What do you think?
Rate this book
Inventing the AIDS Virus
An eminent scientist and pioneer in the discovery of retroviruses challenges the widely accepted belief that HIV is the cause of AIDS. Peter H. Duesberg argues that HIV is merely a harmless passenger virus that does not cause AIDS. Sure to spark intense debate, this provocative book offers an original and incisive critique of the rise and fall of HIV.
722 pages, Paperback
First published February 27, 1996
26 people are currently reading
929 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 31 reviews
December 18, 2007
This amazing book makes a good case that HIV is NOT the cause of AIDS. Duesberg is not a crank. He is a major cancer researcher, and he is supported by a number of Nobel Prize winners.
Here, for example, is the 1993 Nobel winner in chemistry, Kary Mullis: "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. Read this book."
The fact that Duesberg was greeted almost entirely by ad hominem attacks rather than factual rebuttal reinforced my suspicion that the establishment has it wrong on this question. The house of cards is gonna come down before long, and when it does, Duesberg will look like a prophet.
Here, for example, is the 1993 Nobel winner in chemistry, Kary Mullis: "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. Read this book."
The fact that Duesberg was greeted almost entirely by ad hominem attacks rather than factual rebuttal reinforced my suspicion that the establishment has it wrong on this question. The house of cards is gonna come down before long, and when it does, Duesberg will look like a prophet.
November 12, 2008
A solid book with solid science. If only the pro-AIDS establishment could be so truthful in their research outcomes. I, too, see Duesberg as one day being heralded as a hero. I'm hoping it's before he passes, because this murderous streak has to come to an end. There are too many people dying due to misinformation and the drug companies quest for profit over truth.
July 29, 2023
“As often in the history of science, the biggest obstacle in finding the truth is not the difficulty in obtaining data but the bias of the investigators on what data to chase and how to interpret them” (409-410).
What if scientific dissenters of consensus views were given a hearing rather than discredited and censored? Duesberg is one such voice and offers something of a warning of utmost relevance in our day. In this well documented book, Duesberg reveals the deception of the NIH, CDC, NIAID, Fauci, etc. which continues today as science becomes increasingly politicized and corrupted by funding and influence from special interest groups, industry, etc. resulting in a deluge of pseudo-science to the detriment of humanity. Will we learn the valuable lessons of this catastrophe and heed Duesberg’s warnings?
“According to the Popperian dictum, a valid scientific hypothesis can ultimately only be strengthened by the challenge of alternative views. On the other hand, ignoring charges of scientific censorship can only work to undermine the public‘s confidence not only in the prevailing scientific view but also in the entire scientific establishment” (John McDonald, as quoted by Duesberg).
At the very least, let us learn that censorship is deadly to true science and prevails only when dogma is to be preserved at the expense of genuine science.
This is a helpful and informative book challenging the official dogma surrounding HIV & AIDS. As with the historical blunders of beriberi, scurvy, pellagra, the SMON fiasco, etc. we may well be living through yet another disaster based on faulty, germ theory presuppositions. Perhaps we would do well to expand our horizons and consider malnutrition and toxicological factors more carefully before decisively implicating bacteria and viruses in disease without sufficient evidence.
What if scientific dissenters of consensus views were given a hearing rather than discredited and censored? Duesberg is one such voice and offers something of a warning of utmost relevance in our day. In this well documented book, Duesberg reveals the deception of the NIH, CDC, NIAID, Fauci, etc. which continues today as science becomes increasingly politicized and corrupted by funding and influence from special interest groups, industry, etc. resulting in a deluge of pseudo-science to the detriment of humanity. Will we learn the valuable lessons of this catastrophe and heed Duesberg’s warnings?
“According to the Popperian dictum, a valid scientific hypothesis can ultimately only be strengthened by the challenge of alternative views. On the other hand, ignoring charges of scientific censorship can only work to undermine the public‘s confidence not only in the prevailing scientific view but also in the entire scientific establishment” (John McDonald, as quoted by Duesberg).
At the very least, let us learn that censorship is deadly to true science and prevails only when dogma is to be preserved at the expense of genuine science.
This is a helpful and informative book challenging the official dogma surrounding HIV & AIDS. As with the historical blunders of beriberi, scurvy, pellagra, the SMON fiasco, etc. we may well be living through yet another disaster based on faulty, germ theory presuppositions. Perhaps we would do well to expand our horizons and consider malnutrition and toxicological factors more carefully before decisively implicating bacteria and viruses in disease without sufficient evidence.
