COVID was a complete fabrication (Like me). And you can’t , catch covid snd you certasinly don’t need a vaccine.
If we Duesberged COVID, the whole thing collapses
THAT would be a bio reason not to bribng attention to it.
No Kennedy, didn’t Duesberg COVID , in that he maintains it was a ‘lableak’ , like Luc Montagnier
Perhaps the Powers are fine with the promotion of lab leak theory. The dichotomy of lab leak or natually occuring COVID is a safe overton window for our shadowy overlords.
If we put it into the AIDs denialist Duesberg frasmework, then noobvody in power can point fingers at others . Then they are all in on it and Musks blabbering bout Arresting Fauci is just bluster
Fauci can’t even manage fake pandemics competently. For the next completely ficticious we need somebody more competent to pretend we are all in danger
Montagnier won a Nobel Prize for discovering the HIV virus, so it’s hardly surprising that his glowing endorsement of Kennedy’s #1 Amazon bestseller was the first one the publisher listed. The book sold well over a million copies and for you to suggest that Kennedy and his publisher simply fabricated that quote seems incredibly implausible to me.
I wonder why the nobel prize was given to Montagnier while Gallo was overlooked. Being that they had a bitter multi year legal case in which they ruled that THEY both should both be recognized . Also the fact that they doled out the nobel in 2008, for a 1983 discovery is another peculiar fact. They sat on that for a long time.
The whole legal case on HIV discovery is bizarre from start to Finish.
Is Montagnier an ‘AIDs denialist’, now. I know he made lots of aguments on how the popular conception was correct. Was he just saying that to appease the pharma gods. He made lots of money from the AIDs epidemic. It was his life.
Still, the glowing endorsement of Kennedy’s book is very interesting.
Though, I will say, he seemed roped into it. Montagnier was also careful to notate that he did not discover it to be infectious. That honor, he would happily point outgoes to his bitter rival, Gallo . Duesberg Attacked the notion that it was an infectious agent and Montangier pointed the public towards Gallo, who ‘proved’ that.
Duesberg’s main beef was with Gallo regarding what he consiudered Gallo’s diusregard and failure to satisfy Koch’s 3rd postulate . He attacked the idea was contagious which literally destroy a huge oney making operation.
There were rumors at the time but Duesberg did not promote ‘aids’ lab leak theory. He maintained it was a completoy artificial pandemic
Kennedy and Montagnier do not say that about COVID. Applying AIDs pandemic chicanery as described by Duesberg to COVID would force Kennedy t0 change his position on COVID
Montagnier and Kennedy promote lab leak theory. Montagnier even said it was mixed with AIDs!
That there is some scary substance floting about that we must modify our behaviors to avoid. Maybe if the ‘lab leak’ was with a substance stonger than the ‘cold like’ covid , then Kennedy would promote lockdowns and jabs. If he saw it just like the AIDs hoax, he would be less of an establisghment shill .
I think they should take Duesberg position on COVID . Not just use his legacy for street cred
“Regulators misused PCR tests that CDC belatedly admitted in August 2021 were incapable of distinguishing COVID from other viral illnesses”
― Robert F. Kennedy Jr.,
So how do we determine the lab-leaked bioweapon from other respiratory infections that Kennedy and Montagnier subscibe too
It was created in a lab but we have no test to figure out which person with a ILI has the lab created one which according to Mr Nobel Montagnier is part HIV.
Maybe we should use an AIDs test?
The path that put the Korman-Dorstan PCR test as the gold standard for the World to use for covid is a scandal in itself. They had approved by WHO before China even sequenced COVID
othing magic about it. It’s a routine lab procedure. It’s how insulin and many other biological products are made commercially. You take an isolated genetic sequence – in this case the DNA version of HIV’s entire genetic code. You put it in a cell, and the cell starts producing the products of that genetic code – in this case HIV virus particles.
Okay, I’d like to read this procedure on like the lab work book or something. Like you are just like ‘oh you do just thisand this. easy peasu
Theory and reality often do not square up, henced the term ‘back to the drawing board’. This is particulalry true in the realm of microbiology, dna and things of that nature. I doesn’t work as theorized and then those perfect chalk board plans have to be scraped and rethought
Theoretical ways something could possibly happen based on an infinite numbers of assumptions does not necessarily mean that smart sounding hypothetical construct actusally work or occurs.
How did Montagneir and later Gallo obtain the ‘isolated genetic sequence’ which it is all based.
Today’s technology everything is ‘insilico’. In Wuhan they looked for various DNA fragments. Where d thdid they come from? Innjured cell of the host? Yeast? Bacteria? Virologist don’t know, don’t care. Just assume it’s all from a “virus”
Then have a computer assemble all these DNA fragments into your assumed “virus.” The “in silico” method.
And magically, you have discovered a virus, while doing nothing but a meaningless computer game.
I’ve seen critques of his original work. Kind looks like he was just masking shit up. Pointing to non specifric protiens and saying see ‘it has a typical retrovirus morphology’
And he weas so furious that Gallo found the exact same virus that he sued him.
In his interciews he describes patient number 1 as somebody who had aids. Well duh, he found HIV in his lymphnodes! The orginal study said he had swollen lumphn nodes, which they described as the precursor to aids. It’s the precursor to getting lots of things.
Aside from that, how did Montagnier, Mr Nobel prize, ‘purify’ the virus way back in 1983 and isolate it away from all other material.
So much of virology is in silica these days. It’s all theory in fancy computer models. Which is how virology startd, they didn’t have electron microscopes until the 60s. Some of those early ‘proof’ of virus studies are ridiculous. The proof of polio as an infectious agent was paerticulalry stupid. The mixed up a toxic slurry of lung flued various other lab chemicals,. Then drilleds a hole in the monkey’s scull , because the monkey got sick from a polio virus. I mean just ridiculous. That doesn’t necessarily mean it’s not true, just the methods used to ‘prove’ were just plain retarded
Duesberg attcked Gallo’s work, in missing Koch’s 3d postulate. He left Montagnier alone. Luc happily announced he never proved it infectious. He always made sure people knew that was Gallo, his bitter enemy, who proved that.
The PCR test used for COVID was approved by the WHO and declared the g0ld standard BEFORE Wuhan uploaded the genetic squence, btw
Here is the timeline
Oct 2020, Event 201 – Gates and Johns Kopkins table top exercise to game plan a fictious coronavirus pandemic in NYC featuring the director of the Chinese CDC, Dr Gao. It’s always helpful to be prepared, I guess, noting suspicious there
Mid December 2019 Gao returns to china ands low and behold a ‘cluster’ of pneumonia was discovered in Wuhan that would later be named Sars-Cov-2. *Wuhan has population of 13 million. China has a lot of pneumonia cases yearly . 3 to 15 per 1000 people, depending on age. Wuhan would have 1000s of people with pneumonia at that time.
What made that ‘covid’ cluster targetted for ‘extra’ investigation is a curious question. But the Chinese being astute as they are, did not question for a minute that they needed to be tested for a novel virus. If its a coronjavirus even better. . Great instincts, I guess. I wonder is Director Gao , fresh out of Event 201, was feeling prepared to deal with this totally unforeseen emergency when he found out about the exciting new discovery that was worth trillions.
Who is COVIDs, Luc Montagnier poised for a nobel prize, eh
Dec 19th Bill Gates gleefully announces in a tweet that 2020 to be the year to invest in vaccines. Gao must have text him and said ‘it’s happening’
It reall started on Jan 10th 2020, when WHO reported that there is an outbreak in China caused by a novel coronavirus.
On Jan 17th 2020, The WHO recommended the use of the Corman-Drosten PCR test as a gold standard for detecting SARS-Cov-2 before the paper was even submitted for publishing. They just knew that it was a winner
On Jan 21 2020, the Corman-Drosten paper was submitted to the scientific journal Eurosurveillance describing the PCR test.
On Jan 22 2020, it was accepted for publication.
On Jan 23rd 2020, it was published.
Keep in mind that at the point when they started working on the PCR test, the genetic material of the virus was not yet sequenced.
“We aimed to develop and deploy robust diagnostic methodology for use in public health laboratory settings without having virus material available.”
“The PCR test was therefore designed using the genomic sequence of SARS-CoV” “Design and validation were enabled by the close genetic relatedness to the 2003 SARS-CoV.”. Great time saving guess. I wonder of the 2003 version has some HIV in it, like new version, that Montagnier described.
Listen to Kevin_McKernan @ 10:37 he estimates that hey started working on the PCR test at least 2 months prior to the publication of the paper, so towards the end of Nov 2019.
https://bretigne.typepad.com/…/12/wtmwd-50-kevin-.html…
“You have to recognise the body of the work that they presented is not something you can do in a week that looks like maybe 2 months worth of work, which of course begs the question of who tipped them off to making this, early, prior to actually being a pandemic.
The paper was not peer-reviewed. It was approved in one day. It takes on average 179 days to peer review an article.
Conflict of interest was not declared: a) Drosten and his co-author Dr Chantal Reusken happen to be members of the editorial board of Eurosurveillance.
Olfert Landt, of Tib-Molbiol, the company that developed the PCR test being used, was also a co-author of the Drosten paper. “they distributed these PCR-test kits before the publication was even submitted.” They were already in business before the pandemic started.
In March 2020, the pandemic happened. The more we tested, the more cases we got, the more we assigned any death with a positive test to COVID19.
The world went into lockdown based on a fear of rising cases, asymptomatic transmission, widespread susceptibility, lack of pre-existing immunity, & lack of acquired immunity after Covid, with complete disregard to the fact that 80% of cases had no symptoms or mild symptoms and that mortality followed an age gradient. All these fears were not justified and contradicted our accumulated scientific knowledge. Basic immunological facts were put to question to disinform and confuse the innocent public.
Countries adopted an umbrella approach despite the fact that the profile of the vulnerable population was very clear since March 2020: older individuals with multiple comorbidities were at high risk of developing serious disease that could culminate in a negative outcome.
In June 2020, the casedemic happened.
The WHO & Corman-Drosten protocol recommended a Ct of 45 cycles. Over 30 positives increase regardless
On the 27th of November 2020, 23 scientists finally reviewed the Corman- Drosten paper and have demanded it’s retraction.
But it ws too late, the test remained standard
I think you’re confusing “infectious” with “pathogenic”. Infectious simply means able to infect a host, regardless of whether that results in disease. Duesberg always recognised HIV as infectious: what he disputed was whether it was pathogenic in causing AIDS. He accepted that HIV caused an illness a few weeks after infection (which we know as primary HIV or acute retroviral syndrome), but insisted it was then neutralised by the antibody response and thus rendered a harmless passenger in the host.
When Montagnier’s team isolated HIV for the first time in early 1983, they dubbed this isolate LAV-BRU – Lymphadenopathy Associated Virus, with the BRU coming from the first three letters of the surname of the man they isolated it from. But simply finding a new virus in a person with the disease under investigation does not in itself prove that the virus is causing that disease.
Later in 1983 Montagnier’s team has made further isolates from patients with AIDS and ARC, and thought they had sufficient evidence to claim they had discovered the cause of AIDS. They wrote up a paper and submitted it to Nature, but it was rejected by the peer reviewers. They also sent a patent application for an antibody test to the US.
Bitterly disappointed by the rejection, they sent a sample of LAV-BRU to Gallo’s lab in Bethesda Maryland, hoping to get additional support for their thesis. This was a fairly common practice between labs – they often shared their own isolates with each other. There was also a third lab looking at a retroviral cause of AIDS under Jay Levy in San Fransisco. Levy called his viral isolates from AIDS patients ARV or AIDS Retrovirus.
In early 1984 the three teams got together to compare notes. It became clear that all three had good evidence that LAV/HTLV-3/ARV was the probable cause of AIDS, and that the antibody tests could identify people with AIDS with near 100% sensitivity. After the meeting the three teams began mentally packing their bags for a trip to Sweden to pick up their joint Nobel prizes.
But unknown to the other two teams, Gallo had already submitted three papers to Science outlining his evidence for HTLV-3 as the cause of AIDS, as well as a fourth detailing a method for continuous production of the virus: his lab co-worker Popovic. had found a strain of the virus which they called HTLV-3B which grew superbly under lab conditions, as well as a cell culture which suited this strain. Until then, the virus could only be grown with some difficulty. Being able to grow the bug reliably and in quantity was a breakthrough, because it meant a regular supply of antigens for antibody tests and – potentially – for a vaccine. An urgent patent application for an antibody test based on antigens from HTLV-3B was submitted.
On 18th April Science’s peer reviewers accepted Gallo’s four papers for publication in the coming issue. Four days later, Reagan’s Health and Human Services Secretary called a press conference to announce the discoveries.
Montagnier was furious. Levy probably wasn’t all that happy either. Gallo had claimed credit for himself that they had agreed should be shared among the three of them. But it was the fourth paper – the one describing continuous production of the virus – that caused the most rancour. And why was Gallo’s test getting fast tracked through the patent office while Montagnier’s – submitted months earlier – was still languishing in their inbox?
Montagnier suspected that the HTLV-3B strain was in reality his own LAV-BRU, rebadged. He’d sent the sample to Gallo on the understanding it was not for commercial use, and now the NIH was poised to make millions in royalties on the antibody tests based on this strain. Nonsense, said Gallo, we tried growing LAV-BRU and it did poorly under lab conditions. But because of the way the experiments were conducted there was no way to establish which of the dozens of different isolates circulating between the labs was the true origin of 3B. Or so Gallo said.
A few years later HTLV-3B was sequenced and compared to lab isolates from the time. It wasn’t LAV-BRU, but it did originate from Montagnier’s lab: it was an early isolate of his called LAV-LAI. Because it was such a prolific grower under lab conditions it had accidentally contaminated other samples, but no-one could say where or when. Ultimately, following high level political negotiations the legal dispute was resolved with the Pasteur and NIH team jointly recognised as the discoverers of HIV as the cause of AIDS, and equally sharing the royalties from the test. Poor old Levy was left out in the cold.
Later in 1984 both Montagnier and Levy published their evidence for the virus being the cause of AIDS. But Gallo had snuck in first, and in science precedence is everything.
No doubt the Nobel committee considered the above history in deciding who to award the 2008 prize to.
Well, I hate to sound like a broken record but there were another couple of big hit-pieces against Kennedy in today’s print NYT.
Some DC think-tanker specializing in science attacked Kennedy’s “anti-science” agenda in a 1,400 word column that never mentioned anything about AIDS or HIV:
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/27/opinion/rfk-jr-trump-maga.html
Then there an entire print page was filled with a 2,100 word hit-piece with FIVE co-author:
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/30/world/africa/rfk-jr-kennedy-international-work-public-health-policies.html
The very provocative subtitle was “The health secretary pick and his organization have worked around the world to undermine longstanding policies on measles, AIDS and more” so I assumed they would have to heavily focus on HIV/AIDS.
Nope. This is all they said about the 200 pages in his #1 Amazon bestseller:
They actually devoted much more space to claims that his work with conservative Christians in Africa had undermined safe-sex campaigns to combat AIDS.
It really looks to me like the NYT and the rest of the MSM is doing everything they can to make sure that no one hears about Kennedy’s 200 pages claiming that HIV/AIDS was just a hoax and becomes curious enough to look into the issue.
Another excellent article. I love watching you wake up to these things. I don’t know what it means, but I have come to all the same conclusions as you have and I agree on almost all your articles with the exception of vaccines (unless you have changed your stance on them.
Aside: Vaccines are literally poison, and I unfortunately learned that too late and had tons about 12 years ago causing some very bad reactions to certain things i never had before i got them, and when you learn how they work they basically are designed to make you have these reactions by binding a poison to what it is they the immune system to attack, well if anything in there is similar to something else it causes all kinds of problem, such as auto immunity problems or allergies etc. Thankfully, the negative reactions from the vaccines i got seem to finally be diminishing, most are not that lucky.
I came to all the same conclusions, but you have done much better research and always give me a more rounded better sourced take. I find as much fact as possible about issues then rely on intuition and logic to arrive at my conclusions, and when i find new info i re-evaluate. That is my shortcut to not spending 100s of hours on every topic, the less immediate importance the topic the less time i spend on gathering facts and the less rigid i am on my evaluation.
I look forward to you discovering more interesting topic that I have not seen you cover yet. When i “woke up” to the fact we were being hoodwinked by the media and everything else. I started at zero. I assumed everything I knew was false, I took the position that my default position was skepticism, then I built up my interpretation of reality. when you do this it is amazing what you cannot prove is real beyond a reasonable doubt.
Keep up the good work!
Infectious was a poor choice of words on my part. Infectious means to spread. i just read an article put out by columbias university that said there are 320,000 kinds of viruses in mammals.
Did they mean they were infected with viruses or just there, like gut bacteria ,
Scientists estimate that there is a minimum of 320,000 viruses in mammals awaiting discovery.
Another virus counting piece from national geographic said there are more viruses on earth than ‘stars in the universe’. That’s a big number. You might say we are swimming in an ocean of viruses as much as we are surrounded by them they kind of hang out on mammals as the columbia piece said. Are they ‘infecting’ -spreading . idk..
Tangentially, I’ve read some peer review literatrure that said coronaviruses are the most common virus found in humans. At any given time, 30% ogf the population has a cornoavirus ‘infecting’ them. They could mutate at any given moment and kill everybody!
I could never find any old papers by Duesberg before he decided to quit virus hunting to throw rocks at the medical establishment for the rest of his life but I don’t recall him saying the HIV virus made people ill. In fact, I think his position was they just are like there, part of the atmosphere, and very commonly attached to mammals. But I could be wrong
He just said they were stuck on kochs 3rd postulate out of 4, thus NOT proving that HIV causes diseaxse by the definition of Koch’s postulates. So read into that what you will
Montagnier said he only CO-discovered it. He didn’t prove anything else regarding it’s existence but not any other aspect of the AIDs phenomena. Duesberg never discussed Montagnier’s ‘work’ which he made clear was not proving it was disease causing (though luc did believe it). So I guess he agreed with his arch nemesis, Gallo, who co-discovered HIV, but was overlooked for the nobel
Gallo was head of the Caner institute for the NIH. See at that point, thatr is where retroviruses were expected to be, causing cancer. Duesberg and Gallo were American virus hunters looking for csncer causing viruses throw the 70s
Montagneir was working at the brand new department of virology (opened in 72), they, like their counterparts in the US, were also looking for retroviruses that caused cancer through the 70s
They had very little luck with that.
But when AIDs dropped into their lap , their luck changed. Big Medical didn’t really have any bugf Ws for a while, so they really need to cure something big
HIV was like a gift from God! A huge cash cow.
The co discoverers, Gallo and Luc both got royalties on the blood tests.
“Oct 2020, Event 201 – Gates and Johns Kopkins table top exercise to game plan a fictious coronavirus pandemic in NYC”
Typo corrections, you mean Oct 2019 and Hopkins.
Well, he claims he isolated a novel viruses. Lymphadenopathy is just a fancy word for swollen lymph nodes. That’s what he had. Maybe he was gay as well, idk But he did not have any identifiable illness. Just swollen lymph nodes which Montagnier describes as the ‘precursor of AIDs’. It’s the porecursor of getting sick with all kinds of things When Montagneir retells the story he says he had AIDs. of course he had AIDs! That’s where he discovered HIV!
