Conspiracy Nation -- Vol. 7 Num. 31

("Quid coniuratio est?")

AIDS Inc. -- Part 3

There was such a response to the previous CN (CN 7.23) on the banning in the United States of the book Why We Will Never Win the War on AIDS by Bryan Ellison and Peter Duesberg, that I thought I would re-post the following. It is my synopsis of Jon Rappoport's book, AIDS Inc. Because Rappoport covers Dr. Duesberg's challenge to official AIDS dogma, they may be banning his book next! (Or, late breaking, thanks to Rep. Schumer and his proposed H.R. 2580 -- outlawing discussion of what he calls "baseless conspiracy theories" -- they may be banning Conspiracy Nation!)

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +


The average researcher will tell you it has been proven that HIV causes AIDS. The apparent correlation between the new disease of AIDS and the new virus, HIV, is a compelling image. "But the truth is, a new disease-condition has not demonstrably sprung up all over the world. Hundreds of causes for immune-system collapse and ensuing infection, the so-called AIDS pattern, already exist. There is nothing magical about the ideas of AIDS. It is merely immune-collapse followed by opportunistic infection."

"In an effort to defend a viral AIDS scenario, in which AIDS has mainly been confined to IV drug users and male homosexuals... researchers have attempted to discover odd routes of viral transmission... [i.e.] anal sex among gays which because of bleeding leads to semen-blood transmission; and sharing of needles among junkies."

But according to the author, this effort is misguided. Among the reasons he gives are:
1) No virus selects lopsidedly the cultural groups it will reside in.
2) Heterosexuals have been practicing anal sex for centuries. 3) Semen to blood transmission, which has been attributed to anal sex as the reason HIV spreads, is also a fact in hetero vaginal sex.

If HIV were "causing a single disease-entity called AIDS, two circumstances in America would have conspired to send AIDS widely beyond the current risk-groups... [1970s era bisexual swing clubs, which were prevalent in New York at that time,] played host to every sex act imaginable and a consequent exchange of bodily fluids among men and women. A perfect situation for viral spread into the hetero community. [By and large,] it didn't happen."

"Today [1988] out of the 55,000 reported AIDS cases in the U.S., 91% are men, and 9% are women... Such preference [for men over women] is unheard of."

During the 1970s, "gay men from cities and towns all over America visited and vacationed in San Francisco, New York, and L.A., the centers of diagnosed AIDS cases in the U.S. They visited gay bathhouses and had sex. Carrying home with them the HIV virus, they would have spread AIDS into many, many towns and cities of the U.S. This did not occur..."

"Trying to confirm that HIV causes AIDS by showing it spreads in culturally prejudiced fashion, through odd routes, in very limited fashion, is absurd."

"It isn't really surprising that the AIDS research establishment in America is arrogant, when you look at the thesis about AIDS which they have built. Their arrogance is hiding an extremely weak brand of science..."

The author declares that AIDS is only an artificial label tagged onto a condition that already existed before the "discovery" of AIDS. "We've known about fifteen or twenty medical reasons and hundreds of environmental causes for immune-deficiency, and we've known about them for decades."

What is especially shocking is that the establishment AIDS scenario "is not only scientifically absurd, it also keeps help for dying and ill people, true help, from taking place. It keeps prevention from taking place. So the AIDS theory isn't just stupid, it's vicious."


There are many different infections and diseases, all lumped together under the heading of "AIDS." The one thing that had seemed to tie together this plenum was the HIV virus. But "it is much more probable that what is being called AIDS, in most cases, is the far end of an arc of immunosuppression, which takes some time to build up in a person."

"From various factors, the immunosuppression gains in influence, and then, long after the person should have reversed his habits, or should have been fed, or should have been taken from a field where he was working in the presence of pesticides, etc., he becomes really sick, and then maybe he sees a doctor. The doctor looks at his opportunistic infection, clucks, [and] pronounces AIDS."

The patient's symptoms are first seen when he finally decides to go see a doctor -- at the end of the arc of immunosuppression. "All attention is focused there. It is named AIDS, it is packaged, and what is concealed is the long approach that led to this moment. Prevention and reversal would have been much easier during that earlier period."

The author speaks of what he calls the myth of pneumocystis carinii pneumonia as a primary so-called AIDS symptom. The myth is that 1) pneumocystis was extremely rare before AIDS and 2) if two people have pneumocystis, they both developed it from the same cause. According to the author, "This is preposterous."

"The pneumocystis protozoa is found in 70-85% of healthy people. It causes no harm. It is one of those germs which establish an easy relationship with the host. However, when immunosuppression becomes severe enough, it can come to the fore."

Some researchers "have pointed out that severe malnutrition can underlie pneumocystis. As mentioned earlier, some full-time junkies and alcoholics are known for their inability to pay for, or their chronic disinterest in food. Today were, say, an alcoholic to develop pneumocystis the diagnosis would be AIDS, HIV, and the whole ball of wax -- not (correctly) pneumocystis stemming from alcohol and malnutrition."

