Serious Adverse Events: An Uncensored History of AIDS

by Celia Farber

At an April 1984 press conference, government researchers announced that the cause of AIDS--the disease then terrifying the nation as if it were a Biblical scourge--was a "retrovirus" called HIV. Many scientists, including two Nobel winners, said it wasn't possible. But they were quickly drowned out by the ecstatic response from activists, government-funded researchers, a relieved public and, especially, the pharmaceutical industry, which quickly offered a treatment for HIV--a drug called called AZT. Within four years, the entire first group of AZT test subjects was dead. But the idea that HIV caused AIDS became so entrenched that international policy was being based on it, while big pharma raked in billions. Scientists who disagreed found themselves ostracized, their funding cut off. Journalist who raised questions were subject to vicious attacks from politicians and activists. Celia Farber has covered the tumultuous story in all its facets for over 20 years, disastrous National Institutes of Health drug tests on mothers and children in Africa, Tennessee and New York City; extensive interviews with blacklisted researchers and scientific dissidents such as Berkeley's Peter Duseberg and NIH renegade Jonathan Fishbein; and reporting from South Africa on the influence of pharmaceutical companies on foreign aid and policy. It is an astonishing and largely unknown story, and in Serious Adverse Events , Farber chronicles the entire history of AIDS, its triumphs and its failures, with astonishing research and mind-opening candor.

Genres: History, Science, Health, Conspiracy Theories, Nonfiction, Medicine, Medical

345 pages, Paperback

First published April 1, 2006

Reviews

[Melville House Publishing · Rating 5 out of 5]

Controversial AIDS reporter Celia Farber collects twenty years of investigative work on AIDS.

Building on her much discussed cover story in Harper’s Magazine—“Out of Control: AIDS and the Corruption of Medical Science”—Celia Farber’s Serious Adverse Events: AN UNCENSORED HISTORY OF AIDS asks important questions about the costs and results of the two-decade long “war on AIDS.”

Here Farber conducts new interviews with controversial AIDS dissidents, including UC Berkeley’s Peter Duesberg, UNAM’s Harvey Bialy, and Nobelist Kary Mullis. Their views on HIV and cancer—rarely discussed in the mainstream press—are considered at length.

Also included are accounts of some of the most dramatic and controversial questions caught up in the fight against AIDS. Farber investigates AIDS co-factors, unexplained causes of immunodeficiency (HIV-negative AIDS), estimates of the AIDS epidemic in Africa, and, perhaps most importantly, drug treatment plans. In 1989, Farber was the first magazine journalist to call attention to the dangers of high-dose AZT monotherapy. In 2000, she took aim at David Ho’s “hit hard, hit early” treatment plan. In both cases, Farber’s suspicions turned out to be correct. AIDS drugs, when improperly prescribed or promoted, can be much more deadly than AIDS itself.

Farber’s candor and extensive research sheds new light on the AIDS epidemic and its important effects on our current state of medical research.

[Hermonta · Rating 5 out of 5]

I have read quite a few book on whether or not HIV causes AIDS, so I know the arguments pretty much inside and out, so this book did not really add anything to my knowledge, but it would be the first book to give someone if they are interested in the discussion. It is history written very compellingly. Almost in the form of a novel. A real page turner in an area that can be somewhat dry.

By reading it you will find out:
- Why AIDS is not decimating Africa and why it is unlikely to do so in the future. A big problem in Africa is malnutrition and bad drinking water.
- People who take antiviral drugs tend to have shorter life spans than those who avoid them.
- Many other things.

I recommend this book quite highly.

[David M]

I don't think you can really critique the medical-industrial complex of the last 50 years without getting some handle on HIV/AIDS. The chapter on AZT is the highlight here. Otherwise Farber skirts some mighty controversial territory by entertaining the Deusberg hypothesis.

[tom · Rating 1 out of 5]

AIDS denialist. avoid.

[Graham Seibert · Rating 5 out of 5]

2023 is an incredible year. As layer after layer of lie after lie are being peeled away, the uncompromising truth tellers are standing tall. The lies were pervasive, from every quarter: government, corporations, media, academia, medicine – just about every trusted institution in Western civilization.