From wikipedia
Rozenbaum had suggested at scientific meetings that the cause of the disease might be a retrovirus. Montagnier and members of his group at the Pasteur Institute, notably including Françoise Barré-Sinoussi and Jean-Claude Chermann, had extensive experience with retroviruses.
The only people with ‘extensive experience with retroviruses was Gallo’s department at the NIH and Montagnier, Pasture’s depart of virology. Outside of those two groups nobody knew what a retrovirus was. Those two , the NIH and that place in france was pretty much it when it comes to cutting edge retrovirus work.
Why in 1982 would Rozenbaum ‘suspect’ a retrovirus is one of histories weird synchronicities. But that is how Luc told the story, At that point retroviruses were possibly known to cause cancer in mice. That’s about it. I think it was Duesberg who was given credit for that discovery.
So the back story is just so full of wholes and little factoids that seem made up
And yes am well aware that coorelation doesn’t equal causation. Unless coorelartion equalling caustion is worth billions, then coorelaton is typically good enough. On the other hand, when it comes to vaccine injury than coorelation can never equal causation and they mine as well say coorelation NEVER means causation .
Royalties for blood tests was something team USA was fighting over with Team france for. The transatlantic brave retro virus hunters ensuring that gay bathouse culture remains safe for drug fueleds orgies
It’s funny that they both were on the hunt for retrovirues causing cancr and aids dropped into their lap.
Also that mysterious gay syndrom later to be called AIDs, was an american phenomena., The NIH was looking into it, congressman were concencerned. NYT readers were watching curiosly
Outside of the US there was no ‘panic’. I can only assume is france was getting reports via scientific journals.
But eagle eye Rozenbaum over in france knew a retrovirus might be the problem of a person that did not have any identifiable illness. Passed ut off to the resident retrovirus expert and Jackpot!
The story is just unbelieable.
People are lying
Your timeline pertaining to the development of the authorized Covid test and the subsequent media fear generated from highly unreliable results supports the point I had summarily made in the first paragraph of Comment #11 above. This methodology is why cynics refer to this development as a Plan-demic. If Drosten and others involved in this scam are not going to be prosecuted for their criminal conduct, then a similar phenomenon is more likely to occur again in the future.
As with GRID and then AIDS since 1982, seeing an opportunity for profit, not letting a minor crisis “go to waste”, as it were, and consequently transforming a small and easily manageable mole-hill into a big mountain that goes out of control through the complicity of government agencies and media sensationalism, is too harmful to society to not be publicly exposed for the fraud it was, so that appropriate lessons can be learned.
“It really looks to me like the NYT and the rest of the MSM is doing everything they can to make sure that no one hears about Kennedy’s 200 pages claiming that HIV/AIDS was just a hoax and becomes curious enough to look into the issue. ”
It can well be that there is something. But it is not that HIV to AIDS connection was a hoax. But it may be that those 200 pages of Kennedy’s book suit well for present purposes. It is fine if people see a HIV-infection as a fully treatable chronic disease, not any doom. And it is fine if people see HIV as basically a harmless virus when stripped off from pathogenic and viral genes. Because gene therapy and vaccines intend to use a HIV virus viral vector, which is claimed to be completely harmless. It can insert any genes to human genome, pass the barrier to the brain and invade also non-dividing cells (like brain cells). That can be a valuable medical tool, or a way to do what you want to much of the humanity by only persuading them to take an injection. At this time public interest on this issue may not be desirable. Somebody might demand banning lentivirus based viral vectors and prevent a planned scenario, whatever it might be.
Gallo is credited with isolating the first retrovirus in 1980 after being ‘on their trail’ for a decade. Without that work the rest AIDs history would be different
Everybody has their narrative. For some reason the lawsuit yielded a compromise acronym, HIV and split on the royalties for blood tests, before the PCR replaced them not too much later. And joint recogiton of the discovery. Maybe the ruling was rigged against france. idk
But it’s well known that team France isolated it first. That was never in dispute between the two parties. Some say he didn’t isolate shit. He just pointed out non specific protiens and deemed it having ‘typical retroviros morphology’. Which begs the question. Hiow does he know what ‘typical retrovirus morphology’ is? At that point in time Gallo is allegedly the ONLY person in the world to isolate a retrovirus. So where did he learn about retroviruses? To know what ‘typical retrovirus morphology’
Probably from the only guy in the world to ever identify one. His good buddy Gallo.
I’m sure he must have read his work from three years earlier
Retroviruses were theoretical before Gallo . He literally made them real in 1980
Perhaps the Nobel committee overlooked Gallo just because they were first. Or maybe behind the scenes deep parapolitical machinations. Who knows
Contaminated not stolen.
Who said stolen?
“Trueish” applies to them.
U.S. Government mobilized to market Fauci and Gallo then as it did in 2020.
When Gallo first submitted his report on HTLV-I to Journal of Virology it was rejected right away by the editor Robert Wagner “insisting that they should cease, and not continue to perpetuate the controversy, strongly implying that we all know human retroviruses do not exist”.
That was in 1977, it was kind of s consensus that retroviruses were not found him humans. Gallo won thatr scientific fight after supposedly developing a way to isolate HTLV-1.
In 1980 it is accepted that he isolated the first retrovirus found in a human
And just 3 years later, Rosenbaum, Montagnier’s colleague, had reason to suspect that a guy with swollen lymphnodes, who died, needs an expert in retroviruses to look into it . It appears Montagneir owes Rosenbaum and Gallo.
Would anybody have been looking for a retrovirus as the etiological agent for AIDS had HTLV-I not previously been isolated?
Highly doubtful.
Gallo was absolutely determined to charge retroviruses wirth harming humans. Its like he was very bigoted towards retroviruses and spent years blaming them fer things he could not prove, until his big discovery of HTLV-1
Though Duesberg paints Gallo as kind of a con man always attempting to blame retroviruses for all sorts of cancers and always wrong except for that one in 1980, which made the very small scientific community looking at retroviruses think about them differently . ~I’m sure team france was following his work
See this story is weird.
Duesberg did not like Gallo. Montagnier despised Gallo and I think he accused him of stealing his isolation process. He was furious when he successfully isolated HIV a year later.
But to swing this full circle around and RFKjr teamng up with Montagnier is cerainly interesting.
Why team ‘lab leak’ should be trusted anymore than team ,not a lableak, is what I wrestle with
Perhaps they are all full of shit but in different ways
Who isolated Sars-cov-2 and why does a flu like illness get it’s own disease designation – COVID, unlike the dozens of other viral respiratory infections. What makes COVID such a special butterfly that the big media lie machine go into overdrive to grossly exagerated it’s danger.
COVID and AIDS were both big media hysteria events that both funneled huge amounts of money around.
AIDs research still gets 50 billion or so a year, globally and allegedly it was cured 20 years ago.
Hit pieces from legacy media makes a person more popular with the majority of the population these days. It’s like street cred to get canceled from the liberal media machine
Unless they are complete idiots, our shadowy propaganda architects are likely trying to make Kennedy more popular with Trump supporters (the majority of the country)
The fact that most of the hit pieces rarely touch the AIDs stuff, is interesting. And likely meaninful
AIDs and COVID seem to spring from the same evil well of hoaxes
I think you should stick with the points I made. No reading comprehension? Seemingly rendering you a womanly blowhard, apparently (not the first time, you reply to me without reading comprehension). Also I notice you are in the business of smearing, insinuating either untrue things, or things beside the point (the ladies often have nothing else, and so shouldn’t play then, if that’s the personal case). And if I attempt to answer your dumb reply, pretty much every time, my comment doesn’t make it through (censored). I guess we’ll see if this one gets through (maybe because this time I won’t bother to provide you with the benefit of the doubt, and correct your bad reading comprehension, or otherwise smear-jollies? … I dunno, perhaps it’s that with the editors of TUR?). At this point, I think you should probably fuck-off, instead of implying I am lying, or some other misplaced assumption. It is really quite pathetic that you smear as cover for your bad reading comprehension.
Ron Unz, I get it. You want me to go away, like you have replied to me now a few times (without saying why). I guess you employ various ploys, around that (like by way of supporting ariadna’s smearing efforts, for instance), but censor me under other circumstances, as well. I have invested time here. That is not nothing. Be a sport, finally, and say why. The reason can’t simply be because you don’t like my writing style, like you have insinuated in the past, because you allow others with similar style, so I assume it’s something about the content I offer. What the devil is bothering you, about the content I have offered? The content I have offered has been consistent over every topic I have discussed here, so it shouldn’t be hard to state what it is, without you yourself going smear-mode, please.
Hiv also causes a chronic dementia and heart disease even under adequate antiretroviral therapy, even, say, with only twenty detectable copies of the virus in the patient. This phenomenon is still poorly understood. Hiv is not something you want to risk.
My own completely uneducated theory is that the dementia and heart disease result from vascular injury done in the prodrome phase of the illness.
Good that you mentioned dementia and heart attack caused by HIV. They appear in the late stage. Though the phenomenon is poorly understood, one can make an educated guess:
All cells (except for sex cells) in an organism have the same nuclear DNA, yet cells in different places in the body code different sections of DNA into proteins, and this is why some cells develop into neurons in the brain and some into heart muscles. Thus, there is suppression of the expression of genes depending on where the cell is. Retroviruses, and gene therapy or vaccines using a retroviral vector, insert genes into all cells, being even able to insert them into non-dividing cells. These inserted genes may well escape the suppression mechanism and produce proteins in cells where such proteins should not be produced. The resulting proteins are not needed and not used and can create a waste problem, causing damage to cells. The result can be dementia or heart attack. Notice, that these complications do not appear in the prodrome stage (the early symptoms of an infection), they appear in a late state and will not be seen in the tests of a new vaccine or gene therapy treatment.
That last gigantic post about Lustig and Taubes and fructose was the nail in the coffin for this one for me.
I understand what I’m looking at better now.
People like this must sound incredibly impressive to someone like Unz. They must seem like brave truth tellers who have made this enormous breakthrough at great personal cost.
That’s how it seems to people who don’t have a great feel of the biological sciences and understand how cruel and unforgiving they are.
It’s the same thing on this thread I now realize. It’s just foolish fantasy.
Duesberg = good because view = different. Whether Duesberg is just a crazy old fool to the rest of the scientific world at this point in time doesn’t matter. I get the feel Unz thinks you can just meme science into office as a revolutionary act. But you can’t.
I’ve been looking a bit more at these revisionist AIDS videos. I can say now with absolute certainty 95% of them are completely stupid shit, and Duesberg himself makes no real effort to separate himself from this crap where he appears within it.
If there is a secret or unexplained alternative explanation about HIV/AIDS it is not within any of this content at all in this revisionist collection.
And Snout is right, the theory that viruses (or bacteria) don’t cause disease is also well within this tent of AIDS revisionism.
This one was something else:
A couple of crazy old poo fetishists who believe disease is because of ‘toxins’ and ‘stress’ and nutrition.
The time these idiots appeared the AIDS revisonist movement must have collapsed.
In any of this content, there’s no one around Duesberg at all with any scientific credibility.
There’s like 1 general doctor, 1 African studies professor, a couple of homosexual activists who aren’t alive anymore. Oh sorry, there was one Italian microbiologist who appeared at some of these rethinking AIDS conferences although it’s not clear what he actually believes.
Some of the material is best described as denial. Sick people pretending there’s nothing wrong with them, or their loved one. But they do all these stupid juicing fasts even though they don’t believe in HIV when they hear they have HIV. At the same time they believe you can ‘out think’ an AIDS diagnosis or that AIDS is caused by ‘hearing you’ve got AIDS’. One of the homosexual activists on these videos even believed that stress from the religious right caused homosexuals to have AIDS.
AIDS revisionism is a shameful embarrassment.
If the NYT is not focusing on RFK’s HIV/AIDS ideas it’s not because they have any scientific value.
Oh I realize the prodrome is early, but I was saying perhaps the initial viral inflammation does such vascular damage that it leads to an accelerated atherosclerosis compared to normal people. Similar to the way Covid can cause permanent lung scarring.
Your theory is interesting. Is that a known hypothesis? Are you trained in virology? Why wouldn’t other systems of the body be affected then? All the viral enzymes are inhibited.
Your cry broke through the rime ice that envelops my heart and I now feel compassion and remorse.
All I can say by way of apology is that I didn’t realize just how persistently you have been persecuted on this site for the content you offered, which I admit I failed to appreciate. It also saddened me that no appreciation was shown to the time you invested here, as you say.
Your calling me a “womanly blowhard” with “no reading comprehension” allows me to hope that you don’t lump me together with Ron with whom I am not in cahoots, I assure you. I have no idea why he has it in for you. Your writing style, you say? Perhaps. He is insufferably pedantic sometimes. Not my case at all. I only thought your comments were idiotic and annoyingly so, but that must have been because I have no reading comprehension– a womanly thing. Go in peace.
He mainly saw the AIDS “rethinkers” as a ready made market for a series of scam AIDS cures he was developing at the time, based on an obscure blood product called GcMAF. That is, until the Italian equivalent of the FDA got wind of it, and he lost his medical licence and even his tenure as a professor – which is a remarkable achievement in the Italian university system.
He then fled over the border to Bussigny in Switzerland where he set up a clinic with a number of other scoundrels – notably one David Noakes – repurposing his fake AIDS cures into fake cancer cures. He also worked with autism quack Jeff Bradstreet in the US to market his product as a fake autism cure.
After the deaths of several patients, the Swiss authorities raided and closed down his “clinic”. In the US, the FDA raided Bradstreet’s offices in connection with the GcMAF scam, and a couple of days later Bradstreet shot himself.
With his colleagues being arrested and jailed over the fraud in multiple European jurisdictions, he skedaddled from Europe – supposedly to Arizona, but who knows. He continues to flog his dubious health products online, and churns out bizarre “research” papers for publication in bottom-of the-barrel predatory journals.
The whole story is even crazier and more convoluted than what I’ve summarised above.
https://forbetterscience.com/2022/12/05/the-marco-ruggiero-quackopedia/
You had to be there.
you had to have met 3 of the 4 major players in this saga.
You had to have paid attention to the private reports and publicity that followed Fauci’s and Gallo’s “test drive” of their pseudo-discovery at a Bethesda medical amphitheater in 1984.
You had to have followed in the press the Reagan Administration’s and NIH’s drive to land sole credit for the “discovery” and the patent royalty battle Royale that followed.
And you had to have witnessed how sick Fauci’s AZT made desperate patients back then.
Many of those doctors present in that medical school’s amphitheater in 1984 were closeted gay men on active duty in the U.S. military. Many of those same men would later die from opportunistic infections in Washington D.C.’s military hospitals Walter Reed, Bethesda Naval Medical Center and Malcolm Grow. Their interest wasn’t just scientific. It was personal.
Ed Tramont, Infectious Diseases U.S. Army, became director of NIAID’s AIDS division.
Ed was in the audience and was my supervisor for a time at Walter Reed two years later.
The Nobel comittee awarded Obams as peace prize. Why should we give them any credibility as an arbitor of morality or truth. Though it is still interesting how it played out with HIV, who they decided to recognize and the fact that it took them a half century to do it. Why so long? Then Luc Montanier becoming a medis prescence agsin during COVID. I suppose having a ‘Nobel Prize’ Winner brings some serious weight to whatever he is pushing. He never really had a dissident position on AIDs, he just thought that HIV was possibly just one of the cofactors. His posiiton is while HIV is clearly a big (if not the main)
Montagneir, the super genius disdcoverer of the elusive HIV, doesn’t automatically deserve any repect because the Nobel committee deamed him King of HIV.
He and Gallo’s dipute was petty, solely on the basis of acquiring recogition nd money. Their lawsuit was absolutely not anythng to do with justice or any sort of greater good. Or something trying to rectify someone that been gravely wronged
Both were actually collaborating on it since 82 before any isolation. And Montagnier asctuslly used Gallo’s isolation method from his other retrovirus isolation to be ‘the first’ Gallo encouraged him and he was thinking it was his retrovirus he already discoverd/invented.
I also just found out that the group of Doctors who went to Montagnier with a case, so he could look for a retrovirus, were Doctors who followed Gallo’s work. Gallo fanboys put Montagnier on to the famous case in which Montagnier disocovered his perpetual cash cow, I mean, Nobel prize worth disdcovery
Anyway, ultimately their ‘dspute’ petty and childish
When Montagnier said COVID was combined with AIDS and malaria made me think the dissidents were right there is no such unique virus. Montagnier didn’t disscover shut, the mafgic spells he used to congure up HIV where procedured he got from Gallo.
You certainly do not need HIV or COVID to have illnesses that look like AIDS or the flu,. And Duesber certainly got MSM attention
the fat guy was on Today in the 1970’s (I fergit his name).
I getcha. I haven’t watched TV in over 20 years.
“Your theory is interesting. Is that a known hypothesis? Are you trained in virology? Why wouldn’t other systems of the body be affected then? All the viral enzymes are inhibited.”
“All the viral enzymes are inhibited.”
Not all in any patient. One uses one NNRTI and two or more NRTIs. They inhibit only certain stages of virus replication. If the patient develops insensitivity to the used combination of medicines because the virus mutates, a different combination is used. This means, the treatment does not stop the virus from producing proteins: when the viral RNA has been reversed to DNA, this DNA will encode proteins. The treatment only stops the replication of a full virus that can infect other cells.
“Are you trained in virology?”
No. I have simply looked at some papers and used the common sense. But you are correct, to use the term educated guess one should be professionally trained in the subject. So, one should listen only these experts also in those topics that they do not understand (like why AIDS causes dementia) and not make any guesses on what is wrong with their approach as such a guess is not an educated guess. Like, instead of
thinking of the war in Ukraine and making an educated guess based on what you know of warfare, you should listen to Scott Ritter and Douglas Mcgregor as they are military experts though all the time wrong. Yes, I see the logic here.
But to explain why my guess is indeed an educated guess, read this following article (though it is already from 2004, it is not too outdated)
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7082807/
You see the approach that is used in antiviral treatment. The target is to reduce the viral load by attacking with inhibitors different stages of virus replication process, starting from the entry of a virus into a cell and largely focusing on the replication stage. As a result of these inhibitors the viral load decreases (though not to zero).
What is wrong in this approach, as there is the AIDS dementia and other problems?
Something must be wrong as the patient is not completely cured. Just find out what
is wrong in that approach. What is not fixed to the state before the infection?
What this approach does not do is that once viral RNA is transcribed into DNA and inserted to nuclear DNA, many proteins are still produces by encoding from this viral DNA. As the viral load is small, the remaining viruses are probably not the cause of dementia and other late problems, so the problem should be in what remains of the virus activity: the production of something that should not be produced. And my guess is that this is where the problem lies. This is a simple use of common sense. That is the
best guide in thinking, not referring to experts. Let us see if there is any support
for this idea from what AIDS dementia looks like:
“HIV encephalopathy (encephalopathy associated with HIV infection and AIDS, characterized by atrophy and ill-defined white matter hyperintensity)”
Atrophy means wasting, the brain cells wither away. White matter hyperintensity means “White matter hyperintensities (WMHs) are brain white matter lesions that are hyperintense on fluid attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans. Larger WMH volumes have been associated with Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and with cognitive decline. ” That is, something gets gathered in the brain, much like in the Alzheimer disease.