January 26, 2021
This book is as relevant today as it was when it was written in 1996. The AIDS scam has simply been replaced with the COVID 1984 scam and Anthony Fauci has been a lead character in both. The same shady politics, shoddy science, statistical chicanery and big pharma collusion is in play today as it was back then. Peter Duesberg provides a chilling account of what happens when an honest scientist challenges the scientific orthodoxy and how much suffering and death the medical establishment can inflict on a trusting public when such opposition is silenced. Once you read this book, you'll never trust the medical mafia again.
May 13, 2009
Duesberg makes me angry.
April 7, 2021
Powerful insights into the shenanigans of the NIC and CDC and America’s Public Health Department. Worth a read if you’re interested in medicine or science, because he brings to light how deeply personal and political it gets. Although this was written in the 90’s, and some of his topics are outdated.
March 7, 2009
Simply great.
January 21, 2026
This guy had some interesting theories and I had to see for myself what he had to say.
The only thing I checked myself is about the toxicity of AZT, the drug that was approved for HIV as monotherapy in the 1987 by the FDA.
https://www.researchgate.net/publicat...
Here's his paper from 1995 on the toxicity of AZT on human T-cells and he shows that with concentration of 10 µM and 25 µM of AZT the T-cell lines would decrease to about 50% with 10 µM and to about 1/3 with 25 µM after 12 days. After that the T-cell count on the 10 µM line would stabilize and on the 25 µM line it would decrease further.
The early monotherapy dosages of AZT were approved at 500-1500 mg per day and from the SPC of Zidouvidine (AZT), we see
“Cssmax levels were 4.45µM (1.19 µg/ml) following a dose of 120 mg Retrovir (in solution)/m2 body surface area and 7.7 µM (2.06 µg/ml) at 180 mg/m2 body surface area. Dosages of 180 mg/m2 four times daily in children produced similar systemic exposure (24 hour AUC 40.0 hr µM or 10.7 hr µg/ml) as doses of 200 mg six times daily in adults (40.7 hr µM or 10.9 hr µg/ml).”
so what this says is that with AZT taken 1200 per day (200 mg six times daily) would result in 24h AUC of 40.0 µM meaning the mean concentration during the 24 hours would be 40/24= 1.66 µM, with the peak concentration around 6-8 µM (according to chatgpt), which is still below 10 µM.
However at 10 µM, which is close enough to 8 µM, I guess, the human T-cell lines would decrease to about 50% which raises serious question about the validity of this treatment, considering that the aim is to prevent t-cell numbers from declining. The dosages were reduced in the mid-90s and AZT isn't used as mono-treatment anymore but the prescribing practices of this drug before the mid-90s seem to be problematic.
The FDA did, however, approve AZT for symptomatic HIV-positive patients, but according to Duesberg, AZT was widely prescribed also to HIV-positive asymptomatic patients, including children, which would produce serious side-effects while the doctors would ensure the patients that these symptoms were all due to HIV. Duesberg included anecdotes of this but I didn't check myself how widely this was done.
This whole topic raises questions about government led agendas to combat public health problems, the massive amounts of funding behind the drugs and vaccines and the amount of free thinking in academic science, which is mostly government-controlled. The basis for good science is a free flow of information or “a free market of ideas” however we all know the terms “climate denier,” “antivaxxer” or “AIDS denier” which was the label Duesberg was given in the States. These labels are given to scientists in this government-controlled system that do not think the way they are told to while their opponents are showered with money and accolades. This is not science, it's a circus pretending to be science.
There are many more questions and criticisms raised in the book about HIV and AIDS but to properly analyze them all would require much more effort than I care to put in and I actually don't really care about this topic.
Shout out to my friend Siim Andres, who really likes this book.
The only thing I checked myself is about the toxicity of AZT, the drug that was approved for HIV as monotherapy in the 1987 by the FDA.
https://www.researchgate.net/publicat...
Here's his paper from 1995 on the toxicity of AZT on human T-cells and he shows that with concentration of 10 µM and 25 µM of AZT the T-cell lines would decrease to about 50% with 10 µM and to about 1/3 with 25 µM after 12 days. After that the T-cell count on the 10 µM line would stabilize and on the 25 µM line it would decrease further.