The motivation behind the lies was generally quite simple – financial gain. Those financial gains came at the expense of common people’s financial interests, well-being, health and lives.

The truth tellers often come from unusual quarters. Today we have Naomi Wolf, fighting the covid battle as “The Valliant Fox,” who came on the scene as author of The Beauty Myth. Matt Taibbi came up through Rolling Stone magazine, writing about the giant vampire squid Goldman Sachs. And Celia Farber came up through Spin Magazine, writing about music.

All of these truth-tellers were offered rich rewards for compromising their integrity, shutting up and letting the official narrative slide by without question. Some, like Farber, have had their careers blighted, been blacklisted for their refusal to compromise their principles. Farber’s strong sense of justice can be felt in the prose of every paragraph she writes. Injustice makes her seethe.

Writing about the New York music scene, Farber was on the scene as AIDS developed in the 1980s. This book, which came out in 2006, is a collection of articles that she had written earlier, primarily for Spin Magazine. She talked with the prime movers from that time, such as Randy Shilts, author of the 1987 “And the Band Played on” about the political handling of the AIDS epidemic.

An AIDS victim told her exactly how it was at an AIDS conference in 1988: "'You're an AIDS reporter?' he asked. He had a feline beauty about his face and looked right at me with green eyes, introducing himself as Michael Callen. 'I can save you a lot of time,' he said. 'There is no parallel in your culture, in straight culture, for what goes on in the fast lane of gay life today. I have AIDS. To me, it is no mystery why I am sick but rather a miracle I am still standing. By the time I was twenty-five, I figure I had had sex with 3,000 people. I had had every STD you can imagine, several times, bacterial infections, parasitic infections ... and unending rounds of antibiotics. This is not to speak of the drugs. There is no mystery here, about why we are getting sick. AIDS is a multifactorial syndrome, but straight people can't bring themselves to talk about what these factors are, and gay people don't want them to. We'll see if you're up to the task. I can tell you what you need to pursue.' 'But let me warn you, this will not be a good career move. You will have your head handed to you.'"

Farber didn’t accept the warning. This book is about what followed.

We start with what AIDS is. Robert Koch set forth the four conditions defining the causal agent of a disease in 1890:
1. The microorganism must be found in abundance in all organisms suffering from the disease but should not be found in healthy organisms.
2. The microorganism must be isolated from a diseased organism and grown in pure culture.
3. The cultured microorganism should cause disease when introduced into a healthy organism.
4. The microorganism must be re-isolated from the inoculated, diseased experimental host and identified as being identical to the original specific causative agent.

The Human Immunodeficiency Virus discovered by Luc Montagnier (and subsequently stolen by American Robert Gallo), said to cause AIDS, arguably does not meet any of these four conditions. Many people have HIV and don’t suffer from AIDS. Many people have all the symptoms of AIDS but don’t have HIV. Gallo, Fauci et. al. thus invented different names for the same thing, AIDS with and without HIV.

The fact that researchers have never been able with certainty to isolate the virus per step (2) – see Kary Mullis below - makes (3) and (4) moot. In a similar vein, Farber reports as I write this (March 2023) that 211 freedom of information requests for isolates of the Covid virus also have yet to identify an isolate. Are they making that up as well?

The first three chapters of the book focus on the work of virologist Peter Duesberg, whose 1995 book [[ASIN:0201624664 Inventing the AIDS Virus]] claimed that the AIDS virus is not just elusive. Per the Koch postulates it does not exist.

There are other anomalies. A virus should not discriminate among classes of victims. AIDS, however, remains stubbornly confined to male homosexuals, intravenous drug users, and people like hemophiliacs who get multiple blood transfusions. Viruses characteristically multiply aggressively. They don't lie dormant for 20 or 30 years as Gallo and Fauci would have it.