“Is that a known hypothesis?”
Why to repeat known hypotheses on a topic where the answer is not known? What I write on any topic are right or wrong basically always only my thoughts.
“Why wouldn’t other systems of the body be affected then?”
They would be affected in a similar way, but the damage done to some cells is not so vital as damage done to some other cells. The heart is a vital organ and problems in cognition are more important for us than e.g. some oddities in the Complete Blood Count.
UNZ:
Nobel In 1983, Luc Montaigner and Françoise Barré-Sinoussi discovered a retrovirus in patients with swollen lymph glands that attacked lymphocytes–a kind of blood cell that is very important to the body’s immune system. The retrovirus, later named Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV), proved to be the cause of the immunodeficiency disease AIDS. This discovery has been crucial in radically improving the lives of AIDs sufferors.
He recieved the nobel prize for the discovery of HIV which , in the Nobel committe’s opion, lead to proving Duesberg wrong and validating Gallo’s relentless drum beart off assertions on the causation and then, eventually the very lucrative AIDS treatment industry
I really don’t understand ‘intellectual theft’; in the context of peer review published studies and viruses.
Did Montagnier discover or invent HIV
Is nobody allowed to know how he ‘discovered’ a virus
Gallo is on record as the first person to isolate a retrovirus. If I was Montagnier, I would have read Gallos work on how he did it.It kind of makes sense that luc reached out to Gallo in 82 and they developed a somewhat hostile collaboration before is 83 isolation., From other scientists who both looked at their initial works on isolating retrovirues, they are almost identifcal. Is there like a virus isolation foer dummys book they may have read. Looks like Montagnier took some notes from Gallo
Gallo’s main accusation of misconduct was trying to improperly taking credit for the discovery of HIV. He did try to say it was the family of retroviruses he discovered. I guess that is taxonomically incorrect ccording to the expert. How dare he clsim those two retroviruses are related!
”
He was not accused of misconduct for claiming it caused aids. Duesberg asccused people of misconduct for msking that clsim =, The Nobel committee thinks that proof of cauation lead to wonderful things. Montagnier was givin an award because that clsaim of causation was decided to be true
If Deusberg is correct, Montagniers nobel prize is a joke. Not something to be impressed about
No, I highly doubt nobel overlooked Gallo on ethical grounds. Thus making Montagnier the ethical deadly pathogen hunter. Unlike Gallo the unethical deadly pathogen hunter. Trying to steal all the good ones
Thanks for your thoughtful reply. Well, in the brain cells it should then be possible to pathologically(under the microscope with various stains) to identify the pathological protein buildup, as it is in altheimers or the various prion diseases, according to your theory. That would be in the literature and it’s not. Actually, the imaging findings sound similar to small vessel vascular disease, so I prefer my theory. Think about it: heart and brain are where vascular disease hurt the most.
“Actually, the imaging findings sound similar to small vessel vascular disease, so I prefer my theory.”
Quite possible. It can be vascular dementia, but then you suggest that the symptoms appear late, when there is only a very low virus count. Should they not appear earlier, at the time when there is the virus causing the changes? I have not looked at this question, just wrote some thoughts about your comment. I initially had another goal. I questioned whether using a lentivirus vector is a risk. Does HIV become harmless if the viral genes are removed? The modified virus produces something useful, but is it useful to get those proteins in all cells, including brain cells? That is, brain cells get some additional DNA and produce something that those cells should not produce. Is that a risk that may show symptoms after a very long time and escape being found in acceptance tests of the cure?
Just to continue my answer. If one wants to use a retrovirus in gene therapy as a vector, would it not be better to take from the patient some part of some organ, insert there a new gene with the viral vector, and then transplant this part back to the patient, in order to avoid possible future problems that cannot be yet seen. But this cannot easily be done so with a vaccine as a vaccine should be easy to give. Which means that such a vaccine may be a time bomb. No?
I had to ask Copilot to refresh my memory, as I was probably smoking weed myself at the time. Here is the machine’s answer:
Yes, your recollection is correct. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was indeed arrested for heroin possession in 1983. Additionally, he was arrested for marijuana possession in 1970 when he was 16 years old2.
As for the incident involving a young Kennedy found passed out in an airplane restroom with heroin, that was also Robert F. Kennedy Jr. He became ill in the bathroom of an airplane in 1983, leading to his arrest for heroin possession.
Quite a tumultuous past, but he’s certainly had a significant impact in various areas since then. Anything else you’re curious about?
No.
Moment? Try like, 40+ years of treated like some moonbat freak
just because I don’t wear a wedding band, nor pay alimony or child support.
LOL. Well, Taubes is a very distinguished science journalist, the only writer to be a three-time winner of the annual award of the National Association of Science Writers, and Lustig seems a very solid mainstream academic, whose first lecture on sugar was viewed 25 million times, with tens of millions of views for his other lectures. Both of them wrote national bestsellers, and they accumulated a very long list of glowing endorsements by other top researchers and medical experts. As I mentioned in my original article, it was a prominent medical school professor who happened to bring these interesting issues to my attention.
Since I don’t know anything about that subject, I take those sorts of credentials pretty seriously, and their arguments seemed to make a lot of sense to me. Prof. Yudkin had taken very similar positions decades earlier, and he was one of the world’s top nutritionists.
Meanwhile, you’re just some random commenter with an eccentric name who hangs around my website. So perhaps you’re correct and they’re not, but that’s not the way I’d bet.
Another LOL. I’ll admit I’m impressed by the views of four science Nobel Laureates, Harvard Medical School professors, and top virologists such as Duesberg, especially when what they say seems logical and well-argued to a layman such as myself.
Since you’re comparing the nutritional arguments of Taubes and Lustig with the HIV/AIDS arguments of Duesberg and Mullis, I’ll accept that.
I’m perfectly willing to agree that the likelihood of Duesberg/Mullis being correct about HIV/AIDS is roughly the same as the likelihood of Taubes/Lustig being correct about nutrition.
Your method of evaluating information is…interesting. Duesberg and Fauci take opposite positions: how do you as someone only slightly familiar with the field evaluate their credentials and make your judgement? The obvious question is “You don’t know the field, so what do you know about credentials?” Dr. Oz or Dr. Fauci? Pick one, quick! Bill Cosby has a PhD. Jeff Baxter from Steely Dan does not.
Didn’t Einstein get his Nobel 15 years after publishing? Late Nobels don’t bother me, they probably had to wait for him to get some credentials. Early Nobels like the one Obama got, do. And the Dylan Nobel was a shanda. And I say that as a fan of all eras of Dylan. There’s probably a Deadhead on the Committee but that pesky 3 person limit means the Grateful Dead will never get one. Tant pis pour leurs. Nor should they.
I’m more open to the nutrition arguments, and I agree that unrefined sugars are probably bad, nutrition is such an unempirical science, but as for the hiv/aids connection, look at the rationality of our arguments. Not only that, keep in mind we have an immense weight of mds, PhDs, and md/PhDs on our side, basically the entire rest of the world. You have only these four little dissidents, and as Snout argues, you probably don’t even have the most important ones. Trust “the science”!
So who are the ‘good’ ‘valuable’ people who contribute to your website vs those who ‘hang around’ ? How do you decide that criteria ? What a stupid comment.
The impression I get is the ‘good’ ones are the ones who you put a gold border around to bolster up these theories that someone has exposed you to, to newbies. It’s pathetic.
I’ve been extremely generous and open minded with this subject actually, way more than it deserves.
And I was generous with Taubes and Lustig. I happened to post a video there pointing out Lustig is making claims not in line with the hard science and blatantly misrepresenting studies.
The producer of that video said he got so repulsed, he stopped watching Lustig’s interview as it wasn’t possible to take anything else Lustig said seriously by that point. But still I was generous, and said well maybe some things Lustig says might have some kind of worth.
But I do see a pattern.
Your problem on scientific topics is being blinded by credentialism and the thought of revolution itself, lurid headlines, and turning everything on its head. You’ve got no interest in what the science actually says at all. It’s just a conspiracy to you. Even the term ‘hoax’ is wrong.
4 Nobel Laureates, great, but how many serious scientists support HIV=AIDS today? 99.999999999%
That trumps these 4 scientists, who from day one I never said were idiots, or frauds at the time they made their claims, but that their ideas clearly haven’t stood the test of time by all credible accounts.
And where are the Nobel Laureates today supporting Duesberg ? Who has come along with new research to support Duesberg ?
Go and have a look at the ‘scene’ of HIV revisionism. Have a look at these rethinking AIDS videos. It’s an embarrassment.
Duesberg is the only person at these old events who (once) enjoyed any scientific prestige, but he frankly appears out of touch and uninterested in HIV research today.
Almost everyone else is just an idiot and a crank, and these rethinking AIDS conferences are a joke.
Duesberg is giving advice to people apparently to stop their HIV treatment. If they die, he says they lied to him and must have been using drugs.
But still, extremely generously, I have said though, because Duesberg once (decades ago) made some interesting and powerful points, to provide someone today with the expertise; virology, epidemiology, microbiology and so on to write an article here that tries to map Duesberg’s ancient theory onto today’s picture of HIV/AIDS. I have no objection to this intellectual exercise at all.
But you’ll have a very hard time finding someone credible with that expertise who will take any of this seriously. It is basically flat Earth to them.
And because it’s an extremely technical and complex field, rather opaque to non-specialists who come along, the whole thing is very vulnerable to people being moved by massive sensational claims that who haven’t been exposed to them before, and don’t know how to weigh these kinds of claims.
And try not to start a new reply with ‘LOL’. It doesn’t strengthen your position on any topic and it’s quite Jewish.
“Had COVID”. Insane comment. Based on a nasal swab test? You could have had literally – anything. Allergies, a bacterial infection, who knows. You *DID* make sure you tested for everything, right? And not just test for everything in a nasal swab test – you really very much should have done anal tests, because maybe it was something you ate!
Because anything could make you sick, so testing for just one thing doesn’t rule out it wasn’t the other things. And you breathe in 7 million liters of air per year, which is likely enough to mean you inhale hundreds of billions if not trillions of particles (“virus”, bacteria, etc.) per year. That’s *A LOT* of stuff to test for, because almost any of it might make you sick.
Moreover, it is a known fact that some tests were “flawed” and “always tested positive” due to “contamination from synthetic DNA” – to say nothing of some fly-by-night “testing” companies with likely lax protocols.
We could go on.
I’m sure the chemical laden swab testing for one particular virus correctly diagnosed your cause of illness. I mean that makes tons of sense. Carry on.
Everything you need to know about AIDS is they first “HIV” tests were antibody tests. That is clearly ridiculous: don’t antibodies make you “immune”? Oh, of course not, not for this virus. Oh wait, antibodies are not molecule or even antigen-specific, anyone do exhaustive peptide searches to comprehensively exhaust the space of potential antibody cross-reactivity?
That alone is enough to junk this into the ashbin of history where it belongs, as you would not roll out janky “tests” to “diagnose people” with “diseases” regardless of their symptoms.
https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/policies/dear-colleague/dcl/20231017.html
The most “at-risk” groups barely even bother to use PReP: e.g., blacks and Latinos.
CDC Wonder says any deaths “involving” “HIV disease” (whether primary cause of death or just listed on a death certificate for any reason at all) for African-Americans were:
1999: 8462
…
2018: 3705
2019: 3540
2020: 4088
2021: 3964
2022: 3790
2023: 3495
This in a population that accounts for 10,000 new “HIV infections per year”, doesn’t even bother taking PReP, and – oh, and also was subjected to a “super deadly novel Coronavirus disease from 2020-2023 that bypassed their nonexistant immune systems.” Condom usage data appears low among African-American MSM (men-who-have-sex-with-men).
https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/140545/cdc_140545_DS1.pdf
Prescriptions for HIV antivirals decreased during the pandemic too, especially among young men on assistance programs (-18.7%).
This HIV virus doesn’t really seem to be “doing much” to this at-risk group. As in, it doesn’t really seem to be “causing a whole lot of AIDS.” Or, maybe it’s “mild AIDS”, the way that Japan and Australia had “mild COVID” in 2020 in which it caused “fewer people to die than normal.”
It pains me to say it, because I have learned so much from other American Pravda articles, but why write an article about a subject that you don’t know anything about?
Appeals to authority should always be used cautiously. Even winners of science Nobel prizes can have bad ideas – such as Linus Pauling’s belief that large doses of Vitamin C can cure cancer.
This is exactly correct. And I actually wrote about exactly just after my last reply to Unz then deleted it, because I couldn’t be bothered to carry this on. But it is important.
Here’s the key point of what I said, with a few additional bits:
…science is not decided by credentials and awards or number of YouTube views. And this is a fundamental mistake Unz has admitted to on these topics. Even bragging about it and sneering at comments that challenge the ideas themselves.
It’s such a critical error, it’s a “game ending own goal” to quote Unz himself.
Unz thinks prestige, particularly attached to emergent personalities with emergent publicity, decides reality.
The reason it doesn’t is exactly baked into the ‘prestige’ bit. Because people with prestige are human and make serious errors too. But the lay public is hypnotized by their prestige and cannot see the shocking scientific errors.
The scientific community itself understands this problem well.
Prestige, credentials and publicity around a topic do not decide whether something is true.
You can see how one can quickly end up in a world of nonsense this way.
And for Unz, if that prestige is attached to an unorthodox or controversial view about a hot topic it becomes ‘super real’ to him. And he’s said here he sides with these people. He doesn’t care what the rest of the scientific world says. It doesn’t matter. Prestige + controversy = reality.
Sad.
LOL.
You fail to understand an important element of the nutrition controversy.
If Taubes/Lustig are correct, and I think they probably are, then America’s entire government and media establishment spent roughly FIFTY YEARS urging people to eat exactly the wrong foods, foods that greatly damaged their health.
During that period, probably close to 100% of all the MDs, PhDs, and MD/PhDs went along with that nonsense, which according to Taubes/Lustig was based upon virtually no solid research evidence whatsoever.
Moreover, that other very widely praised book I cited made exactly the same case regarding salt consumption, namely 40-50 years when virtually every MD in America believed in something that was the opposite of the truth.
My point is that if everything that “experts” believed about nutrition was dead-flat wrong for 50 years, it seems possible to me that the same sort of nonsense could easily apply to 40 years of HIV/AIDS, especially since the case on the other side had such enormously credible experts behind it from the very beginning. Neither Taubes nor Lustig nor anyone else in their camp is a science Nobel Laureate, nor has the stellar reputation of a Duesberg.
But this is exactly the same approach I took with a large majority of my American Pravda articles.
In those cases, there was a standard official narrative about a controversial topic, one that I’d usually never questioned. I then discovered that some extremely credible and highly-regarded individuals had made a very strong case on the other side, but that the media had ignored and suppressed them so that neither I nor anyone else had been aware of their arguments.
After carefully weighing the arguments on both sides, I concluded that the case suppressed by the MSM seemed much stronger and more plausible than the official narrative, which I concluded was probably false.
That’s precisely what happened in the case of HIV/AIDS.
I’m curious whether you bothered reading any of those 1990s debates that I’d linked, or the very long NYRB article by the editor of The Lancet, one of the world’s top medical journals or reading Duesberg’s book or articles, or watching the various documentaries or long interviews.
After reading Kennedy’s book a couple of years ago, I’d mentioned my shocking conclusions to a high-ranking mainstream academic friend of mine, who was very skeptical and dismissive at the time. But I just found out that he finally decided to read the Kennedy book a few months ago, and once he did, he concluded that HIV/AIDS might very well have just been a medical media hoax.
I’m not really into the whole nutrition thing. Suffice it to say it’s hardly an empirical science. There is a strong connection between cholesterol and heart disease, supported by some of the largest and long running studies in history. Refined sugars are probably bad, but I would not go on any fad diets. Both should probably be avoided. I haven’t heard of salt being bad per se, except in hypertensives.
The two issues are very different. Things like hiv and smoking, where there is a single causative factor, are easy to tie epidemiologically to disease. With nutrition the dose makes the poison. Moderation will protect you in most things. Hence it’s more difficult to tease out causative factors, and different genetic populations may be affected differently, as for example with blacks and native Americans who are susceptible to diabetes. You are comparing apples and oranges with these two issues. In that comment I was referring to hiv/aids. I’m less jazzed about nutrition.
“After reading Kennedy’s book a couple of years ago, I’d mentioned my shocking conclusions to a high-ranking mainstream academic friend of mine, who was very skeptical and dismissive at the time. But I just found out that he finally decided to read the Kennedy book a few months ago, and once he did, he concluded that HIV/AIDS might very well have just been a medical media hoax.”
I was sent Kennedy’s book by a friend of mine and after I read it, the information in the book of HIV seemed initially possible and I checked if this is so. My conclusion from the small checking that I did was that it is not so. HIV does cause the collapse of the immune system and a weakened immune system is the cause of AIDS and I will briefly explain why this was my conclusion.
In any case where there is a scientific controversy of some question, there are highly credited experts on both sides of the discussion. If there were no respected experts on one side, the controversy would not be a scientific controversy, it would be scientists against “random conspiracy theoreticians who like to hang on the Unz site). Because there are always experts on both sides, one cannot solve the question by counting their credentials. It is not a vote based on credentials. It is a question which theory is better. At the time when the controversy is still seriously discussed by experts a non-expert is not able to decide which side is correct, or neither. But after a longer time more information is obtained through research and the scientific dispute is solved: the majority of scientists turn into one explanation and the question is considered solved. At that time a non-expert can check what the winning explanation is and judge himself if it seems strong and much better than the other initially considered explanations. This is the situation with HIV.
Let us take two alternative explanations for AIDS:
1. AIDS is caused by several opportunistic diseases that attack a person with weakened immune system. The reason for weakened immune system is e.g. poppers that some homosexuals use when penetrating the anus (this theory is in Kennedy’s book). HIV is a harmless infectious virus and not the cause of weakening of the immune system.
2. HIV is a lentivirus that targets CD4 T-helper cells, replicates in these cells, and then kills the cells. Killing T lymphocyte cells weakens the immune system. AIDS is diagnosed as a low count of CD4 T-helper lymphocytes, thus HIV is the direct cause of AIDS. The diseases that kill the patient in AIDS are opportunistic diseases that attack a person with a weakened immune system.
Clearly, in order to show that 2 is correct and 1 is false it is sufficient to show that HIV attacks CD4 T-helper cells, replicates in them and kills the cells. Then it is shown that HIV is not a harmless virus and is the direct cause of the weakened immune system. Further study of poppers (which has been made) shows that poppers are relatively harmless for the immune system.
The demonstration that HIV does attack CD4 T-helper cells has been done by describing the steps of this attack and by showing that if this attack is prevented, the CD4 T-helper cell count does not decrease below the AIDS level for a prolonged time.