The early monotherapy dosages of AZT were approved at 500-1500 mg per day and from the SPC of Zidouvidine (AZT), we see
“Cssmax levels were 4.45µM (1.19 µg/ml) following a dose of 120 mg Retrovir (in solution)/m2 body surface area and 7.7 µM (2.06 µg/ml) at 180 mg/m2 body surface area. Dosages of 180 mg/m2 four times daily in children produced similar systemic exposure (24 hour AUC 40.0 hr µM or 10.7 hr µg/ml) as doses of 200 mg six times daily in adults (40.7 hr µM or 10.9 hr µg/ml).”
so what this says is that with AZT taken 1200 per day (200 mg six times daily) would result in 24h AUC of 40.0 µM meaning the mean concentration during the 24 hours would be 40/24= 1.66 µM, with the peak concentration around 6-8 µM (according to chatgpt), which is still below 10 µM.
However at 10 µM, which is close enough to 8 µM, I guess, the human T-cell lines would decrease to about 50% which raises serious question about the validity of this treatment, considering that the aim is to prevent t-cell numbers from declining. The dosages were reduced in the mid-90s and AZT isn't used as mono-treatment anymore but the prescribing practices of this drug before the mid-90s seem to be problematic.
The FDA did, however, approve AZT for symptomatic HIV-positive patients, but according to Duesberg, AZT was widely prescribed also to HIV-positive asymptomatic patients, including children, which would produce serious side-effects while the doctors would ensure the patients that these symptoms were all due to HIV. Duesberg included anecdotes of this but I didn't check myself how widely this was done.
This whole topic raises questions about government led agendas to combat public health problems, the massive amounts of funding behind the drugs and vaccines and the amount of free thinking in academic science, which is mostly government-controlled. The basis for good science is a free flow of information or “a free market of ideas” however we all know the terms “climate denier,” “antivaxxer” or “AIDS denier” which was the label Duesberg was given in the States. These labels are given to scientists in this government-controlled system that do not think the way they are told to while their opponents are showered with money and accolades. This is not science, it's a circus pretending to be science.
There are many more questions and criticisms raised in the book about HIV and AIDS but to properly analyze them all would require much more effort than I care to put in and I actually don't really care about this topic.
Shout out to my friend Siim Andres, who really likes this book.
January 2, 2022
I reserved this book through my library system, and thought, as I held this 600 + page book in my hands that I probably would not actually get through it. Well, from the very first page this book is riveting. I would give it more than 5 stars. It takes about 170 pages before it actually gets to AIDS, to set the stage of the scientific environment, mostly from the mid 1800's with the discovery of microbes, to the emergence of AIDS. The world of scientists, so smug, so sure of themselves, and so unwilling to consider possibilities other than those that they advance, mostly, erred in their pronouncements.
The government institutions - the CDC, NIH - can't wait for pandemics to appear. They constantly monitor all breakouts all the time, by their specially trained spies that emerge in all fields of medicine, science and media, that are ready to pronounce deadly fear in society to leave people begging for a vaccine. None of which, of course, actually worked. This book was published in 1996 and could have been published this year. "Science" and the institutions that work for science, have not changed an iota. They are dangerous and ineffective. Fauci, CDC, NIH and federal agencies - out Mengele on genocide. They have a worldwide stage.
As government science institutions sprang up as a result of polio research, science became a race to win the dollars to fund research. Thousands of scientists populated (and still do) scientific institutions at all levels.
I love this quote from page 65. "Yet we cannot find among them the eight modern Galileos, Plancks, Einsteins, Kochs, Pasteurs or Mendels that (these growing numbers of scientists) predict. Increasing number of scientists means many more papers being published in scientific journals, with the publish-or-perish stakes rising constantly. . . Such overgrowth in scientific ranks produces regression to the mean. Competition among large numbers of scientists for one or a few central sources of funding restricts freedom of thought and action to a mean that appeals to the majority. The scientists who is very productive, most able to sell research, and well liked FOR NOT OFFENDING HIS PEERS WITH NEW HYPOTHESES AND IDEAS is selected by his peers for funding. These peers cannot afford a nonconformist, or unpredictable thinker because every new, alternative hypothesis is a potential threat to their own line of research. . . . They act to suppress remaining dissension by the few remaining thoughtful researchers. No scientist welcomes being out-competed or having his pet idea disproved by a colleague." Dissenters "stir the enmity of powerful foes. He fears that reprisals may extend beyond him to his institution. . . In a day when almost all research institutions are highly dependent on federal funds, prudence seems to dictate silence." p. 66 Few scientists are any longer willing to question, even privately, the consensus views in any field.