Duesberg concluded that it was properly called a syndrome, one associated with general abuse of one’s health, use of drugs such as amyl nitrate to ease anal sex, subjecting the body to foreign proteins by a blood transfusion and indiscriminate acceptance of body fluids from of large numbers of sex partners.

Duesberg ran up against many vested interests. As Callen would have predicted, they called him a homophobe for associating it with the gay lifestyle. They pointed out that whatever the cause of AIDS, safe sex would cut down on the gays' sexually transmitted diseases. More than that, the higher-ups at CDC and the FDA had financial interests in drugs such as AZT to address AIDS. Their target market was all of humanity, which is mostly heterosexual. They could not allow the message that it was mostly a gay disease.

Tony Fauci did his best to cancel Duesberg, but you can’t keep a good man down. Forced out of AIDS research, he went on to challenge another theory, this one that cancer can be caused by viruses. Duesberg’s position – considered somewhat extreme, but with a lot of support – is that cancer is really a type of speciation, in which cellular division goes awry creating excess chromosomes, a situation called aneuploidy. It can appear spontaneously but often appears in reaction to toxins. A cancer tumor consists of aberrant cells reproducing out of control.

Many in the AIDS community, especially the activist organization ACT UP, supported AZT because it was better than nothing. No other drug got approved by the FDA. AZT was all there was.

AZT's clinical trials were flawed, just like covid "vaccines." It was rushed through, just like the covid injectable biological products would be. It was political, just like covid. The tests were unblinded, just like covid. The effects of AZT didn't last more than a few months, just like covid.


The theories about AIDS simply did not apply to Africa. Governments there are corrupt. There were strong incentives for the Africans, to attribute every death to "slims" because that's what the foreigners wanted to hear. It put money in their pockets. Kind of like calling things covid in this era. The WHO allotted $6,000,000 for AIDS in 1992-93 in Uganda. All other diseases received only $57,000. No wonder they learn to call everything "slims."

NGOs did not understand Africa. They were trying to get people to "use a condom every time" in rural Uganda. Africans had many higher priorities, like eating and finding shelter.

The prostitutes in Africa were not contracting or spreading AIDS. One researcher identified 175 couples, one positive and one negative, all of whom had unprotected sex for 10 years to measure at what rate AIDS would transmit. There was not one transmission.

People in Africa, who had been suffering from a vast number of diseases known by other names before 1981. Now rebaptized, they were held up as proof that the West was menaced by the threat of heterosexually transmitted AIDS. Fear sells drugs, and the heterosexual population of the rich west was the target market. AIDS has been the most generous source of disease research funding ever.

The theory that it was sexually transmitted never held up. They (mis)used the then-new PCR technology to put it under a magnifying glass, and even at that it was illusive. They could find little or no trace of HIV in the semen or breast milk of supposedly infected people. As Kary Mullis, inventor of PCR told Farber, “You take next to nothing and multiply it, but there's still nothing.”

Our immune systems are pretty good at fighting off pathogens. Overcoming natural immunity requires a quantity of organisms in excess of what is called an “Infectious dose.” For the flu it is about 800 organisms, for gonorrhea about 1000. Even counting the organisms requires that a researcher successfully satisfy Koch Postulate #1 – isolate the pathogen. With HIV they could not isolate it, count it, or in most cases provide any evidence that a virus had ever been present.

Kary Mullis invented the PCR test, winning the Nobel prize in chemistry in 1993. The process magnifies little bits of DNA, resulting in enough that it can be analyzed and identified. It can be used for anything from which DNA can be salvaged, even including dinosaur remains.

Mullis's was a skeptic. He approached every prominent AIDS advocate with a simple statement and a question: "HIV is the causative agent in AIDS. Now I would like to reference that. How do we know?” Nobody could answer. He concludes:

“We're dealing with a bunch of witch doctors. The whole medical profession—except for the people that patch you up when you get a broken leg or you have a plumbing problem—is really f*cked. It's just a bunch of people that have become socially important and very rich by thinking about the face that they might be able to cure the diseases that actually cause people in our society to die. And they can't do sh*t about it. It's scary, that's what it is."