The seven steps of how HIV attacks the immune system are all found out and described in a sufficient detail. Basically HIV envelope protein binds to the receptor CD4 in a T lymphocyte cell, the outer membranes of the virus and the cell merge letting the virus to replicate inside the cell. Then the virus directly kills the cell via a Fas-independent way (that may or may not be a self-destruction mechanism of an infected lymphocyte).
A proof that this indeed is the process how HIV destroys the immune system is that antiviral treatments, which attack different stages of this process, do work and reduce the viral load of HIV to a low figure. The treatments very rarely remove all HIV reservoirs in CD4 T-helper cells and because of this, only seven patients have been completely cured from HIV. The reason for this is that the treatments reduce the HIV reservoirs with a too long half-time (44 months) and some 75 years would be needed for completely curing the patient.
Several scientific papers are freely available in the Internet for any non-expert who wants to check if this explanation has any scientific basis. While we cannot know if in some branch scientific papers are all wrong on some issue, one at least should explain what could be wrong in them before making the claim that HIV does not destroy the immune system.
In general, the approach of comparing credentials of people claiming one thing in some disputed question against credentials of the people on the other side is always a wrong method of addressing any scientific dispute. You must address the theory: explain them both and show what is wrong in them.
This can be done in many disputed and controversial topics even though the MSM and the established “scientific community” supports one side. We can take for instance the assassination of JFK. Looking at the evidence, for instance at the sounds in the dictabelt, we can formulate strong arguments for the case that there was a conspiracy: more than one shooter. Weighting the credentials of people on each side we would conclude that there was no conspiracy and the official theory is correct. The same is with 9/11. By looking at the collapse of WTC7 and many other strange things we can formulate a very good case that the official theory is wrong. By counting the credentials on each side, the conclusion would be that the official theory is correct. The same situation is with the Holocaust. Calculating the Jewish death toll quite clearly proves that the official story is wrong, but counting the credentials on both sides would say that the official story is correct.
Also with conspiracy topics you must use the same way as in science. It is not counting the credentials of who claimed what. It is always the comparison of the explanations. If some explanation is false, there must be something wrong in it. You must show what is wrong in it. If you have correctly shown that some explanation has a serious error that invalidates it, then this theory cannot possibly be correct. And that is what you have to do in a conspiracy theory in order to show that the official theory is false.
interesting few observations from one history of HIV researcher. Re: Montagnier
In 82′ the debate was over lifestyle verse infectious disease
Fauci was the first to chime in penning an ediotiral in early 82 saying we should look for a virus
After that there seemed to some narrowing in on decision to look for retroviruses. Which was soley in the domain of a very small goup of people in the world
Gallo and Montagneir basically held the same position.
Luc seem to have been pulled off the bench. And The CDC held a meeting in 82 to look for Viruses, Gallo tried to prove it was the one he already discovered.
Then. Ironic
Luc seems to be good a playing both sides
― 335 ―
are testament to the widespread recognition that Montagnier’s support (or his perceived support) was a coin well worth possessing.”
#482 @James N. Kennett: You’re getting above your station. Remember that to Mr. Unz you’re just an anonymous uneducated blob in a basement with a stupid name who posts on this site because no one else will have you. He actually does say stuff like that in what can only be described as a “what a douche” fashion.
Mr. Unz:
You’re doing it again. Please stop saying “high-ranking”, it’s intellectual jock sniffing of the worst sort. One of your favorites, Mearsheimer for instance can be relied upon to be wrong every trip of the train.
Mr. j2 is just as bad:
So, “When the grownups make a decision you can look at their decision and talk about how wonderful it is.”
From The politics of AIDS in South Africa: beyond the controversies
BMJ 2003; 326 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.326.7387.495 (Published 01 March 2003)
Cite this as: BMJ 2003;326:495
No, I wasn’t tested at all. My wife came down with something and she got tested (twice) and came up positive for COVID both times. Then I got sick. And what I got wasn’t like anything I had gotten before, whether Flu or summer cold, or whatever. It had qualitatively different symptoms – much different. So, yes, I believe there really is a disease caused by SARS-COV2 that is different than influenza viruses, based on my own observations.
I agree that the tests, as they were implemented, were highly flawed and that that was purposefully done to drive up COVID numbers and keep the sense of panic going.
No, that is not “clear”, nor is it sufficient. It would be necessary to show that HIV attacks and kills a majority of CD4 T-cells – that it causes a collapse in the CD4 T-cell population in the body.
Again, that all presupposes that HIV is actually harmful, or rather, that it is very harmful.
Which it may well be, I don’t know. But I don’t think you’re making the definitive case you claim to be making.
“So, “When the grownups make a decision you can look at their decision and talk about how wonderful it is.” ”
No. More like, when the researchers of the field have provided an explanation that is supported by good arguments and seems sound, you can check if you can find any fault in their logic, and for that you do not need to be an expert. Like, when some of the researchers suggested that the reason is poppers and lifestyle, you as a non-expert can answer: that is not any proof, give evidence that it is poppers and lifestyle. But when the experts describe a seven step process by which HIV infects and kills CD4 T cells, and you find enough of the scientific papers giving the evidence of this theory freely in the Internet and can read them, then you ask yourself the question: what is wrong with this theory? Do I see a problem or error in this logic? If your answer is that it seems sound, then the explanation seems reasonable.
No expert knowledge is needed here, and it is not trusting experts or the scientific consensus, but checking yourself if the explanation seems acceptable. The scientific consensus can be, and sometimes is, incorrect. I suggested to Mr. Unz, who says that he is a theoretical physicist, to check the relativity theory. The scientific consensus today says that the theory is correct and proven by tests, but it is not correct and it is not proven by tests. This dissident view can be soundly shown by pointing out clear and provable errors in the theory. Again, you do not need to be an expert to do it, and you do not need to believe in experts. All you need is to know enough math.
As you point out, for decades the medical establishment pushed dietary recommendations that were harmful. And now they have a new, destructive fad – the whole transgender thing.
There appears to be an emerging medical consensus that women can actually be born in the body of man (and vice-versa) and that they require hormone treatments and Frankenstein-like medical procedures to make them into who they truly are. Or even that there is no meaningful distinction between the biological categories male and female. This new mania for “transgender care”, which isn’t actually care but is really harm, is all the rage with the medical establishment. It is now official dogma of the American Medical Society and the American Academy of Pediatrics, and a large number of university medical schools are invested in this insanity as well.
https://apnews.com/article/transgender-genderaffirming-care-pediatricians-176134f1b6ee1f2c146fef9a40cf351e
https://www.endocrine.org/news-and-advocacy/news-room/2023/ama-gender-affirming-care
How can one look at that and just blindly trust what the medical establishment tells us?
AIDS & COVID, seem to be very similar hoaxes
“Regulators misused PCR tests that CDC belatedly admitted in August 2021 were incapable of distinguishing COVID from other viral illnesses”
― Robert F. Kennedy Jr.,
If RFKjr is correct, there(I believe it is) and the PCR test can’t tell the difference, than how do we know which ones are ‘lab leaked’ verse comnon seasonal ILI (Influenza-like illnesses)?
RFK is saying he knows it comes from a lab but doctors can’t tell the difference of this lab-created frankenstien virus and common seasonal illness? Perhaps it was a dud as far as lab created viruses go? Just not that deadily or different. Anyway, The CDC’s list of symptoms are not unique beyond typical IFI .
Additionally, doctors have a hard time telling the difference, they test everyone with anything that looks like the most mild cold. During the height of a pandemic hospital procedure was to test everybody regardless of what. Which made sense, the got money for every positive test which as erroneously defined as a covid diagnosis. Being that regulations knee capped their ability to make money. Diagnosing and treating COVID was one of their few ways to make money for a few months
Now, RFKjr and Montagnier are both proponents of ‘lab-created’ theory. That seems to be their main bond. Luc can sometimes be a little double talking but he seems to think his Nobel Prize is something to be proud of, which indicates how important it was to proving causation of ‘AIDS’ and the subsequent treatments that followed. If he did not think it caused AIDs, then he should have not accepted it the fucking prize!
Now, I assume they mean Fauci’s ‘gain of function’ for lab creation. . Though Montagnier did indicate the COVID was spliced with ‘HIV ‘inserts’ (even theoreticlly that would not make sense with ‘gain of function’).
Interestingly, in 1987 the Soviets said AIDS was lab created via gain of function of HIV in the early 70s, in Fort Detrick. I doubt Duesberg would agree with that. Would Montagnier?
Hilariously, some Chinese officials were pointing to Fort Detrick, early in the pandemic. History sure rhymes in interesting ways
Montagnier ‘discovered’ HIV. The Chinese CDC ‘discovered’ sars-cov-2.
The Chinese CDC is a branch of the US CDC, they opened in 2001. It was the second country to get a CDC. Vietnam was the first. Since then, GATE’s CDCs have spread like a plague to 75 other countries.
Professor Gao, their distinguished Director was, interestingy enough, in NYC in Oct 2019, at Gates sponsoresd fictional pandemic exercise, based on a coronivus outbreak. How lucky was that? Mr Gao’s CDC ‘discovered’ a novel coronavirus just a few weeks later. That’s a remarkable coincidence. Even luckier, the PCR test was approved before the new viruses was identified and well before a pandemic was declared. That did not stop WHO for declaring the PCR test of the yet to be recognized Pandemic, the gold standard for testing the new virus in China
It reminds me of the synchonicity of Montagnier’s discovery. He was given an ‘AID’s patient’ by a doctor who said look for a retrovirus. Stoke of luck, I’m sure.
The COVID debate was the origin (lab or nature) – not whether it existed
The AIDs debate was whether HIV was causal, not whether it existed
The main HIV debate was whether it was causal in AIDs. btw, they don’t use the terms AIDS anymore. It’s now HIV + infection. You can get diagnosed with HIV infection by a positive test, no symptoms needed. Interestingly they keep the COVID 19 which is the disease caused by the virus Sars-cov-2 but you can get diagnosed with COVID-19 just with a positive test, no symptoms needed.
–
Dr Micheal Yeadon , Dec 2024
20 years later you could still find published skepticism of whether Montagneir found anything.
In south africa they decided to try to isolate HIV based on the below quote back in 2003. I don’t know what happened with their attempt
Today, In the US doctors can’t tell the difference between COVID and flu or colds until they test. In 2003, in South Africa HIV infections cause turburculosis , which was 90% of their HIV infections .
Professor
Abdool Karim has written that in South Africa “Clinically, pulmonary
tuberculosis (TB) is the main presenting ill
ness among HIV infected persons”.
*Now, see how he says HIV infected, not AIDS.
Today we do not have Duesberg-esque debates on if sars-cov2 causes COVID.
The big debate is where it originted. And no fighting over the ‘discovery’ lol
Maybe the Chinese scientist who discovered sars cov2 will get a Nobel prize
“It would be necessary to show that HIV attacks and kills a majority of CD4 T-cells – that it causes a collapse in the CD4 T-cell population in the body.”
I wrote a short answer in a comment thread, not a complete argument. The answers are in the scientific papers detailing this explanation for AIDS. The answer you find for this your argument is the following:
1. Patient case studies of patients in the early stages of this epidemic who did not get medication show that the number of CD4 T-helper cells decreased slowly over a long time. In average, in ten years there were left 50% of CD4 T-cells. Around this point the patients felt very sick and got various opportunistic diseases. Thus, the CD4 T-cell population did collapse.
2. Antiviral treatments that target HIV replication stop the decrease of CD4 T-cells in other patient groups. Therefore we can conclude that the decrease of CD4 T-cells is caused by HIV and not by some other agent.
1+2 means that HIV caused the collapse of CD4 T-cell population. For a longer and more convincing answer, read the papers and contact a researcher of HIV, I am not a virologist. You do not need to argue with me, I am not trying to convince you of anything. You should yourself check if the explanation that is offered is sound in our own opinion. All I am saying is that even a non-expert can check if the offered explanation sounds correct or not. There is no need to trust experts and weight their credentials like Mr. Unz does.
Just to continue my comment to you. If you read the explanation why HIV causes AIDS (the collapse of CD4 T-cells below some level), you may come up with some objections. Then check if the papers answer it and if not, you may contact some HIV researcher. I am not any HIV researcher and cannot help you. What I do is simply check some explanation to see if it satisfies me and I suggest a similar way to Mr. Unz because he too often finds some experts with a dissident opinion and writes of the style: I used to read New York Times and I believed everything, but then my eyes opened. (This sounds good). But now I found out some outdated papers by some really respected authorities of year zero and noticed that their opinions have been discarded. This is a conspiracy, this is a dog that did not bark. And very kindly to Mr. Unz I want to point out the error in this approach.
As for the approach to treat HIV, if you read the papers, I am sure you will come up with many objections. Firstly, the cures do not cure the disease. Secondly, it is not know if HIV infects other cells than CD4 T-helper cells. In vitro it can attack many other cells. With all retroviruses one must remember that potentially they can insert DNA to different cells, some even to sex cells and to the genome of future generations. That sounds risky. Thirdly, even if not sex cells, then in any case the infected cells produce some proteins, though not a replicating virus. Are these proteins harmless? Lastly, and this I consider the most serious problem: as the cure cannot kill all viruses, it leaves a virus population that can mutate to something much worse. Some say that a virus is dead, but it is alive when it is in a cell. Alive beings are not like quantum particles, statistical things. They are alive and seem to try to stay alive. Life will find a way if you attack it with your cures and fail to kill it, and that way may be very risky for us.
TB leads to a decrease in T4 cells, no HIV neccessary
As far back as 1987 Canadian researchers stressed that before the AIDS
era it was known that “In TB as well as in lepromatous leprosy, an
immunosuppressive state will frequently develop in the host. This state is
characterised by T lymphopenia with a decreased number of T helper cells [T4
cells] and an inverted T-helper/T-suppressor cell ratio …Immunosuppression
induced by the infection with M.tuberculosis can persist for life, even when the TB is not
progressive”.
IN 1994 Essex and his colleagues
proved that mycobacterial infections lead to the appearance of a positive antibody test which HIV experts consider proof for HIV infection.
They concluded that “ELISA and WB results [the two antibody tests used to prove
HIV infection] should be interpreted with caution when screening individuals
infected with M. tuberculosis or
other mycobacterial species”, and that “ELISA and WB may not be sufficient
for HIV diagnosis in AIDS-endemic areas of Central Africa where the prevalence
of mycobacterial diseases is quite high”.
So some bacterial infections can ‘lead t0 the appearence of positive antibody tests’. Is that a ‘false positive’
Accordingto a 1998 Lancet editorial, the developing world “bears more than 90% of the global burden of HIV infection” and “Tuberculosis (TB) is the leading cause of death
worldwide among people with HIV”.
Conversely and coincidentally, according to HIV experts, people with HIV are more prone to bacterial infections
So certain bacterial infections ‘can lead to the appearence of a positive HIV test’ and also real HIV makes people prone to bacterial infections . Makes your head hurt
Gay bathouse culture may be prone to a few bacterial infectrions
How early in the epidemic do you mean? As I recall, doctors only started to even look at CD4 T-cells around 1981 or so, by which time there were already thousands of patients who had what came to be called AIDS and who would die within a short time. Those patients presented to the doctors already in complete immune collapse. The question is what caused it to collapse?
Did they control for other factors in these studies? Let’s imagine two cases:
A person tests positive for HIV and goes on the antiviral treatment regimen. I’m not talking about straight AZT as was used early on, as that itself quite possibly killed off a lot of patients. But rather the HAART protocol from the latter half of the 90s.
Case 1 – the standard view of HIV/AIDS: the patient gets better because the treatment suppresses the replication of HIV and keeps his immune system from collapsing.
Case 2 – the alternative (Duesberg view): perhaps the patient facing a lethal disease and going on what they are told is the only possible treatment, also starts to clean themselves up – maybe they stop their drug habit, take better care of their health, etc.
Was there a population that continued the lifestyle that Duesberg blames for the disease and went on HAART and got better? That would seem to be an important control to consider.
By the way, I don’t think that Mr. Unz is merely trusting experts and weighing their credentials. If he were, then he wouldn’t question the conventional view in the first place. What I think he is saying is that the medical establishment, broadly speaking, is itself making arguments from authority. In effect they are saying: trust us – almost all doctors and scientists agree with us. It is therefore legitimate to counter with other authorities to say: wait a minute, not all of them agree with you. There are (were) many who did not.
I remember a time in the early 1980s when virtually all the authorities on Dinosaurs (i.e. paleontologists) thought that the Alvarez-Alvarez hypothesis, that the ultimate demise of the Dinosaurs may have been due to a bolide impact, was wrong. And I also remember how, over the course of the subsequent 15 years, their theory came to be widely accepted. The Alvarezes, father and son, a physicist and a petroleum geologist respectively, ended up being right, or at least substantially right. Even though neither were “experts” in that context.
Surely, you’re joking. Who would support such research? Who would pay for it? The NIH? Anthony Fauci at NIAID? Even proposing to do research that goes against the establishment view would be a career-killer. Anyone who did would be blocked from getting grants, blocked from publishing, students would be warned off of working with them. All that was done to Duesberg (largely by Fauci) “pour encouragez les autres”. And it worked.
Kerry Mullis, who won the Nobel Prize in Chemisty for the invention of the PCR process recounted how he proposed what he thought would be a simple test of the HIV/AIDS hypothesis. He wrote up a description of the idea for publication in Nature. They wouldn’t publish it. This was after he had become famous within the biochemistry world and was already on the shortlist for a Nobel, if not after having won the prize itself.
Mullis was just requesting a hearing, not an endorsement. So, it wasn’t worth hearing out his idea – hashing it out in the scientific community? The guy whose invention is one of the fundamental technologies of the entire field of modern biochemistry? And that’s not to say that his theory was right – but might it not have been worth discussing?
Apparently not.
My understanding is yes to both questions. This has been looked at.
Speaking of PCR test
On Janurary 12th the Chinese CDC ‘uploaded’ the genetic sequence of Sars-Cov-2
On Jan 17th 2020, The WHO recommended the use of the Corman-Drosten PCR test as a gold standard for detecting SARS-Cov-2 before the paper was even submitted for publishing.
On Jan 21 2020, the Corman-Drosten paper was submitted to the scientific journal Eurosurveillance describing the PCR test.
On Jan 22 2020, it was accepted for publication.
On Jan 23rd 2020, it was published.
Conflict of interest was not declared: a) Drosten and his co-author Dr Chantal Reusken happen to be members of the editorial board of Eurosurveillance.
Listen to Kevin_McKernan @ 10:37 he estimates that hey started working on the PCR test at least 2 months prior to the publication of the paper, so towards the end of Nov 2019.
https://bretigne.typepad.com/…/12/wtmwd-50-kevin-.html…
“You have to recognise the body of the work that they presented is not something you can do in a week that looks like maybe 2 months worth of work, which of course begs the question of who tipped them off to making this, early, prior to actually being a pandemic.
On the 27th of November 2020, 23 scientists finally reviewed the Corman- Drosten paper and have demanded it’s retraction.
