Categories

A sample text widget

Etiam pulvinar consectetur dolor sed malesuada. Ut convallis euismod dolor nec pretium. Nunc ut tristique massa.

Nam sodales mi vitae dolor ullamcorper et vulputate enim accumsan. Morbi orci magna, tincidunt vitae molestie nec, molestie at mi. Nulla nulla lorem, suscipit in posuere in, interdum non magna.

Peter Duesberg

chunk of it in the middle. Now those people who have that mutation, no matter what risky behavior they indulge in, they do not get HIV disease…Then, of course, you can show clearly in the test tube that you can artificially make cells that have this receptor and they will become readily infected with the viruses that use this receptor. And if the cells don’t have the receptor then they don’t. That’s summarizing like hundreds and hundreds of papers that elegantly address this, so there’s no doubt that HIV causes AIDS. Duesberg may not like some of the HIV virologists, and their style and all, but it’s just so silly. And it’s sad, because they’ve created a movement that’s been very destructive. My understanding is that out in California some of these people are like Luddites. Some of the activists–not all of them, but some small percentage–have gotten this into their head, and have stormed research labs. They’ve gotten very angry and very crazy, and it’s complete rubbish. I have no doubt in my mind. I’m a hundred percent sure about this.”

How would you respond to Candace?

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

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

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

Peter: Scientists are selected for instincts that help them to get funding, recognition, invitations to meetings, access to publications and awards. None of these are available to scientific minorities. On the contrary, minorities are excommunicated at many levels from the consenting majorities, even from personal contacts with mainstream colleagues. Those are strong incentives for scientists not to “examine” unpopular ideas.
David: What do you think it will take to convince the scientific establishment that HIV is not the cause of AIDS.

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

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

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

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

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

These papers analyze old and new paradoxes generated by the HIV hypothesis, and address new and old evidence for chemical AIDS, namely AIDS caused by recreational drugs, antiviral drugs and malnutrition.
David: What are some of the ways that you think a prevailing scientific paradigm can limit our medical understanding?

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

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

Peter: Generate a free market for scientific ideas in which funding depends on logic, scientific principles, and useful results, rather than on approval, or better yet the blessings of “peer-review.”  Since the “peers” represent the established scientific monopolies their self-interest demands “science” that confirms and extends the status quo–rather than innovation, which threatens their considerable scientific and commercial investments.

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

The claim that only established “peers” have the knowledge to decide on AIDS, cancer, Alzheimer’s etc. is not consistent with their failures to explain or cure these diseases.  And is not consistent even with the spirit of our constitution, where neither the law nor the health of the citizens should be left solely to the powers of the “experts”.  The claims for exclusive authority of “scientific peers” are no more valid than those of their legal counterparts nor those of their predecessors who wrote prescriptions in latin, or those of their theological counterparts who determine what’s moral or ethical via special connections with God.
David: What do you think are the primary causes of aging?
Peter: I don’t know. It’s an interesting question. But, if I were to work on it, I would look at the three factors that generate the un-aged prototype: (1) The karyotype or species-specific chromosome combination; (2) The genes; and (3) The differential expression of thousands of genes or “epigenetic” controls that generate differentiated phenotypes. I would plan experiments which compare karyotypes, genes and gene expressions of un-aged prototypes with aged counterparts.

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

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

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

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

David: What are you currently working on?

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

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

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

Pages: 1 2

Leave a Reply