The CDC has a history of making incorrect medical decisions, and doubling down on them, announcing their "science" cannot be abridged, and shutting out new research and differing views. Most of the what the CDC does is cover its errors, and for not allowing other potential good therapies or scientific perspectives to come to light or even be imagined. Their intractable connection of HIV to AIDS and the war on AIDS, sounds a lot like today: unambiguous findings, scientifically conclusive, no room for alternative hypotheses, drugs tested need not rely on proper controls, ANY ACTIONS TO SLOW THE VIRUS WERE CONSIDERED JUSTIFIABLE, EVEN IF THEY CAUSED HYSTERIA, OR IMPINGED ON CIVIL LIBERTIES. P. 369 - 5 major steps to establish a separate line of public health authority - protects from interference. All public health functions in country under CDC control - all sorts of commissions, push educational programs in schools, bypass resistance from parents, communities, etc. - propaganda machine, epidemic of the century,
mobilizing the nation in a war - if not believe stigmatized with labels, CDC as activist and not researcher, squashed those who suggested lifestyle choices caused the problem, communications media joined in pushing the propaganda - hold on the media to push fear. WHO to push quarantine, mass immunization, restrictions on mass gatherings and travel, save the HIV hypothesis from embarrassing public relations disasters to create illusion of spread, pumping up numbers of cases, doctors intimidated to conceal true statistics. Doctors aware of the HIV=AIDS hypothesis has major problems, but no one want to put their head above the parapet. (387) MEDIA CENSORSHIP, calling other viewpoints irresponsible and pernicious, not based on facts. (389) FAUCI declared Duesberg's ideas were nonsense and complaining that his views received too much publicity - journalists will find access to scientists will diminish if they publish differing views. (389)Articles are first flagged by the NIH. Remains silent to discourage further interest in alternate views. Heightened controversy could backfire on the NIH attracting attention rather than discouraging media interest. (391) Refused to interview Deusberg, or pulled pre-recorded interviews and not aired (Fauci in the background calling media to stop it - AIDS thought control) Censorship in professional literature and papers not considered that suggest HIV not cause of AIDS even though no factual errors or flaws, grants removed denied, dared to question AIDS (one of the pioneers of modern retrovirology) . Top researchers question orthodox views in science as "nonscientific comments powerfully onhow completely science has been turned upside down since it had become totally dependent on funding by NIH. p. 399
AZT drug trials were unblinded from the start. Patients quickly experienced terrible side effects. It was announced that the drug was too good to finish the trials, it should be available to everyone. Intense political pressure to approve an AIDS drug forced the FDA to take shortcuts. It was a drug, brought out from the cupboard, previously rejected because of its toxicity, pushed by very influential virus researchers. Having so many well-connected medical scientists helped swing the political balance in favor of AZT. There was hardly a medical institution left in the country that was not involved and that could have offered an independent second opinion. When so many AZT test subjects died, the it was shrugged it off, suggesting that the miraculous effects somehow wore off after a few months. p. 337
Another drug, without a controlled study or comparing effects to placebo in matched groups. ddl. It can cause fatal damage to the pancreas, and destroy nerves throughout the body. On an experimental basis, doctors began giving ddl to thousands of AIDS patients who could not tolerate AZT. Hundreds of unexplained deaths occurred among these patients, but the FDA managed to quell growing concerns. . 325
Years and years of uncareful studies and administering this awful drug to patients with or without AIDS symptoms, it was found in the mid 1990s that AZT was extremely toxic, actually caused symptoms associated with AIDS infection, and more responsible for the death of patients than the disease itself. "It was not as good a drug as we thought it was." (When it takes 8-10 years to determine this, when will the experts decide that the covid "jab" is not as good a drug as they thought it was?) p. 330-331 "Tony Fauci, you killed our friends." p. 333 AZT was a war on people - pushed by all health agencies combined with manufacturer.
"AZT, known for decades as a failed and toxic cancer chemotherapy, was resurrected for political reasons and rushed through the FDA's fast track approval. One experiment after another, despite flaws, has confirmed the drug's toxicity in humans. The virus hunters bring tremendous political and financial momentum behind each of their projects." p. 335 " With 270,000 dead from AIDS and millions more infected with HIV, you [Fauci] should not be honored at a dinner. He should be put before a firing squad." p. 333 (How did Fauci remain in his position with this, now 40 years later, carrying out the same kinds of damage, when many others heading the studies resigned?)
The government institutions - the CDC, NIH - can't wait for pandemics to appear. They constantly monitor all breakouts all the time, by their specially trained spies that emerge in all fields of medicine, science and media, that are ready to pronounce deadly fear in society to leave people begging for a vaccine. None of which, of course, actually worked. This book was published in 1996 and could have been published this year. "Science" and the institutions that work for science, have not changed an iota. They are dangerous and ineffective. Fauci, CDC, NIH and federal agencies - out Mengele on genocide. They have a worldwide stage.