/This paper (hereafter referred to as “Corman-Drosten paper”), published by “Eurosurveillance” on 23 January 2020, describes an RT-PCR method to detect the novel Corona virus (also known as SARS-CoV2). After careful consideration, our international consortium of Life Science scientists found the corman-Drosten paper is severely flawed with respect to its biomolecular and methodological design. A detailed scientific argumentation can be found in our review “External peer review of the RTPCR test to detect SARS-CoV2 reveals 10 major scientific flaws at the molecular and methodological level: consequences for false positive results”, which we herewith submit for publication in Eurosurveillance.
Further, the submission date and acceptance date of this paper are January 21st and January 22nd, respectively. Considering the severe errors in design and methodology of the RT-PCR test published by “Eurosurveillance”, this raises the concern whether the paper was subjected to peer-review at all.
Now you can buy PCR tests to test for COVID or HIV at many manufacturers
It’s true doing a major study that costs a lot of money would be very difficult from the outside. But how much scientific interest is there in this anyway?
But I wonder did Mullis or Duesberg ever conduct an analysis of existing data and studies ? Did they demonstrate there was something specifically inadequate about the research that was available, or did they just take a position that X should happen (the curve should look like ‘this’) and not Y if HIV=AIDS ?
International science (not just NIH) is saying “well we’ve had a good look, turns out the earth is round”. Duesberg and Mullis are insisting it’s a flat.
When did Mullis try to get the article in Nature ? It was probably excluded because no one’s interested in a discussion about flat earth in a major publication. Probably the same thing today with RFK and the NYT.
By academic or industrial scientists who are entirely paid either by the Federal Government (NIH) or by Pharmaceutical companies? Zero. If they know what’s good for them.
Yes, Duesberg did look at a number of studies. He also noted that there were people who were diagnosed with AIDS based on their symptoms, but who later tested negative for HIV, so the diagnosis was revised. These cases were described in the scientific literature and at major scientific conferences on the disease. To account for these, an entirely new syndrome was created: ICL – Idiopathic CD4 lymphocytopenia. i.e. what they call AIDS when it is unaccompianied by the presence of HIV. Isn’t that a little suspicious?
International science went bat-shit crazy during the COVID pandemic, insisting that the entire World economically self-destruct to deal with a resperatory virus that was not much different in effect than any number of other past pandemics. I’m not so impressed with “international science” as I used to be.
He described the incident in 1996, so it was prior to that – at that time, public questioning of the HIV/AIDS orthodoxy was still occasionally allowed, although it was getting rarer.
No, given when it happened, it was probably a case of narrative policing.
I for one would be interested in hearing what a brilliant and distinguished scientist had to say about a topic about which he knew something. I would think that most scientists would want to as well. And yet, Mullis, who won a Nobel Prize for highly significant discovery couldn’t get published in Nature, and Anthony Fauci, a career bureaucrat and government hack has no problem doing so.
And if RFK was a flat earther, and went on about it at great length in his book, wouldn’t the Times would make a big deal about that, as yet more proof that the man is nuts?
How would they do that, exactly? Ask patients “Are you taking lots of illicit drugs and engaging in frequent anonymous unprotected sexual activity?”
“Yes, Duesberg did look at a number of studies. He also noted that there were people who were diagnosed with AIDS based on their symptoms, but who later tested negative for HIV, so the diagnosis was revised. These cases were described in the scientific literature and at major scientific conferences on the disease. To account for these, an entirely new syndrome was created: ICL – Idiopathic CD4 lymphocytopenia. i.e. what they call AIDS when it is unaccompianied by the presence of HIV. Isn’t that a little suspicious? ”
No, it is not suspicious. At that time it was already realized that HIV causes a low level of CD4 T-helper cells and the disease they wanted to call AIDS means later stages of a HIV infection, the stages when the CD4 T-helper count drops too low. There are also other causes for a low CD4 T-helper cell count and this is why they needed to define ICL. Thus, AIDS can be diagnosed by presence of HIV and low CD4 T-cell count.
This is not a circular definition that forces AIDS to be caused by HIV. The view that AIDS is caused by HIV was established before this diagnosis method by other arguments. The diagnosis method only identifies if the patient has the disease. Duesberg finding patients with low CD4 T-cell count but no HIV only showed that also ICL exists. Additionally there are other reasons for CD4 T-cell low count. This finding does not invalidate the conclusion that the AIDS epidemic was caused by HIV.
The wave of publicity that seemed to propel Duesberg forward throughout 1992 picked up additional momentum in July, with the opening of the Eighth International AIDS Conference. Convening in Amsterdam like its “alternative” predecessor of a few months before, the conference was sidetracked by breathless reports in the mass media of an “epidemic” of cases of “AIDS” in people who tested negative for antibodies to both HIV-1 and HIV-2. “The patients are sick or dying, and most of them have risk factors,” wrote Newsweek , describing a dozen such cases. “What they don’t have is HIV.”[72] Perhaps a new virus was at work, a possibility that seemed to gain credibility in the media due to the coincidental report by a southern California scientist of the isolation of an apparently new retrovirus in AIDS patients.[73] Or perhaps there were other routes that led to conditions like AIDS. Newsweek ‘s speculations must have inspired intense flashes of déjà vu in those familiar with the debates about causes of AIDS that had been enacted a long decade earlier: “Dr. Alvin Friedman-Kien of the New York University Medical Center notes that
― 161 ―
gay men and IV drug users contract numerous infections, from gonorrhea to herpes and hepatitis. Some ostensible AIDS cases may simply reflect the immune-suppressing effects of common germs or of poor nutrition, he says.”[74]
As for COVID, the existence of the virus and the usefulness or not usefulness of block-outs and similar countermeasures can be investigated by looking at Sweden and the neighboring countries. Sweden did not introduce strong countermeasures. The death toll was higher in Sweden, much higher initially, at the end only somewhat higher (but higher any way). The economic impact in Sweden was smaller. It depends on what you prioritize, humans or economy. Sweden finally decided to introduce some countermeasures as the death toll was too high. But they never denied that there is a new virus.
I’m not going to pretend I’m well versed in all the details every step of the way, I’m not.
It is a legitimate question about earlier cases declared as AIDS without HIV, and it should have a good answer.
Generally, it seems clear that since the 1980s accurately establishing the presence of HIV has evolved a lot.
It’s also possible some earlier assumed cases with AIDS-like symptoms; KS, other infections, got swept up into the model incorrectly in the past.
They may have even been HIV+ but didn’t actually have AIDS by that point as we understand it now.
But it’s also possible some of these technically-not-AIDS-yet cases didn’t show on the tests available at the time as their infection was too recent if they were positive.
So I don’t know exactly what period you’re referring to, but it is also said the earlier technology on this had low sensitivity (meaning they weren’t great at catching people with HIV). I’m also reading not everyone produces abundant antibodies, and so early testing wasn’t sensitive enough to pick up HIV in everyone then. With ELISA there was a problem of cross-reactivity. By the time PCR came into wider use by the early 90s, things should have started to improve. But I’d have to read more on this subject, I’m not going to pretend I know more than I do.
Then there’s also technical false negatives. Errors in labs and so on as a possibility.
It seems that getting a clear ID on HIV from a serum sample was significantly less precise compared to today and nothing is absolutely 100% anyway.
My understanding is ICL is quite rare and the cluster of illnesses is a bit different to HIV infection. My guess, how much that would have been a strong contributory factor to “AIDS without HIV” is not much, but I don’t know.
You’re raising reasonable questions and they should have answers. I believe now the answers are likely to be far more mundane.
The international community accepted covid as a public health issue. It accepted HIV as well, with some reluctance and skepticism at first I believe from some countries. There’s fierce debate about covid policies sure, but ask yourself a really boring question: If you’re in charge, faced with this novel virus, what would you do ?
It could be any time from 85-95 with Mullis and Nature then. I guess no publication is normally obliged to publish anything. I’m just reading Duesberg had some privilege to publish in some journal because of his membership with the National Academy of Sciences, but the editor warned him, I think it’s 89, he was publishing very faulty stuff that wouldn’t impress scientists. And that’s then!
So the argument is they could ridicule RFK over this so why don’t they…
I don’t know exactly why. Possibly they will if they are still worried about him actually getting this job from Trump. Other ‘lesser’ media has mentioned it of course. But as we’ve seen from this thread, it’s a rather technical complex subject, vulnerable to much simpler sensational claims that sound attractive and interesting.
How much space do you want to spend on that massive can of worms as the NYT, just to have to eventually explain the earth is round ?
” My understanding is yes to both questions. This has been looked at.
How would they do that, exactly? Ask patients “Are you taking lots of illicit drugs and engaging in frequent anonymous unprotected sexual activity?”
I will give you a simple argument that shows how this can be done. We look at HIV patients who are in antiviral treatment and follow the instructions and “clean up” their ways, i.e., do not make anal penetration or take illicit drugs and so on. Surely we can find such a cooperative test group. If AIDS is caused by poppers and lifestyle, then this test group stays healthy on the antiviral treatment (which does not help them under the assumption that their low CD4 T-cell level is caused by poppers and lifestyle as the treatment only interferes with HIV replication and may have some harmful side effects).
But what happens? After some time the condition of these patients worsens, the CD4 T-cell count decreases. Their lifestyle is not the reason. What is the reason? But if they are given a different antiviral treatment, then their CD4 T-cell count again stops decreasing. What is the explanation for this behavior? The present explanation is that the virus mutates and the original antiviral treatment becomes ineffective while some other antiviral treatment may still work. And you can verify this in vitro. Do you have a better explanation?
It is correct that you pose such questions when thinking if the present explanation is correct. But you have to think more carefully about your objections before presenting them. Science is not a discussion where you win by giving a question to which the opponent cannot immediately answer. It is search for the true answer and you should carefully think of your objections before proposing them as objections.
A much better argument than that HIV is a hoax is in my opinion that there is something very strange in a scenario that soon after Gelli starts to investigate retroviruses and wants to find a human retrovirus, there comes the AIDS epidemic. Or that soon after researchers start to investigate coronaviruses there comes three coronavirus epidemics. I admit that the simplest explanation is a laboratory leak, or even an intentional leak. But there is an alternative explanation that I think is far too easily discarded: that viruses, when in a cell, are live beings and they respond to an attack on them. This is the ancient view: diseases that we now know are caused by bacteria and viruses are caused by evil spirits. It is discarded because we see bacteria and viruses and cannot figure out how such small creatures might possibly have spirits. But actually we have no idea how such large creatures like humans can be any different from computers and should not have any spirits capable of consciousness or anything else that we certainly have, yet they are. Human spirit is not in the brain, as it cannot be found in the brain. There is no sense to say that viruses cannot be guided by evil spirits simply because a spirit does not fit into a small and quite simple organism. There is a folk myth that chemotherapy can make a cancer angry (to avoid the implications, one says: more aggressive). It is not really explained by mutations in the cancer, that is a fake explanation to support the view that a cancer cannot get angry as it cannot think or feel. So, lentiviruses viruses actually might get angry if Gelli started harassing them (just like you would if Gelli intended to kill you), but you would not expect that Nature would publish a paper claiming so even if a Nobel Prize winner would submit a paper claiming so. Because science is guided by unproven philosophical positions that automatically screen away claims that are too much in violation with the present paradigm, and one main paradigm is that there are no spirits, especially viruses have nothing to do with any evil spirits. Just check the past beliefs and you see that this was not the old point of view and in ancient times there also were highly respected wizards, worthy of trusting by somebody like Mr. Unz who trusts respectable wizards.
Your point would tend to validate the orthodox view of HIV, and that is a good point. Again, that all supposes that what the journals describe is what really happened in clinical trials. That they accounted for controls properly, had good statistics, ………………….. didn’t manufacture the results (not uncommon in modern medical research), didn’t have a finger on the scale to please their paymasters, etc.
I don’t need a lecture on the scientific method from you. I am well aware of what constitutes scientific proof and what does not. Nor did I “not think carefully” about my objections. I have thought carefully about them. And there still seem to be many that I have not seen addressed.
What about ICL? A condition that is identical to AIDS and that many AIDS patients were reclassified into when it turned out that they tested negative for HIV? Isn’t that odd? Now, it maybe that the virus just succeeded in hiding out in them and so it wasn’t detectable. But then that is the promise of modern HIV treatments like Prep – that they suppress the virus to the point that it is undetectable, with the result that one is then supposed to be free of symptoms.
Look, I don’t necessarily believe that Duesberg is right. He may well be wrong. I don’t know. But I don’t believe that he and many others with similar views got an honest hearing in the past, and I think that they still don’t get an honest hearing from most quarters. The argument that, in effect: “Sure, we stifled his ability to promote his ideas, crushed his career, and told everyone he was a nut, but the science has moved on and now nobody but nobody believes him” is not a persuasive argument.
Really? Then why was ICL not even a thing prior to the AIDS epidemic? There were people walking around looking like human skeletons, dying of every imaginable disease and nobody noticed it? Why didn’t these ICL patients elicit a reaction from the medical community similar to what AIDS did?
You can say that isn’t circular, but it all sounds rather circular to me. A just-so story.
Because it’s extremely rare, and there was – and still is – little discernible pattern to its epidemiology or natural history. It’s probably not a single disease. AIDS was first characterised when large numbers of people in quite well defined risk groups started coming down with specific opportunistic infections. ICL wasn’t identified as a thing until there was widespread epidemiological surveillance of the opportunistic diseases associated with AIDS and they found a tiny number of cases that didn’t fit the broader pattern of HIV/AIDS, or of other known causes of this kind of immune deficiency. That’s what “idiopathic” means.
No one claims that HIV/AIDS is the only cause of CD4+ lymphocyte depletion resulting in these characteristic opportunistic infections. Treatments for autoimmune disease or to prevent rejection of transplanted organs can do it. Certain cancers or their treatments can do it. Some genetic abnormalities can do it, and there are almost certainly more that have yet to be discovered. And there is a tiny handful of cases where the cause has yet to be determined.
Gallo starts off talking about HIV and HTLV-1 and the serious false positives and errors then, then moving on to talk about testing later for HIV. He says he had these cell cultures and adapted western blot and ELISA. He describes it as ‘accurate’. I don’t know how to interpret that.
Accurate for the time ? I remember a graphic recently, that not all of these patients in one of Gallo’s works had HIV. And this was a key area of the controversy. I’ll let someone else weigh in on this who knows. But I think he’s saying it was “accurate enough by 1984 to demonstrate the case for HIV”.
It’s a good point, and same about covid. It looks like the novel disease happens to fit whatever the current research ‘thing’ is. And I have no objection to this line of investigation at all.
That’s such a refreshing and brave post. I like it. Mullis obviously had some similar feelings about life and its mysteries
If Sweden had allowed ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine their death toll would have been markedly lower, of old people at the ends of their lives, their demises brought forward by weeks or months by the virus. In the Big Pharma controlled regimes an entire generation of children have been mentally scarred, some for life, by the hysteria. A lovely market for psychiatric drugs.
Actually, I think the situation was even worse.
As I’d mentioned, Duesberg was one of America’s top virologists and so highly regarded that he’d been named to the National Academy of Sciences at the age of 50, becoming one of the youngest members in its history.
As an NAS member, he had the automatic right to have any of his articles published in their official journal, but they actually changed the rules to prohibit him from publishing his HIV/AIDS analysis.
(I think what may have happened was the Fauci and his friends stirred up the fanatic gay activists, telling them that Duesberg and others were “HIV Deniers” who were preventing a treatment from being found, and the gullible gay-activists intimidated the media and academic communities into suppressing any dissent.)
Interestingly enough, something very similar happened with Covid. There was overwhelming evidence that the Covid virus had been bioengineered, but absolutely no academic journals were willing to publish any of the papers demonstrating this.
Fortunately, Prof. Jeffrey Sachs was a NAS member, and someone persuaded him to serve as co-author on a paper so that it could be published in the NAS journal. Once one such paper was in print, especially in such an extremely prestigious journal, people were willing to take the idea more seriously.
Not exactly. The policy allowing members to publish in PNAS without peer review was “discretionary”, and papers seen as problematic were referred for peer review. Linus Pauling had a paper claiming vitamin C cured cancer rejected over a decade earlier, so there was precedent. In the end, Duesberg had two papers arguing his case published in PNAS, against the recommendations of his peer reviewers.
I highly recommend Steven Epstein’s Impure Science for anyone looking for a scholarly, evenhanded account of the dispute between Duesberg and the scientific mainstream up till 1995. It makes RFK Jr’s book look like a tawdry ignorant hatchet job by comparison. It is readily available online.
https://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft1s20045x;brand=ucpress
Indeed, peer review is often not the neutral, even-handed process it is supposed to be. At best, it is subject to the often arbitrary whims of reviewers and editors. At worst it can be intentionally rigged for the purpose of suppressing disfavored theories. The leaked Hadley-CRU “climate-gate” E-mails indicated that.
“Really? Then why was ICL not even a thing prior to the AIDS epidemic? There were people walking around looking like human skeletons, dying of every imaginable disease and nobody noticed it? Why didn’t these ICL patients elicit a reaction from the medical community similar to what AIDS did?
You can say that isn’t circular, but it all sounds rather circular to me. A just-so story. ”
I repeat: it is not a circular definition. The task was to find a cause of the AIDS epidemic. The newly described ICL was not a viable candidate for the cause of the AIDS epidemic because the condition is quite rare and sufficiently many people with AIDS did test positive for HIV allowing the conclusion that HIV is involved in the AIDS epidemic. HIV was shown to be the cause of the AIDS epidemic and therefore the task of finding a way to reliably diagnose AIDS meant finding a sufficiently reliable way to tell if the patient has HIV caused low count of CD4 T-helper cells. It is very good to distinguish between AIDS and ICL since though much of the treatment is the same, before AIDS the HIV caused state is helped by antiviral treatment while the ICL case is not.
In general, white cell counts can be low for very many reasons. You can take the Complete Blood Count and notice e.g. that you have neutropenia (too few neutrophiles), then you will be advise that you may be prone to infections and should eat this or that supplement and the doctors do not even care to look for the reason for your neutropenia, because it can be caused by so many reasons and you can have it even without any known reason, like with many other diseases, be idiopathic. Practical medicine is not science in search of the true cause of the disease, the task is curing/treating patients. So, if a walking skeleton with ICL came to some hospital, he got treatment for his condition and no red flag was raised in the brain of the usually busy doctor that this is something that should be carefully investigated as a new disease. It was only the AIDS epidemic that raised the flag.
How can you speak of SARS CoV2 without mentioning Ralph Baric, his labs at UNC Chapel Hill and AMRIID at Fort Detrick, Robert Kadlec and the one hundred years, at least, US bio-warfare effort? For starters.
“And I have no objection to this line of investigation at all.”
Should some medical person want to investigate this alternative, I suggest looking at the cases of cancer becoming more aggressive after chemotherapy. There seems to be some evidence that this phenomenon does happen. The “explanations” for it seem improbable. Basically all explanations claim that there are many strains of the cancer in one patient and killing the dominating strain can leave a more dangerous strain alive and it becomes dominant.