Farber presents the story of David Ho, who developed a drug cocktail supposed to cure AIDS by inhibiting HIV. She writes that Ho claimed: “But a person could be HIV-infected if it touched only a trivial number of T cells – the cells that AIDS patients were deficient in. It was a crime scene with many more bodies than bullets."

On the assumption that HIV was the problem, Ho’s cocktail included protease inhibitors, which would inhibit the reproduction of HIV. It is the same mechanism as ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine for covid. However, the fact was that unlike covid, the levels of HIV were minimal in the first place, and even in theory it is not possible to reduce them to absolutely nothing.

Farber and Duesberg and others considered protease and other inhibitors nonsensical. However, the AIDS community wanted "drugs into bodies," and this drug got a good press from the New York Times and Time magazine. The FDA was pressured to approve Ho's coctail. They did.

The protease inhibitors did appear to help some people, but they hurt more than they helped. However, people see only the bright side.

Most significantly, David Ho promoted putting healthy people on the drugs to prevent coming down with AIDS. It would have made more sense the other way around, to treat people who work already HIV-positive and chronically ill. A 2004 paper published in the Journal AIDS reported that all four classes of antiretrovirals, and all the 19 FDA approved antiretrovirals, had been directly or indirectly associated with life-threatening events and death. In plain English AIDS drugs caused death far more effectively than AIDS itself. Nonetheless the AIDS magazine POC carried a great many protease inhibitor ads.

Farber concludes: [A scientist who wishes to be anonymous] "laughs when I express alarm at this. 'My God are you naive! Everybody—not just David Ho—the reporters, the doctors, everybody is part of this system. They're all part of the same club, and they all play the same game. They all have the same, big egos.'

'And nobody—certainly not the reporters—is going to stand up and wave their finger and say, 'It is all a big horrible machine!' You know why? Because they're all profiting from it.... Every year we go to these AIDS conferences, and all the professional AIDS-sters come in, all pumped up. And this is the moment where everybody gets blown. It's just gross.'

'Look,' he says, 'if it were not for the profit motive, there would be no incentive for drug companies to make drugs. Drugs come from drug companies. They don't come from anywhere else. It's an industry, okay? It's just another industry.'"

There had been other scandals in the drug approval process. Merck suppressed bad data for a couple of years as Vioxx killed a lot of people. Farber concludes that for big pharma "People are expendable. It is dollars and cents.”

Back in the days of thalidomide and DES it was considered acceptable for the FDA to take years to approve a drug. ACT UP's AIDS mantra "drugs into bodies" got AZT approved very quickly with minimal testing. ACT UP had initially been against Burroughs Wellcome because their price for AZT was so high. When the price was lowered they changed sides and became allies.

The drug companies deploy their money to co-opt people all the time. They used foster children in New York City's Incarnation Children's Center for a test of HIV-positive orphans. They forced kids to take the HIV drugs even though many violently rejected it. They would chain the kids down, force the drugs into them. The children died and were put into a common pauper's grave. There was no follow-up or accountability.

A PCR test showed that a pregnant Joyce Ann Hafford tested positive for AIDS, despite having no symptoms. She was roped into participating in a clinical trial for a new drug. Though she started going downhill immediately and despite her pleas, they kept her on the drug for 38 days. She died shortly after her baby was born.

"This, then, is precisely where the ideological battle was drawn: to those who were convinced that HIV is "always fatal" AZT, even during pregnancy, was essential. But to those who question that presumption, this now standard treatment for non-symptomatic and risk-free HIV-positive patients and – and their children – came to seem almost diabolical."

Farber is quoted by Bobby Kennedy in “The Real Anthony Fauci” as having told him:

“You have set yourself the formidable task of deconstructing him. Why is he ‘evil’? (Which he is.) It’s not because he is so ‘banal,’ so bureaucratic, so boring. That’s the drag costume. In fact, he is a revolutionary—a very dangerous one, who slipped behind the gates when nobody understood what he was bringing in. What was he bringing in? He was bringing in—as a trained Jesuit and committed Globalist—a new potion that would achieve any and all aims for Pharma and the powers he served. The potion was then known as Political Correctness—now called ‘woke.’