"Pneumocystis pneumonia has moved into new populations since 1977, but people have been dying of it, because of malnutrition, since World War Two. In fact, following the War, epidemics were seen in Europe, mainly in infants."

The author decries the fact that the multifactorial model for AIDS has been largely ignored by the medical establishment. "Although there is a long list of a) disease, b) malnutritive and c) chemical factors which can make the immunosuppressive bed in which pneumocystis will turn virulent, the CDC [Center for Disease Control] has severely ignored these factors, instead pushing HIV into the limelight as the 'new' agent."

"A good example of AIDS-related research which has not floated to the top of the NIH [National Institute of Health] research ladder is a paper by Peter Walzer et al, in the December 1984 Infection and Immunity. Walzer explores the possibility, in rats, that antibiotics can increase the disposition toward pneumocystis."

Walzer states, "Rats that were administered corticosteroids, a low-protein diet, and tetracycline spontaneously developed P. carinii pneumonia within ca. 8 weeks through a mechanism of reactivation of latent infection."

"In the U.S. gay community, malnutrition, abuse of tetracycline and corticosteroids are frequently found as partners."


Peter Duesberg is a molecular biologist at the University of California at Berkeley. He was also a key researcher during the war on cancer. In that capacity, he worked closely with people who are now top AIDS investigators, including Robert Gallo, the co-discoverer of HIV.

"Duesberg asserts that HIV is not the cause of AIDS."

"To understand the import of that conviction, one has to understand that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) have taken in several hundred million dollars in a quest to cure AIDS. That money, the committment to a cure, all hang on the one breakthrough the medical research establishment claims: The discovery of the AIDS virus, HIV."

What follows are excerpts of several interviews with Professor Duesberg:

INTERVIEWER: In your paper, Retroviruses as Carcinogens and Pathogens: Expectation and Reality, you say, "It is concluded that AIDS virus is not sufficient to cause AIDS and that there is no evidence, besides its presence in a latent form, that it is necessary for AIDS." In other words, although the HIV virus is present in a proportion of AIDS patients, Gallo and others have not proved that it causes the disease.

DUESBERG: Many AIDS patients have the herpes virus too, but no one is saying herpes causes AIDS.

INTERVIEWER: At the top of the AIDS research establishment, there is a great deal of politics, at least in the sense that you have to claim you have a major discovery like HIV and a cure on the way, in order to justify millions of research dollars. That could warp your scientific attitude.

DUESBERG: It's very hard to talk to a person who has a contract with a drug company in his pocket. How do you know that he's telling you the truth? Times have changed. This is high-stakes

science, financially........
......Koch and Pasteur, when they considered under what 

conditions a germ could cause disease, couldn't, of course, know anything about our present level of magnification. They would never have been able to see HIV. Koch was looking at somebody who was loaded with tuberculosis. Pasteur was looking at somebody who was loaded with rabies virus. What researchers today can do is great detective work (finding retroviruses), but it's clinically absurd. But that's all they can do. That's their skill. So they have to believe they're finding the cause of disease.

INTERVIEWER: So you're saying, in amendment to Koch's postulates, that a virus must be biochemically active.

DUESBERG: Yes. It must be infecting more cells than the host can spare. Every month, half of your T-cells are new. So the HIV virus would have to infect a couple percent of them every day. It doesn't.

INTERVIEWER: In the July 6 New York Native, you said the following about the drug, AZT: "...AZT is a poison. It is cytotoxic. I think that giving it to people with AIDS is highly irresponsible... the drug is only going to hurt you."

DUESBERG: That's right. And now they are giving it to people with no symptoms.

INTERVIEWER: AZT is a very sinister aspect of AIDS. That needs to be repeated.

DUESBERG: I think AZT is the most sinister aspect of this whole business. They're killing growing (normal) cells. That's what

they're doing. That's very serious business.......
......NIH is like a military place, you know. In its attitude. 

They look at me, I'm from Berkeley, so they think I'm different. Free speech, all that. I work at a university, I speak my mind. At NIH, if you start asking questions in public about these viruses, you're out of a job.

INTERVIEWER: When they are alone, these researchers, do you think they express their doubts?

DUESBERG: Sure. They have questions. They just don't want the public to know about these doubts.

[ be continued...]

I encourage distribution of "Conspiracy Nation."

If you would like "Conspiracy Nation" sent to your e-mail address, send a message in the form "subscribe cn-l My Name" to (Note: that is "CN-L" not "CN-1")
For information on how to receive the new Conspiracy Nation Newsletter, send an e-mail message to
Want to know more about Whitewater, Oklahoma City bombing, etc? (1) telnet (2) logon as "visitor" (3) go citcom

See also:

See also: ftp pub/users/bigred

Aperi os tuum muto, et causis omnium filiorum qui pertranseunt. Aperi os tuum, decerne quod justum est, et judica inopem et pauperem. -- Liber Proverbiorum XXXI: 8-9