What is wrong in this explanation? Let us assume this cancer is not infectious and has been born in the initially healthy patient through some mutation(s). From the frequency of cases of this cancer one can make a guess on the probability of such mutations. It is low, a single patient only very rarely could have several strains of the same cancer. Chemotherapy, as chemicals, could induce mutations, but it is not more likely that it would create some other cancer, not a strain of the same cancer. Then there is still the evolutionary argument that in the hostile environment inside the cancer only the strongest strains would survive. Yes, but why should there be any other than the one strain. If an unlikely mutation happens and causes a cancer to grow, it is a case of a rare event. Large deviation theory basically says that rare events (mostly) happen in the most probable way (and usually there is a difference in the probabilities of different mutations). It is unlikely that there can be several strains in one patient that developed randomly in a short time.
Therefore it seems more likely that the cancer responds to the chemotherapy by creating new mutations. It is live, it protects itself. However this may happen. And if there is some mechanism for it, it may have implications to the evolution theory.
Thanks. Useful link. I saw part of that quote on Wikipedia.
At every step of the way in this debate, once you get past the initial impression, I sense great detachment from what’s happening, an attempt by Duesberg and his followers to turn what should be a hard science question into some kind of intellectual game of nullification, especially as time goes on, you can see it getting more strained and Duesberg becoming ever more unreasonable.
Unz:
I actually think his theory is extremely attractive to some high IQ types, who are not biological scientists or have any background or particular interest in medicine. It bypasses a lot of their defense mechanisms to construct the whole thing in another way, shifting the blame onto institutional incentives, hubris and politics, away from what’s actually happening.
You could probably make one of those bell curve memes out of this. But this is a case where the midwits are right and the higher IQ cohort is left with a great sounding clever story but that’s completely hollow. They can’t analyze this properly at all.
If casual people are coming to this subject for the first time through this website, the wikipedia summary on Duesberg, his book and thesis seems extremely reasonable and quite even handed to me. You can see people historically weighing up what he’s proposing, complimenting him on some things and some specific areas of expertise he has, but noticing his lack of experience with others, the unexplained weaknesses in his ideas which Duesberg himself seems uninterested in, inevitably concluding this theory, while interesting, is just wrong, unsupported by evidence and by a certain point in time, frankly unscientific, while Duesberg just ignores anything that doesn’t fit his idea.
Another problem with this topic is the idea that the scientific universe; funding, publication, favorable publicity and so on ought to revolve around Duesberg for some reason. That Duesberg’s feelings and personal upward mobility in all this are what matters most. I have no idea how we even got to this. Just incredible nonsense.
Exactly. I’ve been pretty skeptical of Global Warming for many years, but it’s a very complex subject and I haven’t put in the time to feel I could write about it with any conclusions more than solid than I did a dozen years ago:
https://www.unz.com/runz/two-cheers-for-heresy-on-global-warming/
But I think an even more extreme example comes with regard to touchy racial issues. I’d say virtually 100% of our official experts promote the most total and complete nonsense on racial matters, partly because anyone who says anything different gets immediately purged.
So if almost everything written about racial issues in America for the last 50-100 years has been total nonsense and absolutely contrary to what all of us can see with our own senses and daily experiences, I became very cautious about accepting the official story about HIV/AIDS once I discovered that quite a number of very highly-regarded experts doubted it but were immediately purged for doing so.
I’d say that for most of us, our personal, direct experiences with racial issues are about 100x or possibly even 1000x greater than our direct experiences with HIV and whether or not it was the true cause of AIDS.
“Indeed, peer review is often not the neutral, even-handed process it is supposed to be. At best, it is subject to the often arbitrary whims of reviewers and editors. At worst it can be intentionally rigged for the purpose of suppressing disfavored theories. ”
Concerning Peter Duesberg, you can go to google.scholar.com, write “PH Duesberg” and restrict the search time to 1990-2024 and press search. The time 1990 is when the dispute appeared. You will see that Duesberg is not at all blocked from publishing in journals. His claim on the cause of AIDS has got much publicity, only that it is not correct.
With journal publishing, today most of the papers are written by Ph.D. students as the great idea that universities must produce doctors in order to get points, strangely called results, that define the funding of the university. This great idea came naturally from the States and has done much harm. It is not like in 1960-1990ies when Duesberg wrote his acclaimed results. Today it is like this in most fields: as the papers are from students, they are neatly written with a long list of references (because the supervisor so insists) and have only small results that do not raise any red flags in anybody. With the supervisor’s name as the last author, these papers get reviewed and published rather well. But try to submit a paper that does raise the red flag. It will be discarded by the editors and not sent for a review, In case it is sent for a review, the editor will later inform you that he could not find referees. Yet, the goal should be to write papers that raise the red flag, not the neat ones that nobody cares about.
Is this an accurate parallel? Is it the same thing happening with race vs HIV ? I’m not sure it is.
Does anybody really ‘believe‘ in a kind of equality of abilities/tendencies/outcomes between the races in the same way they accept HIV ? Are the racial lies actionable in the same way HIV is ?
The fake racial nonsense claims are weaponized claims, political claims, social claims. They are distinct from facts, opposed to facts, and they are only used that way.
It’s a sensitive topic because they are internally known to be a complete inversion of facts.
HIV is not distinct from facts in that way. It’s not a political or social claim trying to increase the upward mobility of blacks or Jews, appease white embarrassment about how primitive and ape-like blacks, or used as glue by power to try to stop this unnatural mess from falling apart as it rightly should.
There’s no reason to assume all ‘suppressed’ claims in science have the same weight and should all be given equal time.
Racial inequality is science. HIV=AIDS is science.
Duesberg’s theory is the one akin to the “all races are equal”, and it just happened-whatever the issues in the scientific system, to correctly get discarded by time.
Although both conditions typically present with opportunistic infections related to depressed CD4 counts, AIDS and ICL are clinically very different.
Untreated AIDS is rapidly progressive with continuing falls in CD4 count, multiple recurring OIs (opportunistic infections), and a very high mortality in the first few years following the first OI. ICL tends to be stable over time, recurring OIs are less common and mortality in the short term is low, although the risk of certain cancers such as those related to HPV is higher than in healthy people.
Conversely as you say, combination antiretroviral therapy (cART) in AIDS reverses the disease, while it has no effect on ICL.
Although some OIs are common to both conditions (such as cryptococcal disease and non-TB mycobacterial infections) the overall pattern of OIs is quite different: for example PCP and end organ CMV disease are relatively rare in ICL.
Epidemiologically, AIDS occurs in risk groups related to sexual or blood exposures to HIV. While people in AIDS risk groups were somewhat overrepresented in early ICL reports, this is likely due to ascertainment bias – HIV negative people in risk groups were more likely to have their T cells checked, or to have their OIs reported. As ICL has become better known and reported over time, the demographics of ICL patients are similar to the general population.
There’s a good recent study of ICL here:
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2202348
A thought experiment: imagine a large population which rarely drank alcohol or rarely smoked cigarettes. In that population arose a group in their 20’s, 30’s and 40’s who drank a fifth of vodka daily and smoked three packs of cigarettes daily, both for years. Knowing what we know of the consequences of these habits, I think it would be reasonable to conclude that the probability of this group suffering premature illness and death would increase, deaths usually due to various combinations of heart, lung, and liver diseases including cancers—diseases brought about by chronic intoxication.
From the time I interned at San Francisco General Hospital in the 1970’s to the present my views on “AIDS” have morphed from believing Gallo, Fauci, then Peter Duesberg (a most charming gentleman I had the pleasure to meet), then the Perth Group to what I believe now: “AIDS” is caused not by infection, but,as with the thought experiment, by chronic intoxication.
1. In the mid/late 1970’s before the first paper by Gottlieb in 1981 describing this syndrome, at San Francisco General Hospital we had a large and perennial case load of rather young (20-40 y.o.) males who had recurrent STD’s (e.g. gonorrhea, syphilis,) and gastro intestinal infections (e.g. Salmonella. Shigella, amebiasis) which we dutifully treated. As an aside, the prevailing thought in the hospital staff was that most of the gastrointestinal disease we saw in this group was also a sexually transmitted disease due to the sexual practice of anilingus (also spelled analingus), this being, I imagine, the most efficient way to infect with fecal-oral transmitted pathogenic microbes.
Three different much repeated stressors occurred here: the stress of the diseases, the stress of drug toxicity (every effective drug has potentially severe side effects), and, not recognized much then, the stress of an altered microbiome – i.e. destruction by antibiotics of physiologic microbial groups which protect against colonization by pathogenic entities.
2. The chronic use of inhalant nitrites (volatile, organic nitrites) for enhancing sexual pleasure. One mechanism of action of this class of drugs is rapid oxidization of the iron in hemoglobin, causing that molecule not to release oxygen. The brain acutely becomes oxygen deprived. Same effect as decreasing blood flow to the brain as in sexual strangulation and auto-erotic asphyxiation to increase sexual pleasure. The important point is that amyl nitrite or butyl nitrite are strong oxidizing agents which require recruitment of the body’s energy-requiring antioxidant defenses to prevent tissue damage. The body’s ability to correct the damage of continual exposure is not infinite.
3. Passive anal intercourse. Early in the 1990’s it was reported that the highest correlation between contracting AIDS defining diseases and 8 specific sexual acts was being the passive (receptive) partner in anal intercourse. Several lines of evidence support this: seminal fluid is rich in prostaglandins, many of which are pro inflammatory and thus eventually lead to oxidative stress. Deposition of semen into the rectum of experimental animals shows 1) rapid elevation of prostaglandins in blood, and 2) in a relative short period of time deterioration of immune function (by various cellular and chemical markers initially). Mr. Unz in his excellent article above mentions that “correlation does not imply causation,” but actually it does suggest it because correlation is necessary to causation, but it is insufficient in and of itself to do so.
4. It seems reasonable to me that the above “stressors” (chronic infections, chronic medical drug use, disturbance of the microbiome, inhaling of strong oxidants, intrarectal seminal fluid in large amounts frequently and over many years (not even mentioning illegal drug use) are sufficient to explain premature illness and death without the need for a hypothesized causal virus. The novel environmental factor which allowed (? fostered) these stressors to exist in such excess was, I think, primarily gay bath houses.
5. These consequences defaulted to homosexual behaviors simply because women do not engage in this level of these activities. If they did, they would become equally ill.
6. Initially the CDC had two “AIDS defining diseases.” Then they went to eight, then to 30. In the orthodox literature there are at least 60 medical conditions reported which can cause a “false positive” HIV test. Having 30 distinctly different diseases caused by a virus (never before seen in virology) and having so many conditions generating false positive HIV tests argues strongly that various illnesses give rise to non-HIV phenomena which turn HIV tests positive, making these tests a rather non-specific indicator of disease, much like an elevated temperature. Way back in 1991 (September 26) Nature published an article in which mice were injected with immune cells of a different strain of mice, both strains previously testing HIV negative. The animals receiving the cells became HIV positive. Did human immunodeficiency virus arise de novo in very non-human mice? Or, by this procedure, did the mice develop antibodies which happened to react to proteins deemed specific to HIV? Caused quite a stir at the time but faded as HIV/AIDS became a satisfying egalitarian explanation and a profitable industry.
7. BTW, since there are several blood-borne serious diseases which have been reported to cause a false positive HIV test, I recommend no one inject themselves with “HIV positive blood” to nobly prove your point that HIV does not exist or if it does, is benign.
As you seem to be well versed in this, can you address this important question, critical to the Duesbergists, that in Gallo’s early work at least (maybe other some research? Not sure-someone say) that “only x% of AIDS patients were found to have HIV present.”
It’s not clear to me from Gallo what actually happened, but there seemed to be a period from 82-83 where testing was extremely poor, then in 84 their techniques were accurate enough, even if not perfect, to demonstrate the HIV case.
Essentially my guess is, when the observation is made, “only x% of AIDS patients were found to have HIV present”…”therefore HIV=AIDS=false”, we are looking at:
1) Limits in testing sensitivity and accuracy at a very specific early point in time
2) Some proportion of patients who, today, we know now, wouldn’t be included in an ‘AIDS’ diagnosis anyway.
Do you have a different view on this ?
These points has been answered in the past.
I don’t seek to be mean, but perhaps this is why Fauci “crushed” Duesberg. Not because Duesberg was right and Fauci was worried about his AIDS scam getting found out as Unz seems to suggest, but because these ideas can actually spread to places they really shouldn’t.
Think about it. You’re going into hospital and this guy is going to treat you, and he thinks HIV=AIDS is a myth and the Perth Group is a serious source of medical information about AIDS.
Who wants a doctor who thinks this ? What kind of doctor thinks this ? What else does he think ? Radium ointment and mercury salt enemas are a good remedy for covid that have been ‘suppressed’ by Big Pharma?
Medical staff that believe this sort of thing should be suspended from their duties.
The majority of the American Pravda articles rely on your very wide reading of newspapers and secondary historical sources, combined with the insights you have gained from your digitization of historical media. In such cases you are well placed to point out anomalies, as well as facts and viewpoints that have been shoved down the memory hole. Typically there is a very long comments section, and your insights are seldom overturned, in fact it is more common for readers to supply further information that supports your case.
In epidemiology, virology, or indeed other scientific disciplines, it is not possible to have the same kind of discernment without first studying the subject at least to degree level. RFK Jr’s opinions on virology are of no more value than the views of a “relativity truther” about physics.
A simple argument in favour of the conventional theory of HIV/AIDS is that early AIDS patients who had no suitable treatment would die of opportunistic infections within a few years; while modern combination anti-retroviral therapy now allows AIDS patients to survive for decades. I have not read the material that you highlight, at least not this year – I did read around when the Duesberg hypothesis was presented favourably in the British press in the 1990s, and I concluded that he was wrong.
The more important question that you raised at the very beginning is why media opposed to RFK Jr have not highlighted the half of his book The Real Anthony Fauci that deals with HIV/AIDS. This very article and its many comments suggest a possible reason, and it is not that Peter Duesberg was necessarily correct. Rather, the material raises complex questions about the history of HIV/AIDS research, and while these questions are settled among medical professionals, among non-professionals they can lead to lengthy debate. Such debate draws attention away from RFK Jr himself, and so does not serve the purpose of showing whether or not he is a suitable person to run the Department of Health and Human Services.
Hi, Anon….
I attended a grand rounds at a local hospital a few years ago to hear a talk on Helicobacter p. as a cause of gastric ulcers. The speaker in answer to a question from the audience said that Marshall fulfilled Koch’s postulates by drinking a Helicobacter culture and developing a rip roaring gastritis. Well, some questions arose: he didn’t create ulcer disease, which is focal, but rather a gastritis, a generalized inflammation of the gastric lining—which many concentrated bacterial solutions can accomplish. Secondly, although triple therapy seems to help resolve ulcers, certain non absorbable antibiotics administered distal to the stomach will also cure stomach ulcers, and in germ-free animals, stomach ulcers will respond to triple therapy even though no bacteria are present in the stomach. In Africa, a large proportion of the population are colonized by H. Pylori but gastric ulcers disease is rare.
Like Gallo did for HIV, Marshall patented a test for H. Pylori, so, if true, there may have been a significant conflict of interest.
Your first interpretation is correct. The earliest attempts to directly isolate the virus by co-culture in 1983 and 1984 yielded positive results in a significant number of samples from people with AIDS, but not 100% by any means. Montagnier and Levy had similar level of success as Gallo at that time: they were all still learning the techniques. In the video you posted above (515) Gallo attributes these false negatives in patients with advanced AIDS to the fact that their samples had too few T cells to give reliably positive results on coculture. As PCR was not readily available at that time, the 100% correlation between HIV infection and AIDS was established by indirect means – antibody testing.
However, within a couple of years, coculture techniques improved to the point that HIV could be directly detected in virtually all patients with clinically diagnosed AIDS, and by 1987-8 Jackson et al [1] were able to directly demonstrate HIV in all 409 patients with HIV antibodies – whether symptomatic or not – using coculture and PCR. For Duesberg to ask in 2003 “Why is there no HIV in most AIDS patients, only antibodies against it?” [2] he has had to ignore all the literature from 1985 on. It’s like arguing that intercontinental air travel is impossible because the Wright brothers only managed to stay airborne for a few hundred feet. It’s difficult to understand how non-questions like that could get past competent peer review and get published in the scientific literature.
[1] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC269529/
[2] https://www.duesberg.com/papers/chemical-bases.html
The problem with this argument is that nobody with these factors ever develops AIDS and almost never develops anything that looks remotely like AIDS – unless they have untreated HIV infection.
Conversely, people with untreated HIV infection develop AIDS regardless of whether they have any of your purported risk factors.
I’ve previously checked out Christine Johnson’s list. In virtually every example these “false positives” were on the screening antibody test only, and did not result in a false positive HIV diagnosis. A diagnosis of HIV infection is not based on a screening test alone, but requires confirmation using one or more supplemental tests. Carried out correctly, a completed algorithm of screening and supplemental tests almost never results in a false HIV diagnosis. In practice this is confirmed by direct detection of the virus by PCR, bDNA, genotypic testing etc.
You seem to be conflating a falsely reactive screening test (which occurs in about 1 or 2 tests per thousand uninfected people) with a diagnosis of HIV infection.
That’s it. Assuming there isn’t a giant conspiracy to cook all the data, which I don’t believe and no one has even tried to demonstrate, this has to be the end of this topic.
HIV=AIDS is settled science. Not because Fauci rigged the game against Duesberg (whether he did or didn’t), but because it’s what’s there.
People who still want to go on believing something else, go ahead, believe what you want, but you’re being dishonest on this.
Duesberg, once a credible scientist with very interesting and plausible ideas about this subject thirty five years ago, was refuted.
No specialist in these fields has taken anything he says on this seriously for three decades. RFK Jr has come along with his book, not understanding, or not giving a damn, that this story amounts to a highly technical and convoluted flat earth.
Others have read it, in this case Unz looking for controversy and full of revolutionary zeal, excited by the slick arguments from decades ago, reanimating this ancient claim for a new audience, also not understanding or caring what’s actually there, or able to separate this from other touchy topics in science. Unz is probably the only person on the entire internet who has promoted this section of RFK’s book with such intensity
Uh…
Perhaps then, we should turn this whole subject the other way round and ask why Duesberg refused to update his position ? Why didn’t he just concede he was wrong on this? It’s completely ok, totally normal, in science to be wrong about something as new evidence comes in.
Maybe pride, maybe he liked the attention and controversy. Maybe he’s crazy. Who knows.
Your link appears to be dead.
He got published in some journals, but which journals? All journals are not equal. There are clearly some that are more prestigious than others.
In 2014, the journal Frontiers in Public Health published review of dissenting opinions on the HIV-AIDS link.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4172096/
I don’t know that the article actually even advocated those dissenting view – it merely catalogued tham. The article was retracted, although it can still be found on the pubmed website. The retraction statement included this:
There are some references therein. This is an article that was published in 2014 and subsequently retracted in 2019. Get a load of the retraction statement:
Really? Cannot be called into question? Ever? For any reason? That doesn’t sound very scientific.