“Fauci switched the entire linguistic system of American science, from classical ‘speak,’ to woke ‘speak.’ He brought in Cancel Culture, essentially, before anybody could imagine what it was. It was too perverse for genuine scientists to conceive of such a thing mixing with science, they could not believe it, or grasp it. Like a rape. It was incredibly confusing. That’s what I documented, on the ground, that horror and confusion among real scientists, as American science changes so radically before their eyes, to accommodate HIV.”

Celia Farber was made to suffer for writing this book. The book became unavailable; Sales were suppressed. Many magazines stopped accepting her work. Two decades later, after the big pharma bulldozer has flattened the whole world, she is getting the attention that could have alerted us in the first place.

Read it for the history, but keep in mind that Spin magazine was entertainment. Farber's compelling writing style will captivate you from beginning to end.

[Katie · Rating 5 out of 5]

an incredibly interesting book about the politics of science, without resorting to conspiracy theory-esque paranoia or accusation. farber's style is endlessly engaging, and the history presented here is mind-boggling, appalling, and every once in a while funny. An eye-opening account that will ultimately make you question everything you thought you knew about AIDS.

[Jessica · Rating 5 out of 5]

If anyone has any real interest in the "AIDs epidemic" in Africa, I highly recommend this book. It's incredibly insightful into the world of medical research and sheds some much needed light on what is too easily termed "the AIDs epidemic."

[Jen · Rating 3 out of 5]

I have found much better and less biased accounts of the same events...

[Roger · Rating 5 out of 5]

2ème Edition 2023 chez Chelsea Green Publishing Co ( ISBN-13 ‏ : ‎ 978-1681150772 )
Celia Farber a un courage extraordinaire de publier des évidences, des faits, qui ont l’interdiction de pouvoir être énoncés. C'est comme si elle même ne pouvait les écrire à son compte, étant elle même journaliste et non scientifique. Sa force revient donc à donner la parole à ceux qui faute de conflits d'intérêts ont tout perdu, à commencer par Peter Duesberg, ou d'autres voix lumineuses comme celle de Kary Mullis, l'inventeur de l’amplification du test PCR. Non, le VIH n'est pas la cause unique du SIDA, et probablement pas même un cofacteur, et sans doute de façon trop évidente et outrageuse pour la recherche, le VIH serait un élément naturel sans aucun danger et inoffensif : le vol du VIH par Robert Gallo au Pr Luc Montagnier et l'histoire officielle coécrite sans preuve par Gallo et Anthony Fauci (page 4), suivie immédiatement par anéantissement de toute voie discordante pointant vers d'autres causes que celle du VIH est le plus évident indice de la falsification de l'histoire du SIDA. Puis, faute de recherche indépendante, l'évidence est que des morts sont causés par la très forte toxicité des traitements successifs réclamés par des organisations financées par l'industrie. Et malgré les milliards de dollars, toujours pas le moindre début de petit article scientifique rigoureux pour incriminer le seul VIH. Il a bien fallu des années pour apprendre que le Titanic était en fait en feu avant même son départ du port. Merci à Robert F. Kennedy Jr d'avoir su dénicher cette perle qui a ainsi pu être rééditée et sensiblement augmentée. L'enquête continue.

[Choukri AOUSSAR · Rating 5 out of 5]

“Since the beginning of the AIDS crisis, people have had very dramatic reactions to receiving positive test results—lapsing into chronic depression and anxiety, quitting, or losing their jobs, taking very toxic medications, getting divorced, having abortions, taking their lives and sometimes even other people's lives—all based, not on diagnosis of AIDS, but merely a positive antibody test”

“We're scientists," noted Mullis the first time I spoke with him. "Scientists don't believe, they have evidence. We don't believe like Christians believe”

