Is There No Scientific Evidence
That HIV is Caused by The AIDS Virus?
Inventing the AIDS Virus
If you want to contribute with our work, sending no money,
by Dr. Peter Duesberg, Member, National Academy of Sciences U.S.A.
Professor, Department of Molecular and Cell Biology, U.C. Berkeley
Introduction to Inventing the AIDS Virus
by Dr. Kary Mullis, Nobel Prize in
IN I988 I WAS WORKING
as a consultant at Specialty Labs in Santa Monica, CA, setting up analytic routines
for the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV). I knew a lot about setting up analytic
routines for anything with nucleic acids in it because I invented the Polymerase
Chain Reaction. That's why they hired me. Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome
(AIDS), on the other hand, was something I did not know a lot about. Thus, when
I found myself writing a report on our progress and goals for the project, sponsored
by the National Institutes of Health, I recognized that I did not know the scientific
reference to support a statement I had just written: "HIV
is the probable cause of AIDS."
So I turned to the virologist at the next desk, a reliable and competent fellow,
and asked him for the reference. He said I didn't need one. I disagreed. While
it's true that certain scientific discoveries or techniques are so well established
that their sources are no longer referenced in the contemporary literature,
that didn't seem to be the case with the HIV/AIDS connection. It was totally
remarkable to me that the individual who had discovered the cause of a deadly
and as-yet-uncured disease would not be continually referenced in the scientific
papers until that disease was cured and forgotten. But as I would soon learn,
the name of that individual - who would surely be Nobel material - was on the
tip of no one's tongue.
Of course, this simple reference had
to be out there somewhere. Otherwise,
tens of thousands of public servants and esteemed scientists of many callings,
trying to solve the tragic deaths of a large number of homosexual and/or intravenous
(IV) drug-using men between the ages of twenty-five and forty, would not have
allowed their research to settle into one narrow channel of investiga-tion.
Everyone wouldn't fish in the same pond unless it was well established that
all the other ponds were empty. There had to be a published paper,
or perhaps several of them, which taken together indicated that HIV was the
probable cause of AIDS. There just had to be.
I did computer searches, but came up with nothing. Of course, you can miss something
important in computer searches by not putting in just the right key words. To
be certain about a scientific issue, it's best to ask other scientists directly.
That's one thing that scientific conferences in
faraway places with nice beaches are for. I was going to a lot
of meetings and conferences as part of my job. I got in the habit of approaching
anyone who gave a talk about AIDS and asking him or her what reference I should
quote for that increasingly problematic statement, "HIV is the probable
cause of AIDS."
After ten or fifteen meetings over a couple years, I was getting pretty upset
when no one could cite the reference. I didn't like the ugly conclusion that
was forming in my mind: The entire campaign against a disease increasingly regarded
as a twentieth century Black Plague
was based on a hypothesis whose origins no
one could recall. That defied both scientific
and common sense. Finally, I had an opportunity to question one of the giants
in HIV and AIDS research, Dr. Luc Montagnier
of the Pasteur Institute, when he gave a talk
in San Diego. It would be the last time I would be able to ask my little question
without showing anger, and I figured Montagnier would know the answer. So I
With a look of condescending puzzlement, Montagnier said, "Why
don't you quote the report from the Centers for Disease Control?"
I replied, "It doesn't really address
the issue of whether or not HIV is the probable cause of AIDS, does it?"
he admitted, no doubt wondering when I would just go away. He looked for support
to the little circle of people around him, but they were all awaiting a more
definitive response, like I was.
"Why don't you quote the work on SIV
[Simian Immunodeficiency Virus]?"
the good doctor offered.
"I read that too, Dr. Montagnier,"
I responded. "What happened to those
monkeys didn't remind me of AIDS. Besides, that paper was just published only
a couple of months ago. I'm looking for the original paper where somebody showed
that HIV caused AIDS.
This time, Dr. Montagnier's response was to
walk quickly away to greet an acquaintance
across the room.
Cut to the scene inside my car just a few years ago. I was driving from Mendocino
to San Diego. Like everyone else by now, I knew a lot more about AIDS than I
wanted to. But I still didn't know who had determined that it was caused by
HIV. Getting sleepy as I came over the San Bernardino Mountains, I switched
on the radio and tuned in a guy who was talking about AIDS. His name was Peter
Duesberg, and he was a prominent virologist
at Berkeley. I'd heard of him, but had never read his papers or heard him speak.
But I listened, now wide awake, while he explained exactly why I was having
so much trouble finding the references that linked HIV to AIDS. There weren't
any. No one had ever proved that HIV causes
AIDS. When I got home, I invited Duesberg
down to San Diego to present his ideas to a meeting of the American
Association for Chemistry. Mostly skeptical
at first, the audience stayed for the lecture, and then an hour of questions,
and then stayed talking to each other until requested to clear the room. Everyone
left with more questions than they had brought.
I like and respect Peter Duesberg. I don't think he knows necessarily what causes
AIDS; we have disagreements about that. But we're both certain
about what doesn't cause AIDS. We have
not been able to discover any good reasons why most of the people on earth believe
that AIDS is a disease caused by a virus
called HIV. There is simply no
scientific evidence demonstrating that
this is true. We have also not been able to discover why doctors prescribe a
toxic drug called AZT
(Zidovudine) to people who have no other
complaint other than the fact that they have the presence of antibodies to HIV
in their blood. In fact, we cannot understand why humans would take this drug
for any reason.
We cannot understand how all this madness
came about, and having both lived in Berkeley, we've seen some strange things
indeed. We know that to err is human, but the
HIV/AIDS hypothesis is one hell of a mistake.
I say this rather strongly as a warning. Duesberg
has been saying it for a long time.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
A Short List of On-Line, Published Research Papers by Duesberg
(and suppressed by the mass media) on the infectious HIV-AIDS myth
Archived at http://www.duesberg.com/scientific.html
1. Retroviruses as Carcinogens and
Pathogens: Expectations and Reality
2. HIV Is Not the Cause of AIDS
5. Latent Viruses and Mutated
Oncogenes: No Evidence for Pathogenicity
- Human Immunodeficiency
Virus and Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome: Correlation but Not Causation
- AIDS Epidemiology:
Inconsistencies with Human Immunodeficiency Virus and with Infectious Disease
6. AIDS Acquired by Drug Consumption and Other Noncontagious Risk Factors
7. The HIV Gap in National AIDS Statistics
8. Can Epidemiology Determine Whether Drugs or HIV Cause AIDS?
9. Infectious AIDS-Stretching the Germ Theory Beyond Its Limits
10. Duesberg Phenomenon: Duesberg and Other Voices
11. Foreign Protein-Mediated Imunodeficiency in Hemophiliacs with and without
12. Duesberg and the Right of Reply According to Maddox
13. How Much Longer Can We Afford the AIDS Virus Monopoly?
14. Results Fall Short for HIV Theory
Back to TOP
Back to Current Myths page
Go to FAEC's Spanish Version
You are visitor No.:
since July, 2001
FastCounter by bCentral
please click the icons below, Thanks you, very much!
The Terapin mine stores thousands of your digital photographs easily
without expensive memory cards nor laptop. See how it works here...