It is also perhaps noteworthy that the digestive tract is important to the overall functioning of the immune system. The GALT, Gut Associated Lymphoid Tissue, makes up a large part of the immune system.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gut-associated_lymphoid_tissue
And as you pointed out, the early AIDS patients engaged in sexual practices (if they can truly be called that) which constituted a prolonged attack on their innards. It might not be surprising that they suffered compromise of their immune systems.
That is ridiculous. Nobody is saying that. Nobody is saying that Duesberg’s views should not be suppressed because it might hurt his feelings. We are saying that is views should not be suppressed because science should not be conducted by suppressing dissident views.
I agree with your comment on all but this:
“RFK Jr’s opinions on virology are of no more value than the views of a “relativity truther” about physics.”
In case you have education in theoretical physics, I suggest that you check yourself if the relativity theory is correct. It is not. There are indeed many crackpots, maybe your “relativity truthers”, with their false arguments against the relativity theory, but despite of this, the theory is fatally false. There are taken over fields, like theoretical physics. There are fields that are not taken over, including such useful fields like technics and medicine. It is not a wrong claim to conclude like RFK Jr or Mr. Unz that some fields are taken over and some theories are long lasting hoaxes, only this is not the case with HIV=AIDS, as an example, there is the 6M theory of the holocaust.
Simian immunodeficiency virus (SIV), the precursor to HIV, has existed for tens of thousands of years. Assuming Africans ate monkeys ten thousand years ago, why didn’t SIV make the jump to humans until the 1950s/1960s/1970s?
Robert Rayford of St. Louis died in 1969. He is considered to be the first American who died of AIDS. According to Wikipedia, doctors believed Rayford was a gay prostitute who received anal intercourse. Upon admission to the hospital, he had a bad chlamydia infection. Given his circumstances, it is possible he used poppers and other recreational drugs. Venereal disease adversely affects the immune system. Recreational drug use adversely affects the immune system.
According to Wikipedia, “Rayford never traveled outside the Midwestern United States and told doctors that he had never received a blood transfusion. If Rayford was indeed infected with HIV, as one group of researchers claims, the mode of acquisition is assumed to have been through sexual contact.”
Rayford was initially admitted to the hospital in 1968 at at the age of 15. According to the conventional theory, HIV has a latency of 10-15 years.
Which of the following scenarios seems more likely?:
(a) After tens of thousands of years, SIV suddenly made the jump from monkeys to humans for reasons that remain unclear; Rayford was raped as a young child by someone who was HIV positive; Rayford contracted HIV which later destroyed his immune system.
Or:
(b) Rayford’s chlamydia (and perhaps other venereal diseases) and/or possible recreational drug use destroyed his immune system.
“Your link appears to be dead.
He got published in some journals, but which journals? All journals are not equal. There are clearly some that are more prestigious than others.”
Sorry, the link is scholar.google.com
People who still have closed eyes believe that there are more prestigious journals and less prestigious. But the value of an article is only what is in the article, not where it is published or made available. Peer-review today is not working as it should. You are quite right that some “truths” cannot be questioned in these so called “prestigious” journals, or any “respectable” journal for that matter. But this nonsense with prestigious journals and reference indices and all that will disappear in the future. A journal is dead. Still in 1980ies people from other countries than the USA did not care one bit of publishing in American “prestigious” journals, they published their work in the journals of their national academy or university, and also those journals were subscribed and read by researchers in other universities in other countries. It will not go back to that, it will go to web sites, like the ResearchGate type, where readers in a way evaluate the content. Just give it some 30 years. There will not be any indices and prestigious journals. Because the value or an article is only in the content. There comes a time when this gatekeeping in journals has to stop, or researchers will not use journals. That is, I am fully aware of the gatekeeping. Only I do not think Duesberg was correct about HIV.
But about Duesberg, he did later some work on cancer and those journals seem quite normal level journals. He simply had a fixed idea of HIV.
Yes, the value of an article is what’s in the article. But the prestige of an article lies in where it is published. Of course there are more prestigious journals and less prestigious journals – highly prestigious journals and totally un-prestigious journals – and even journals that are considered jokes or even scams.
Do you mean to tell me that a physicist would rather have their article published in the African Journal of Physics than in Physical Review Letters? That simply isn’t so.
I do. It is correct. Special Relativity at least. I am not competent about General Relativity to have an informed opinion on it.
I’m sorry, but this opinion of yours is going to cause me to reassess everything else you’ve written here.
So you claim here that Mr. Unz and the rest of us are out of our depth in evaluating complicated scientific arguments about HIV and AIDS. The consensus scientific opinion on it is correct and well proven.
But all that relativity stuff – that’s a load of hogwash. These physicists have been deluding themselves for the last century. That scientific consensus rests on a foundation of cotton candy.
Yeah – good luck with that argument.
But I think the analogy with my HIV/AIDS analysis is a pretty close one.
During the 1990s, I was busy with other things and though I was vaguely aware of the HIV/AIDS debate, I didn’t pay any attention to it.
But after reading Kennedy’s shocking book, I began investigating the subject, and used my content-archiving system to read the public debates between Duesberg and his allies against their establishment opponents, which I linked in my article, feeling that the Duesberg side definitely got the better of the arguments.
The Lancet is one of the world’s most prestigious medical journals, and its editor had published a 10,000 word review of Duesberg’s books and the ongoing debate, which I also read in my system. Although he certainly didn’t endorse Duesberg, he was absolutely scathing towards the American medical research establishment for its total unwillingness to test Duesberg’s hypothesis as it could very easily do. And despite such a strong demand by such a prominent medical figure, they continued to refuse any such testing. All of that made me extremely suspicious.
Let me return to the race analogy. The official, totally false and ridiculous position of the entire scientific media community is that “race does not exist,” and people who question that position a little too candidly get purged.
Consider the very famous case of Nobel Laureate James Watson, co-discoverer of DNA, and certainly one of the world’s most distinguished living scientists. When he made some impolitic remarks about racial issues, he was purged and destroyed in the media, which surely made others much more cautious in what they said.
Nicholas Wade had spent 40 years as a top science journalist, including serving as the longtime Science Editor of the New York Times. When he published his book on racial issues, not at all that controversial, he was attacked and vilified on the most ridiculously false grounds.
https://www.unz.com/runz/does-race-exist-do-hills-exist/
https://www.unz.com/runz/raceiq-should-scientists-bother-reading-the-books-they-denounce/
Henry Harpending, a member of the National Academic of Sciences, suffered a very similar fate, possibly even leading to his early death:
https://www.unz.com/runz/white-racialism-in-america-then-and-now/#p_1_136
I think these cases are roughly similar to that of Duesberg. So when a very prominent, high-ranking figure takes a controversial position totally at variance with the establishment and is destroyed, I tend to be suspicious of what is going on.
It’s obvious that any one such individual can just “go crazy.” But when there’s a whole group of such very high-ranking individuals saying the same thing, I tend to think there’s a pretty good chance they’re correct, and the establishment is wrong, especially if their arguments seem pretty convincing to a layman such as myself.
That’s exactly the point. You’re saying that if the non-establishment views regarding HIV/AIDS were publicly discussed, lots of people, probably including medical professionals and research scientists, might become “confused” and think that they seemed plausible and persuasive, thereby reopening a debate that had been officially closed.
Isn’t that exactly why the establish cracked down so hard on Watson, Wade, Harpending, and others? If the establishment has officially declared that “race does not exist” it’s important to use suppression to prevent any doubts from stirring.
LOL. Exactly!
Kennedy’s #1 Amazon bestseller sold over a million copies and devoted 200 pages to claiming that HIV/AIDS was a medical media hoax, but aside from me, almost no one else who discussed that book, either positively or negatively, was willing to mention that fact. Since Kennedy’s book was getting so much attention, some of the people I mentioned it to thought I must be hallucinating.
Kennedy was interviewed by several prominent journalists, including Tucker Carlson, who praised his book and especially his “courage” but none of them were willing to mention the biggest and most courageous subject of his book. That strikes me as very odd and suspicious.
You might remember that last year, Carlson explained in an interview that when Barack Obama was running for the presidency around 2008, everyone in DC knew perfectly well that he was a bisexual who enjoyed smoking crack with gay prostitutes and his other male lovers, but absolutely no one was willing to say anything publicly, so the voters never heard about it:
https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-mutually-assured-political-destruction/#the-terrible-secrets-of-sen-barack-obama
Doesn’t that sound a little like the reaction of Carlson and all the other journalists to Kennedy’s book on HIV/AIDS?
Well, I didn’t want to mention anything but it might sound a little ad hominem, but I think that “j2” has a long history of those outlandish claims.
I think he’s a rather eccentric Finn, who claims to have personally solved quite a number of the world’s greatest, longstanding mathematics problems, disproven Einstein’s theories, and generally achieved astonishing results worth at least three or four Nobel Prizes, but been completely cheated of those deserved awards by the dishonest and corrupt scientific establishment.
Perhaps he’s correct about all those stellar achievements, but most people who make such claims aren’t.
“I do. It is correct. Special Relativity at least. I am not competent about General Relativity to have an informed opinion on it.”
Special relativity is wrong. Please, read this explanation carefully. Work through it. It is correct and checked by many physicists already.
The problem in the Special Relativity theory is that the time t’ in the Lorentz transform is not the time in the time coordinate of the (x’,t’) coordinate system. It is a local time, like the local time in our timezone time system. Because of this Einstein used a wrong time (a local time) when calculating that the speed of light is constant c in all inertial coordinate systems. What he did is exactly the same as if you would fly in a plane over a time zone and calculate the flight time by subtracting the local time in the origin from the local time at the destination. It is not the correct time difference and you do not get the correct speed for the plane. You must project both times to the same time axis, like to the Greenwich time.
The Lorenz transform is
x’=gamma(x-vt)
t’=gamma(t-(v/c^2)x)
This means, the coordinate system (x’,t’) moves with the constant speed v to the positive x-axis. Consider this coordinate system as the coordinate system inside an airplane flying to the right. The plane has a coordinate system (x’,t’) where there is the t’-axis. In order to find the time of a point (x’,t’) you must project this point on the x’ and t’ coordinate axes. The projection on the x’-axis is indeed x’, but the projection on the t’-axis is not t’. You can do the projection on the t’-axis in three different ways and they all give the same result, the projection of this point on the t’-axis is t”=gamma^{-1}t. I give you one way to make the projection.
Assume that the projection on the t’-axis is t’’. Find”I do. It is correct. Special Relativity at least. I am not competent about General Relativity to have an informed opinion on it.”
Special relativity is wrong. I will explain it in a very simple way. The problem is that the time t’ in the Lorentz transform is not the time in the time coordinate of the (x’,t’) coordinate system. It is a local time, like the local time in our timezone time system. The Lorenz transform is
x’=gamma(x-vt)
t’=gamma(t-(v/c^2)x)
This means, the coordinate system (x’,t’) moves with the constant speed v to the positive x-axis. Consider this coordinate system as the coordinate system inside an airplane flying to the right. The plane has a coordinate system (x’,t’) where there is the t’-axis. In order to find the time of a point (x’,t’) you must project this point on the x’ and t’ coordinate axes. The projection on the x’-axis is indeed x’, but the projection on the t’-axis is not t’. You can do the projection on the t’-axis in three different ways and they all give the same result, the projection of this point on the t’-axis is t”=gamma^{-1}t. I give you one way to make the projection on the t’-axis.
Assume that the projection of (x’,t’) on the t’-axis is t’’. Find the preimage of (0,t’’). In this point (0,t’’) the x’-coordinate is zero, thus we have the equation 0=gamma(x-vt). This means, in the preimage x=vt. Insert this equation to the time transform formula: t’’=gamma(t-(v/c^2)vt) =
gamma(1-v^2/c^2)t = gamma^{-1}t. Thus, we see that the projection of (x’,t’) on the t’-axis is t’’=gamma^{-1}t.
Let us calculate the speed of light in (x’,t’)-coordinate system.
We send light from the left end of the plane to the positive x-axis. At time t=0 the left end of the plane is at the point x=0 and the plane has the length L in the (x,t)-coordinate system. Light moves with the speed c in the coordinate system (x,t) and the plane moves with the speed v. The right end of the plane is at the point (L,0) when light is sent. Light reaches the end of the plane at the time T satisfying
L+vT=cT
That is, L/T=c-v. The time on the t’-coordinate axis is T’=gamma^{-1}T. The length of the plane in the (x’,t’)-coordinate system is L’=gamma L. (This equation is correct in the Special Relativity theory.) Thus, the speed of light in the moving coordinate system (x’,t’) is
c’=L’/T’=gamma L/ (gamma^{-1}T) = gamma^2 L/T =gamma^2 (c-v).
In a similar way we get the speed of light in (x’,t’) sent to the negative x-direction as
c’’=gamma^2 (c+v).
There is no way around this problem. Finally try to understand that you were cheated by Einstein. It was the mass media making him a genius, and his papers were never correctly reviewed. You try to claim that Duesberg was unjustly treated. He was not, but Einstein was falsely made a genius.
Please, read the papers in this document to see why the relativity theory is false
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/378857595_ULTIMATE_REFUTATION_OF_THE_RELATIVITY_THEORY
“Well, I didn’t want to mention anything but it might sound a little ad hominem, but I think that “j2” has a long history of those outlandish claims.
I think he’s a rather eccentric Finn, who claims to have personally solved quite a number of the world’s greatest, longstanding mathematics problems, disproven Einstein’s theories, and generally achieved astonishing results worth at least three or four Nobel Prizes, but been completely cheated of those deserved awards by the dishonest and corrupt scientific establishment.
Perhaps he’s correct about all those stellar achievements, but most people who make such claims aren’t. ”
Ron Unz. Perhaps this time, as you like to offend commenters on your site and spread nonsense (like with HIV in this thread), you would kindly read this document:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/378857595_ULTIMATE_REFUTATION_OF_THE_RELATIVITY_THEORY
You claim to be a theoretical physicist and even have two-three published papers on that field, so reading this document should not be any issue for a diligent reader as you are. Notice that those papers have been discussed with several professors/researchers of physics in the ResearchGate. The are not unreviewed.
“generally achieved astonishing results worth at least three or four Nobel Prizes, but been completely cheated of those deserved awards by the dishonest and corrupt scientific establishment.”
Just to mention. I have never claimed having been cheated of anything, nor have I claimed that the scientific establishment is dishonest and corrupt. This is all your dishonest framing of commenters on your site. And you do it quite often. At least twice you have called me a random conspiracy theoretician who likes to hang on your site.
What I have said is that there are gatekeepers in science: trying to get reviewed papers that state having solved problems that might get to the front page of your beloved NYT will not succeed. The editors either will not send the paper to referees, or if you manage to find a nice editor who does try to send it to referees, he will not find any referee. This is so in prestigious journals, which can be understandable, but no less prestigious respectable journals will review the paper because they think it should be reviewed by a prestigious journal that has the top referees. So, there is no way, and this is not only my problem (I have long ago stopped submitting papers being on pension). It is a problem for any researcher who tries to publish a paper that raises a red flag, including Duesberg, as you wonder why he did not get some paper published in some journal.
I have also written that these gatekeepers seem to always have a Jewish-sounding name, but that is only my personal observation.
I have also said that I am not the first to have made a proof to some long lasting mathematical problems. Many have and they never get their papers checked. Very possibly those problems have been solved long ago. Concerning the relativity theory, I know quite many people who have their own proof that the theory is wrong. Naturally, they have not got their proof checked.
Because that is the problem in science today. Certain fields have been taken over. For me this is nothing personal. It is simply a part of the method how societies are taken over. They are not taken over in this method by capturing e.g. the military. The method has some fields, some pillars. One of them is science (authority for people like you), another is media, third is finance.
Talking about eccentric people, I remember reading of an eccentric millionaire Ron Unz, but nobody so far has considered me eccentric.
“I do. It is correct. Special Relativity at least. I am not competent about General Relativity to have an informed opinion on it.”
I will give you another way to take the projection of the point (x’,t’) on the t’-axis.
The Lorentz transform is
x’=gamma(x-vt)
t’=gamma(t-(v/c^2)x)
Thus
x=gamma^{-1}x’+vt
Insert to the time transform
t’=gamma t -gamma (v/c^2)gamma^{-1}x’ – gamma (v/c^2)vt
t’=gamma(1-v^2/c^2)t – (v/c^2)x’
t’=gamma^{-1}t -(v/c^2)x’
Notice that t’ is a local time, it depends on x’. Compare this to the timezone time:
t’=t – timezoneoffset (x’)
The t’-coordinate axis is at Greenwich, London has the Greenwich time. The x’-coordinate is the spatial coordinate along the sea from London to the West.
Take x’ as the distance from London to New York. t’ is the New York time. It is a
very similar formula to the time formula from the Lorentz transform. How do you
take a projection from the New York local time to the Greenwich time?
You simply take off the timezone offset, The projection in the t’-axis is
t”=t
and in the Lorentz transform you do the same way. The projection on the t’-axis is
obtained by removing the time offset -(v/c^2)x’. The projection is
t”=gamma^{-1}t.
There are still other ways to make a projection on the t’-axis. They all give the
same value. In the moving coordinate system you MUST use the same clock when
measuring the time at the starting point and at the receiving point when sending
light. This same clock is the time in the t’-axis. You must make the projection.
Mr. 2 strikes me as a Menses Asthma (respecting your ban) type. I read his “Special Relativity is wrong” explanation even though he didn’t specify Special Relativity and I am not convinced. Ed Asner is not impressed. I would however like to hear the names of all these physicists who agree with him. Even one would be a mentionus mirabilis. But we all know that’s not going to happen.
I beg to differ.
This “I’m Galileo, please stop oppressing me” is a recurring theme in AIDS denialism. And Duesberg used this kind of claim a lot. A lot of Duesberg’s rhetoric, and that of his supporters was exactly this and it took the gullible in, giving the false impression of a genius being suppressed.
But the truth is Duesberg has been demonstrated to be a crazy old fool. Why should anyone platform him, publish him, fund him ?
Unz this topic is finished for anyone honest. Carrying it on like this extremely dishonest.
And this may be what happened in Carlson’s particular case, his researchers told him “don’t go into this”, not because it’s true and it’s “too much to handle”, but because everyone informed enough knows it’s a pile of stupid crap and it will make RFK look like a fool. They were actually trying to do him a favor.
In the NYT’s case the reasons may be different. But who cares ?
What you want to do is shift everything back to whether a subject has been talked about or not. Whether it’s flat earth or not doesn’t bother you.
You think public discussion about this topic is the same thing as the topic having some scientific worth. Your view of scientific merit is “what people talk about”. Crazy crap. No one’s listening anymore.
Reagan must still have some admirers in the media. One of them should promote this section of RFK Jr.’s book in order to exonerate Reagan from the charge that his negligence caused gays to die of AIDS. Reagan had no idea Fauci’s AIDS drugs were lethal.
I wasn’t cheated by anybody. Special relativity can be demonstrated with a few lines of algebra and one fundmental assumption (that the speed of light is the same in every reference frame). I’ve read the derivations and worked through them myself. They are correct. Moreover they are born out by numerous experimental results.
What you wrote looks like a bowl of word salad. I’m not interested. I don’t have time to explore every crank theory on the internet.