“We're dealing with a bunch of witch doctors. The whole medical profession—except for the people that patch you up when you get a broken leg or you have a plumbing problem—is really fucked. It's just a bunch of people that have become socially important and very rich by thinking about the fact that they might be able to cure the diseases that actually cause people in our society to die. And they can't do shit about it. Its scary, that's what it is.” Kary Mullis

[Kalila · Rating 1 out of 5]

What a misguided, ideological, and harmful publication. First red flag? She does NOT cite her sources. The book appears well-researched because she references studies generally, but she does not actually cite them, so you cannot look it up and see if she misinterpreted it. One glaring example: She refers to "a study done at University of Colorado Health Sciences in 2002" - but since there are no actual citations or a works cited page, I can't find this study anywhere online. In this paragraph, she is trying to argue that HIV drugs in 2002 were extremely dangerous for your liver and kidneys, and so she references this study that showed the liver and kidney failure caused more deaths than HIV did that year. What? This does nothing to demonstrate HIV drugs are causing this increase in liver & kidney failure, nor does it suggest things that cause liver and kidney are more dangerous than HIV since it could easily actually suggest that the HIV drugs are so effective that very few people died from HIV/AIDS that year. That's just one example.

She focuses on ACT UP pushing for emergency authorization of AZT and how this has led to the rapid authorizations of future harmful drugs (interestingly, I see this as being the most true with the opioid crisis, which she doesn't mention. I understand this was 2006 but I was surprised it didn't come up at all since Oxycontin was authorized in the late 90s). This is true, and yet CLEARLY not what AIDS organizations like ACT UP were asking for. In an epidemic, things need to move more quickly. People in these specific communities truly were dying left and right. I am grateful when the FDA can move quickly to authorize a drug in an emergency - this is incredibly important. It was important in 2020 with the life-saving COVID vaccines as well (I'm sure Farber would dramatically disagree with me on this, but I speak as a health care worker who knows a heck of a lot about public health and vaccination and who's injected hundreds of not thousands of COVID vaccines - you're welcome). When Farber acts like the FDA moved too quickly, it does not honor just how horrific and emergent the AIDS crisis was - she focuses on the rhetoric of fear and how it was out of proportion (of course it was, the average person was not going to contract HIV - how does that mean the people who were dying did not need drugs urgently?) - rather than the communities that were experiencing this tragedy.

Additionally, she's obsessed with the fact that people can have immunodeficiency and not have HIV. Duh. That does not mean HIV doesn't cause AIDS. This literally makes no sense. AIDS does not cover all types of immunodeficiency, and no expert thinks this. She says this again and again and her point proves nothing.

Her statistics make no sense. She tries to argue HIV/AIDS must not have actually been that big a deal in South Africa because the population exploded in the 80s and 90s. Is that seriously her argument? People are literally having babies in Gaza right now, for God's sake. People will always keep having babies. No one has ever argued that HIV/AIDS decimated the population of South Africa; a disease can be a big deal even if it doesn't kill a large percentage of a population. Come on.
Similarly, just in general her argument that HIV/AIDS really sin't that big a deal and doesn't kill all that many people is ludicrously offensive. It's not about overall numbers. Specific communities were hit INCREDIBLY hard. Talk to anyone involved in the gay male community in any city in the 1980s. It matters. And God, think about COVID in LA in January 2021 (though she probably thinks that was made up too) - morgues were completely overwhelmed, there was nowhere to put the bodies in some places. This does not mean that overall a huge percentage of the US died from COVID. It means any dramatic increase of deaths at a certain time/place or certain community still makes an impact.

There are so, so many other things wrong. Her portrayal of ACT UP (they were plenty critical of AZT, learn some history), virtually NO mention of Reagan (hmm almost like her daddy was a conservative talkshow host), her villainizing of any and all CDC and NIH officials (this is important in light of the actual shooting of the CDC headquarters a couple of days ago), her complete lack of gratitude for how much public health experts care about people's lives, and her bizarre idea that the HIV/AIDS industry is so much more evil and pharmaceutical than..everything else?? She demands more research on bigger killers like diabetes and heart disease (this is a common argument, and most public health experts WANT funding for this sort of research), like there aren't new diabetes drugs coming out all the time as well - and this was the case in 2006, too, not just now.

