AuthorTopic: Rethinking the Matrix - HIV and AIDS  (Read 748 times)

Offline el Gallinazo

  • Moderator
  • Bussing Staff
  • *****
  • Posts: 106
    • View Profile
Rethinking the Matrix - HIV and AIDS
« on: June 11, 2012, 10:13:43 AM »
Another addition to the just about everything they tell you is bullshit department

If anyone you know should come to read HIV positive, the link below could save lives.

Peter Duesberg is a German-American molecular biologist.  He started his academic career at UC Berkeley and became a meteoric superstar, making full professor at age 36, the Academy of Sciences at 49, and all agree that he was on the short list for a Nobel Prize for his work in viruses and cancer.  Then everything totally fell apart for him.  Why?  When it became medical dogma in the mid 1980's that the HIV virus caused AIDS, Duesberg, in true Steve Martin fashion said, "Huh?  Well escuuuuuuse me!"

For this breech of academic conformity, Duesberg has lost all grant money and graduate student assistance.  To be affiliated with him is the kiss of death.  Now in his 70's, UC is trying to trump up charges against him to strip him of tenure.  Here are two paragraphs from Wikipedia.

Duesberg received acclaim early in his career for research on oncogenes and cancer. With Peter Vogt, he reported in 1970 that a cancer-causing virus of birds had extra genetic material compared with non-cancer-causing viruses, hypothesizing that this material contributed to cancer.[1][2] At the age of 36, Duesberg was awarded tenure at the University of California, Berkeley, and at 49, he was elected to the National Academy of Sciences. He received an Outstanding Investigator Grant (OIG) from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in 1986, and from 1986 to 1987 was a Fogarty Scholar-in-Residence at the NIH laboratories in Bethesda, Maryland.


In 2009, Duesberg and co-authors including David Rasnick published an article in the journal Medical Hypotheses, which is not peer reviewed. The article had been rejected previously by the journal JAIDS, and a peer reviewer had warned that the authors could face scientific misconduct charges if the paper were published. The article was not revised in response to these criticisms.[18] In the article, Duesberg questioned research reporting that drugs policies implemented by the South African government on the advice of Duesberg, Rasnick and others had led to excess AIDS deaths.[14] Observing that the overall population of South Africa has increased, Duesberg claimed that HIV must be a harmless "passenger virus" that has not caused deaths in South Africa or elsewhere. Duesberg stated that HIV does not replicate in the body and that antiviral drugs, which he calls "inevitably toxic", do not inhibit HIV. In addition, Duesberg wrote that neither he nor his co-authors had financial conflicts of interest.[14]

Hmmmm.  The halls of academia are not much different from the Vatican.  One can be defrocked and placed under anathema for espousing a view which contradicts a plank in their dogma.  Let us hope that they will not burn Duesberg at the stake.

Duesberg builds a case that the HIV virus is essentially harmless, that it is not a causative factor in Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (notice the word Syndrome not Disease).  He is officially labeled a "Denialist" in the medical academic community, which, with his very thick German accent, leads one to imagine unconsciously that at the age of 7 he was an SS Hauptmann assisting Adolf Eichmann with pushing children into ovens.  He also maintains that AZT, which is in the family of anti-cancer drugs that interferes with DNA replication called  nucleoside analog reverse-transcriptase inhibitors, which in the earlier days was given to HIV positive people in massive doses (2 grams a day), would actually kill them eventually with no outside assistance.  Reminds me of how the quacks finished off George Washington with leeches.  The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Duesberg maintains that the HIV retrovirus is essentially harmless when introduced into the human body and immediately builds up a host of antibodies to successfully prevent its replication.  It has been extremely difficult to isolate the HIV virus for the simple reason that it is ably exterminated in vivo by the very antibodies that give one an HIV positive reading.  Eventually it was done using a multi iterative process involving human cancer cells.  So one might ask then, well isn't AIDS real?  Well, yes and no.  AIDS, as the full name imparts, is a collection of various symptoms which form a cognitive construct of a potential underlying disease.  In African epidemiology, these symptoms are so loosely defined, that they could be caused by any number of diseases such a malaria and chronic diarrhea.  Duesberg maintains that AIDS is, in fact, a manifestation of a highly weakened immune system, but that this manifestation is caused by environmental attack such as recreational drugs, continuous STD assault from multiple sexual partners, malnutrition, excessive and continuous stress, etc. and has nothing to do with a malevolent retrovirus.  Duesberg became unpopular with certain factions of the gay community, because he maintained that their lifestyle was the primary cause for their AIDS.  He makes it quite clear that he has no moral problem with homosexual sex.  He just says that if you are going to live in such a fashion that compromises your immune system, you are going to have to live and die with the consequences.

While HIV positive readings may be contagious, AIDS is not.  One might also ask questions such as:

1)  Retroviruses almost identical to HIV are found in most species of African primates, and are labeled SIV.  At worst when introduced into primates, they will cause very mild flu like symptoms and will then not cause any harm for the rest of the animal's life. Thus it becomes impossible to use primates in meaningful testing because they never develop AIDS without independent attacks on their immune system.  Perhaps these monkeys should be put on a steady diet of amyl nitrate poppers first.

2)  Why has the medical establishment been unable to come up with a vaccine after 27 years of trying?  Virologist Duesberg claims that the purpose of a vaccine is to introduce a viral molecular structure into the body prior to actual live viral introduction to lower the immune systems's R&D reaction time prior to construction and manufacture of an effective antibody to take out the virus.  The danger from viruses that are actually highly pathogenic, is that they can replicate and kill or make a body very ill before the immune system can respond adequately.  Duesberg refers to this as the "blitzkrieg effect."  Since HIV is essentially harmless and the body will kill it fast enough in any event, trying to invent or develop a vaccine is  both absurd and impossible.  The body already produces the antibodies quickly so what could a vaccines possibly do?  Since HIV doesn't cause AIDS in any event, the vaccine could not prevent the onset of the symptoms to a suppressed immune system caused by environmental factors.

3)  Why does it often take five to ten year (if ever) for AIDS to develop after an HIV positive antibody test?  No other known potentially lethal virus according to Duesberg follows this course.  In the case of herpes, the virus will hide in the neurons where the antibodies can't access them, and will occasionally jail break when the immune system is depleted, but even then the antibodies will soon force them back to their hiding places and the symptoms will go into remission.

The other lesson to be learned from Duesberg's story is regardless of the heights one reaches in the halls of academic acclaim, if one steps outside the Matrix and threatens certain orthodoxy and financial interests, they will destroy you and make a lesson of you in the process.  This is just one more way they dumb us down in pursuit of their agenda.

Anyway, I strongly suggest that you  listen to and ponder Duesberg's one hour interview with Red Ice Radio from Gotheburg, Sweden.

You can get an additional hour of data from a Canadian politician with a less stellar background in molecular biology, David Crowe, at:

The bottom line.  If one should become HIV positive, do not under any circumstances start on a "preemptive" drug cocktail, particularly if your health is good, prior to thoroughly researching Duesberg's hypothesis on your own.  Big Pharma is not your friend.  Learn alternative ways to keep your immune system in top order and discontinue nasty habits that tend to compromise your immune system.

Also, check out these statistics


Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
0 Replies
Last post February 05, 2015, 01:54:34 AM
by RE
0 Replies
Last post November 01, 2016, 03:50:49 PM
by azozeo
1 Replies
Last post August 12, 2017, 06:16:11 PM
by azozeo