I’ve never seen him make any such claim or heard that he has.
No, just because you disagree with someone, doesn’t make them “dishonest”.
Carlson’s researchers are probably twenty-something kids who graduated with degrees in poly-sci. I don’t think he has a bunch of biochemists or virologists on staff.
I think it’s disingenuous to compare Duesberg’s hypothesis to Flat Eartherism. Duesberg may be wrong. His theory may be wrong. But neither he, nor it, are crazy. And given how wrong the medical establishment is and has been wrong about any number of things, and given the financial and career incentives in that field, I’m not inclined to just trust them on faith.
[This is not a thread about crank theories invalidating all of modern physics. Such comments will be trashed.]
“Mr. 2 strikes me as a Menses Asthma (respecting your ban) type. I read his “Special Relativity is wrong” explanation even though he didn’t specify Special Relativity and I am not convinced. Ed Asner is not impressed.”
I wrote a short comment to Mr. Anon and a short comment cannot be a complete description. The problem in the Special Relativity Theory is described in the following paper (which is in the document I earlier linked to)
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/370464298_The_Essential_Questions_in_the_Relativity_Theory
If you need a definition of what is Special Relativity Theory, find some basic textbook. But notice that as the Lorentz transform does not make the speed of light constant in all frames of reference moving with constant speed, basically everything in the Special Relativity Theory falls.
“I would however like to hear the names of all these physicists who agree with him. Even one would be a mentionus mirabilis. But we all know that’s not going to happen.”
So, you want one name of a physicist who has agreed with me on the error in the Special Relativity Theory. I do not want to write names of other people in this highly questionable Unz site, but I will give your pages where you can find names of three physicists who agree with my results.
Go to statistics in
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/370464298_The_Essential_Questions_in_the_Relativity_Theory
and look at the people who have recommended the paper. The first one is a professor in physics.
Another one, professor of theoretical physics, is the editor of the book where this chapter appeared (his name is mentioned in the name of the book):
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/368882412_The_Relativity_Theory_needs_some_fixing
I had a long discussion with him and he did finally agree on the fatal error in the Special Relativity Theory and wanted the paper to be published in the book he edited. But the establishment stroke back: after the book was published, Intechopen cancelled the publication of the whole book, not because of my paper in the book (as they had no arguments against my paper) but because Intechopen claimed that the editor had reused his old text that had already been published elsewhere (which was a false claim, he had the copyright to the text and could include it again).
Third theoretical physicist who fully agrees with me you find from this discussion
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/378857595_ULTIMATE_REFUTATION_OF_THE_RELATIVITY_THEORY/comments
Take previous comments and the first commenter. A very bright young researcher. He has written his own papers that find the same error that I found. You find them in the RG.
There are many more names of physicsts who agree with me in the ResearchGate discussion thread, but I see no sense to give more names, especially as when I put your name “Ed Asner” to scholar.google.com, I get no hits to anything on theoretical physics. Nobody in physics cares if you are impressed or not.
Short answer to your question is that SIV has almost certainly made the jump from non-human primates to humans many times over the last thousands of years. It is possibly still crossing over from time to time. But SIV/HIV does not transmit easily from human to human, and most cross-over events result in a single infection or perhaps a few before the newly crossed-over virus goes extinct.
For a crossover event to result in a pandemic the virus has to not only successfully infect a human host, but that new human host has to infect other humans, who infect other humans etc.
So what was different about early 20th century west-central Africa that allowed a zoonosis that usually goes extinct after infecting one or maybe two or three people to turn into a pandemic?
A few things: hypodermic needles (frequently used without the precautions to prevent the spread of blood borne viruses). Blood transfusions to treat the anaemia associated with many diseases common in the region such as malaria. Large cities with a lot of migrant workers and large scale prostitution to cater to them, resulting in what epidemiologists call dense sexual networks.
All of these factors were new in the early decades of the 20th century in the region where pandemic HIV-1 arose. Combine that with the rapid growth of international travel, and you have the conditions for a difficult-to transmit zoonosis to go pandemic, rather than quickly die off as it has usually done in the past.
Well, leaving aside the Simian SIV issue, here are the crucial claims made in the comment to which you replied:
Assuming those facts provided are accurate, the latency/timing problems they present would seemingly raise huge difficulties with the standard HIV/AIDS narrative.
Since you’re one of the most vigorous defenders of that narrative, what’s your explanation?
That actually relates to one of the issues raised by Nobel Laureate Kary Mullis, who speculated that HIV had probably been harmlessly circulating in American society for many decades before the AIDS epidemic suddenly became.
You write like this:
“Special relativity can be demonstrated with a few lines of algebra and one fundmental assumption (that the speed of light is the same in every reference frame). I’ve read the derivations and worked through them myself. They are correct.”
While Ron Unz writes like this on my answers:
[This is not a thread about crank theories invalidating all of modern physics. Such comments will be trashed.]
Therefore I will give you an extremely brief answer. It is not possible to make the assumption that the speed of light is the same in every reference frame. Mathematically it cannot be. In the Lorentz Transform you think you get the speed of light as c in every frame, but the time difference by which you divide the space difference in the moving frame is not the correct time difference. Check your calculations again, look at what your time difference is.
About this thread. This is not about theoretical physics. This is also not about the completely solved question whether HIV causes AIDS or not. This is about Ron Unz’ article where he among other things claims that Duesberg was not allowed to present his arguments and publish them in an esteemed journal. But Ron Unz is doing just the same. He also does not allow discussion of anything that raises a red flag in his head. Instead he writes articles on topics that he does not understand at all, like on HIV. This is simply people. People behave this way. When people have been brainwashed into believing something (like that the relativity theory is correct), it is extremely hard to get them to give a look at the counterarguments. But there are scientific hoaxes. HIV->AIDS is not one of those hoaxes, but hoaxes do exist. Check such fields where there are too many geniuses and they seem to come from one ethnic group.
Leaving aside the fact that J2 whom I may start calling “Bright Eyes” doesn’t know who Ed Asner is/was:
Someone who knew stuff would know that in academia there is such a thing as “self-plagiarism”. The depth of your ignorance is relatively special.
They cancelled publication after the book was published? Neat trick.
“they had no arguments against my paper” Did they tell you that Bright Eyes? In addition to your new name you are also the newest recipient of the Stupid Fucking Idiot designation. I had to jiggle the system’s toilet handle behind the scenes to make you look smart enough for the SFI.
[This is not a thread for discussing crank claims to have disproven most of modern physics.]
Although Robert Rayford is popularly regarded as the first known US AIDS case, the evidence he actually had HIV is pretty thin in my opinion. The studies that supposedly identified signals of HIV infection in tissues preserved for nearly two decades have never been published in the scientific literature, so it’s hard to assess their reliability. The samples no longer exist, so it’s not possible to check with more modern techniques. There were quite a number of cases in the 1980s where investigators thought they’d found HIV in old preserved tissue samples but it later turned out those results were erroneous and due to contamination of the PCR testing or the modifications made to testing to account for deterioration of the samples had resulted in false positive Western blot signals. [1]
But assuming that what he had was in fact HIV, the latency/timing is not a huge issue. Clinical latency in HIV/AIDS is highly variable and can be as little as a year or so ranging to 20 years or more. Kimberley Bergalis, for example, developed AIDS less than two years after she was infected by her dentist.
There’s no evidence that HIV was widely circulating in the US prior to the origins of the current pandemic around 1976. However it’s quite possible there were multiple sporadic cases in travellers returning from endemic areas like Haiti or West Africa well before the virus took off in New York in the late 70s, and that sometimes those earlier introductions resulted in two or three additional cases before the virus died out.
The earliest known cases in Europe are an example of that pattern. Arne Røed was a teenage boy who likely got infected with HIV around 1962 when he was working on a merchant ship plying the West coast of Africa. His medical records show he got gonorrhoea twice around that time, so it’s pretty safe to say he was sexually active. He returned home to Norway and later got married and had three kids. It’s likely he infected his wife, and she infected their youngest daughter perinatally: the two older kids were unaffected. Arne, his wife and youngest daughter all died in 1976 from what looks like AIDS, but that particular introduction of HIV died out with them with no additional cases. We know that the HIV Arne and his family had was unrelated to the main HIV epidemic in Europe that emerged around 1980 after spreading from the US: Arne’s virus was HIV-1 Group O, which is endemic to West Africa, while the main European epidemic was HIV-1 Group M subtype B – the same as the main subtype in the US and Haiti. [2]
[1] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1580267/
[2] https://sci-hub.se/10.1016/s0140-6736(88)92164-2
On a bit of further checking, it appears that a study has, in fact, been published showing his Western Blot and antigen capture results (but not PCR). So the evidence he actually had HIV is more convincing than I had thought.
https://sci-hub.se/10.1001/jama.1988.03410140097031
No. I’ve said Duesberg had some reasonable ideas at a certain point in time several times here.
But after we get past a certain point in time, it becomes flat earth. Yes. And Duesberg basically becomes the leader of this fringe flat earth movement in this particular area.
I wouldn’t argue Duesberg didn’t have opposition, but if you read this excellent link provided by Snout, and I’ve not read the whole thing yet- and it’s not all about Duesberg, I’m not seeing Duesberg exactly crushed either in quite the way it’s depicted. (They do mention the Galileo theme as well).
Rather you get a picture of sections of the scientific community bending over backwards to try to accommodate Duesberg’s ideas, even at the point they are starting to become extremely strained and unreasonable and at the risk of making themselves look foolish.
But my view is after we establish the world is round in year 1, it’s not a ‘right’ to publish your theory of flat earth in a major journal in year 5,10,15,20,25. Or if it’s your ‘right’ technically, it’s unreasonable to expect it to be upheld.
And you’re interacting dishonestly on this topic and someone should point it out to you.
You’d think it would be of some interest to you when you ask questions and people here give you their best shot at an answer, or provide important information on the topic as Snout has done. You’d think it would be of even more interest to you when your strongest arguments in favor of Duesberg’s thesis collapse.
But you ignore that, and instead want to focus on extracting a sentence or two about how I characteriezed Duesberg’s comfort level or what I called him. Unz has done the same thing. He finds a line he can reply ‘LOL’ so he try not to look to foolish.
It’s not an honest kind of interaction.
You’re saying I should give Unz the benefit of the doubt. Respect his views on this.
I don’t have to respect anything. His views have been heard, and I’ve found them severely lacking virtually any serious scientific foundation at all.
And he’s bragged and boasted here that science = the dissemination of socially disruptive ideas + prestige. He keeps talking about “Nobel Prize winner” Mullis as if that it makes it more real. No one gives a shit.
It sounds to me like you want to uphold this kind of distorted environment of debate favored by Unz, because you feel you’ll flourish in that environment and not in a different one.
But to more specifically address JonH’s question:
Simian retroviruses frequently make the jump from non-human primates to humans, especially where there is frequent contact between species such as among African bushmeat hunters [1]. There are at least a dozen or so groups of HIV-1 and HIV-2 strains still extant that each represent a historic crossover event. Many other primate retroviruses such as simian foamy virus and STLV have also crossed species multiple times. It’s likely there were many more that went extinct before we had the molecular tools to identify them. Only one of the dozen or so HIV groups has ever gone pandemic: HIV-1 Group M. A few of them have caused more localised epidemics (HIV-1 Group O and a couple of HIV-2 strains), but most of these groups are very rare with very limited spread, and are probably in the process of going extinct. The reason HIV-1 Group M went pandemic while other strains did not has to do in part with the fact it hit human populations where it could spread easily and also the inherent characteristics of the virus which is considerably more infectious than all the HIV-2 strains for example.
When and how Robert Ray was infected with HIV is unclear, but the fact he had two other sexually transmissible infections – HHV-8 and chlamydia (possibly LGV based on the clinical description [2]) makes it probable he picked up HIV-1 sexually.
As for option (b), millions of HIV negative Americans contract chlamydia each year and tens of millions use recreational drugs. They don’t get a destroyed immune system as a result. It’s not a thing.
While it’s theoretically possible that HIV has been endemic in the US at low levels for longer than we think, the single known case from 1968 is insufficient to show this: it more likely represents one or more sporadic introductions that died out after one or a couple of infections, as happened in Europe in the Arne Røed case. It wasn’t until one or more of those introductions hit fertile ground in the form of the dense sexual networks of the urban gay scene in New York (and subsequently other cities and risk groups) that the epidemic caught fire as it were in the US.
In any event, the Robert Rayford case can’t be taken as evidence that HIV was spreading harmlessly in the US in the 1960s. It was anything but harmless to him.
[1] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7111966/
[2] https://www.cdc.gov/std/treatment-guidelines/lgv.htm
No, you are simply wrong. The constancy of the speed of light is an ansatz – an assumption.
And it works. That is the proof that it is correct. You stand against a hundred and twenty years of experimental physics. It’s right. You’re wrong.
Yeah – right – virology, epidemeology – practiced by people with financial interests in the outcomes and a variety of professional incentives and disincentives – that’s all rock solid!
But particle physics and metrology, about which nobody really gives a damn, emotionally – that’s all just smoke and mirrors – barely more substantial than tea-leaf reading.
And I find your approach severely lacking.
I don’t find it distorted. He’s not forcing you to read a thing. Take it or leave it. Mr. Unz keeps an open mind on a lot of things. I agree with him on some of them. I disagree with him on some. We don’t all have to agree all the time. You seem to think that we do. Perhaps your form of argument is dishonest.
You seem to think that the media and the medical establishment would never lie about something that important. But they lie about important things all the time. Or rather – they simply don’t look too deeply into somethings they assume to be the truth because it’s professional suicide.
I’ll give one example: the TWA 800 air diaster. For a long time, I suscribed to the establishment narrative of that event. I simply couldn’t believe that a completely different (and somewhat sinister) explanation of it could be true. But Mr. Unz pointed out a lot of information (that he has made available at this site) that it did not happen the way that the authorities said it did. And it is very persuasive. And if that is true – and I think it is – that means that the entire federal government, and virtually the entire news media has lied about it and continues to lie about it – systematically lies about it.
[This is not a thread for comments discussing crank theories invalidating all of modern physics and these will be trashed.]
Why are the attacks on RFK concentrated on his vaccine position while his AIDS position is being ignored?
Well, that’s easy. RFK is a controlled opposition. That should be obvious since he is a Kennedy. The Kennedy’s are a powerful, connected family who had their image burnished as some sort of “mainstream dissident dynasty” by the JFK “assassination.” We tend to think that event positioned the Kennedy’s as somehow champions of the little guy speaking truth to power, which was precisely the purpose of JFK.
This false image of the Kennedy’s allow their members to be groomed into “controlled opposition” roles whenever a real revolutionary movement threatens to appear. RFK will suck all of the oxygen out of the room, prevent any real revolution and let the matter die under his watch.
Of course, it just goes to show you how incompetent the conspiracy is that it allowed matters to degrade so much that an RFK needed to be deployed at all. It is very dangerous to shift the Overton window like that, because you may very well spark a real revolution. Furthermore, your puppets may decide to cut their strings and strike out on their own, which would be disastrous for the conspiracy.
God bless you if you’ve got something out of this website you find valuable.
Perhaps at times we’ve all got a bit aggressive in debating this controversial topic. But if one side thinks nothing in the conventional direction has any worth at all, that it’s even worth reflecting on, that it could be just as easily be one big scam, and that when explanations provided for Duesberg’s claims are shrugged off, it’s hard to have a serious discussion.
At what point is it reasonable to keep saying, “I don’t know if Duesberg is right or wrong”, as if it’s an open question still that we can just find out the answer somehow if we keep throwing things up in the air ?
This topic is complicated by a number of things, like the fact Duesberg had some defunding and pressure and so on, maybe they were a little bit trigger happy with him a little bit early, it’s possible and it could make it seem like something was going on.
Another complication is that the pull of Duesberg’s arguments today, very interesting though they appear, are reliant on a certain amount of technical ignorance most of us have, a kind of ‘fog of time’ about the topic, and an unreasonable suspicion and dismissiveness about the mainstream research in my view.
Ron Unz has talked about the seeming ‘persuasiveness’ of these arguments. But these matters can not be decided by rhetorical skills, and Duesberg’s ideas have to assessed against everything else.
And the history of the biological sciences is full of fascinating, plausible, strong, intuitive and persuasive ideas turning out to be incorrect.
To me this seems to be an example of that.
I’m sure we could find many other scientific topics where there was debate, where the evidence went one way and not the other over time, but because they are not so contentious and politically loaded as AIDS was at one time they are really of very little interest to the public.
So,……….why do you keep discussing it then? I’m not the one who brought up the topic.
That message in bold and brackets is the moderator deleting and then addressing the commenter j2 that his post is not being allowed.
Oh. Okay. That makes more sense. Thanks.
https://substack.com/home/post/p-153094570
I was listening to this truly jaw-dropping interview today and though I already knew well the truth about the USS Liberty (from reading James Perloff, wrote about it here) I didn’t know these horrifying details.
About halfway through, I heard Mr. Tourney remark on an Irgun agent who was present at LBJ’s deathbed: He said the name “Mathilde Krim” and I did not at first believe my ears. I wound it back. Sure enough, he said “Mathilde Krim.”
The name was mentioned in passing, quickly, and Candace (who is too young to be aware) didn’t say: “You mean the woman who was behind the mega-OP and fraud known as AIDS, the co-founder of AmFar, the great money laundering operation that merged AIDS and Hollywood? The Mathilde Krim who single handedly concocted, launched, and invented out of whole cloth the “heterosexual AIDS explosion” (that wasn’t) and who placed a call to LIFE magazine’s editor to launch the famous terror cover with the headline: “Now Nobody Is Safe From AIDS” with a family of four, who were supposed to be the new face of heterosexual AIDS? (The parents were heroin addicts.) That Mathilde Krim?”
Don’t forget the venereal and anal warts mushrooms and other nasty stuff gay promiscuity developed in their STDs creation lifestyle. Anal warts and mushrooms just another side effect if gay sex. Ever seen a herpes scarred penis. Like big worms crawling around the penis. Very painful and incurable Sometimes goes into remission.
Life in the unz baby crib and playpen bubble A lifetime of ignorance about something. Then in late middle age read one book or several internet articles.
And declare that Aids HIV Grid gay diseases never existed. Neither Kennedy nor Ron unz or any of the commenters ever laid eyes on a grown adult 6 ft 100 pound man with gray green skin with aids hiv grids herpes anal mushrooms and warts or any of the STDs gay men created by their animals in mating season. promiscuity. And then they dwindled to 80 pounds and died.
Even in the 1950s NYC Chicago San Francisco Los Angeles New Orleans public health agencies reported gay men the demographic most infected with STDs. All the big cities where gay men congregated. All the big cutie where gay men went for sex tourism. It was gay men from the cold north east America that brought Aids to Haiti. Where they went for winter vacations in the sun. And infected the gay prostitutes of Haiti with Aids.
These articles and comments are no better than the ignorant screeching harpies of The View and NOW.
I can imagine it must be horrible for you to see that several times a day whenever you need to make water. No wonder you say “faggots” so much. You should go easy on yourself, you had some good times, didn’t you?