This brings me to the positives of her book - yes, the pharmaceutical industry wants to make money. Yes, money and politics affect cause funding to be distributed unevenly and unfairly. This doesn't make science and medicine bad or always harmful. She seems to acknowledge no benefit to the scientific and medical advancement of the modern era, which is ludicrous. I've worked in HIV for years and it is absolutely incredible how far we've done and how well patients are doing when they have good care and access. It is shocking that anyone can deny how effective these drugs are. Like all drugs, they have risks and side effects, and we should always strive to make drugs even safer. But the idea that the harm outweighs the benefit is completely out of touch with reality. Thank you, scientists, I'm sorry people like Farber turn the public against you and cause so much disinformation and harm so many lives - and now, with the shooting at the CDC, even inadvertently promote violence.

[Gnarly Authenticity . · Rating 3 out of 5]

A somewhat lightweight journalistic overview of the HIV controversy in the form of a collection of Farber's reporting. Not essential reading like Duesberg's book, and fails to live up to its claim in the intro to provide a big picture analysis of all the societal factors contributing to the AIDs phenomenon as a scientific & humanitarian debacle. (This book has not been written yet, although the first 200 pages of Duesberg's book point in the right direction)
On the plus side, the final chapter on the use of poor pregnant Ugandan mothers as human guinea pigs for teratogenic antivirals is a real horrorshow and is extremely eye opening in an unpleasant way.

[Rogier · Rating 5 out of 5]

It is almost hard for me to believe I was not aware of Celia Farber during the AIDS scare. I had a colleague at work who died of a mysterious illness that was revealed to be AIDS. I was skeptical from the start, and I read Peter Duesberg's book, as soon as it came out.

Since the Covid fiasco, it is no longer hard to believe how such corruption of science is possible, but here it is. If you want to understand the current global trainwreck over Covid-19, there is no better place to start than here. What is most frightening is that the rot was allowed to continue.

[April · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book reads with the same air as a Fox News show. Picking up this book, I had expected a skeptical look at the history and treatment of AIDS. This book although, somewhat informative, proves to be a drawn out conspiratorial tale (tin foil hat not included). There are other books that provide the same material, with an informed, healthy level of skepticism and less Red Pilled Reddit tone.

[Craig Stinson · Rating 5 out of 5]

A really important book and a must-read for anyone who wants a deeper understanding of the disasters wrought by Fauci and pharma during the last three years. Farber is a brave, heroic woman. I hope this book gets the wide audience it deserves.

[Bill Batson · Rating 5 out of 5]

Interesting read on the history of Aids and the medical establishments inept response.

[Andy · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book should enrage you, the AIDS pandemic management was a test run for what was going to become the Covid pandemic one, terrifying and eye opening at the same time.

[Richard · Rating 5 out of 5]

Courageous re-issue of a book that understandably horrified mainstream media and corporate/ government interests. The well written book shows that the author lived with all aspects of AIDS and all of its benefactors and its fallen. The clarity of the facts and remaining questions and its results are obvious and transparent.

It is clear that studies of efficacy of government / medical studies should be removed from those benefiting from the drug/ policy and clearly drug companies and governments/ corporations should not be in charge of producing statistics.

Well worth reading of you have a brain and value science or history or human life.

[Ana · Rating 2 out of 5]

I learned a lot about the rocky scientific path of identifying AIDS just from reading a third of the book.

Unfortunately it is too mired in the politics between the Institution and the Lonestar doctor who was ousted, which after 60 pages gets a bit old. Maybe there's more depth about the effects of mislabeling a disease (as the book claims) later in the book, but I didn't make it that far.

[Rodney]

An important, ethical, learned, discerning voice in the tower of obfuscation and premeditated tragedy which is the medical manipulation of what we call AIDS.

[Heather G · Rating 5 out of 5]

Alarming

An alarming portrait of what goes on behind the scenes. A very valid, concerning call to go back to the real science, not just take everything at face value.