As government science institutions sprang up as a result of polio research, science became a race to win the dollars to fund research. Thousands of scientists populated (and still do) scientific institutions at all levels.
I love this quote from page 65. "Yet we cannot find among them the eight modern Galileos, Plancks, Einsteins, Kochs, Pasteurs or Mendels that (these growing numbers of scientists) predict. Increasing number of scientists means many more papers being published in scientific journals, with the publish-or-perish stakes rising constantly. . . Such overgrowth in scientific ranks produces regression to the mean. Competition among large numbers of scientists for one or a few central sources of funding restricts freedom of thought and action to a mean that appeals to the majority. The scientists who is very productive, most able to sell research, and well liked FOR NOT OFFENDING HIS PEERS WITH NEW HYPOTHESES AND IDEAS is selected by his peers for funding. These peers cannot afford a nonconformist, or unpredictable thinker because every new, alternative hypothesis is a potential threat to their own line of research. . . . They act to suppress remaining dissension by the few remaining thoughtful researchers. No scientist welcomes being out-competed or having his pet idea disproved by a colleague." Dissenters "stir the enmity of powerful foes. He fears that reprisals may extend beyond him to his institution. . . In a day when almost all research institutions are highly dependent on federal funds, prudence seems to dictate silence." p. 66 Few scientists are any longer willing to question, even privately, the consensus views in any field.
The CDC has a history of making incorrect medical decisions, and doubling down on them, announcing their "science" cannot be abridged, and shutting out new research and differing views. Most of the what the CDC does is cover its errors, and for not allowing other potential good therapies or scientific perspectives to come to light or even be imagined. Their intractable connection of HIV to AIDS and the war on AIDS, sounds a lot like today: unambiguous findings, scientifically conclusive, no room for alternative hypotheses, drugs tested need not rely on proper controls, ANY ACTIONS TO SLOW THE VIRUS WERE CONSIDERED JUSTIFIABLE, EVEN IF THEY CAUSED HYSTERIA, OR IMPINGED ON CIVIL LIBERTIES. P. 369 - 5 major steps to establish a separate line of public health authority - protects from interference. All public health functions in country under CDC control - all sorts of commissions, push educational programs in schools, bypass resistance from parents, communities, etc. - propaganda machine, epidemic of the century,
mobilizing the nation in a war - if not believe stigmatized with labels, CDC as activist and not researcher, squashed those who suggested lifestyle choices caused the problem, communications media joined in pushing the propaganda - hold on the media to push fear. WHO to push quarantine, mass immunization, restrictions on mass gatherings and travel, save the HIV hypothesis from embarrassing public relations disasters to create illusion of spread, pumping up numbers of cases, doctors intimidated to conceal true statistics. Doctors aware of the HIV=AIDS hypothesis has major problems, but no one want to put their head above the parapet. (387) MEDIA CENSORSHIP, calling other viewpoints irresponsible and pernicious, not based on facts. (389) FAUCI declared Duesberg's ideas were nonsense and complaining that his views received too much publicity - journalists will find access to scientists will diminish if they publish differing views. (389)Articles are first flagged by the NIH. Remains silent to discourage further interest in alternate views. Heightened controversy could backfire on the NIH attracting attention rather than discouraging media interest. (391) Refused to interview Deusberg, or pulled pre-recorded interviews and not aired (Fauci in the background calling media to stop it - AIDS thought control) Censorship in professional literature and papers not considered that suggest HIV not cause of AIDS even though no factual errors or flaws, grants removed denied, dared to question AIDS (one of the pioneers of modern retrovirology) . Top researchers question orthodox views in science as "nonscientific comments powerfully onhow completely science has been turned upside down since it had become totally dependent on funding by NIH. p. 399
AZT drug trials were unblinded from the start. Patients quickly experienced terrible side effects. It was announced that the drug was too good to finish the trials, it should be available to everyone. Intense political pressure to approve an AIDS drug forced the FDA to take shortcuts. It was a drug, brought out from the cupboard, previously rejected because of its toxicity, pushed by very influential virus researchers. Having so many well-connected medical scientists helped swing the political balance in favor of AZT. There was hardly a medical institution left in the country that was not involved and that could have offered an independent second opinion. When so many AZT test subjects died, the it was shrugged it off, suggesting that the miraculous effects somehow wore off after a few months. p. 337
Another drug, without a controlled study or comparing effects to placebo in matched groups. ddl. It can cause fatal damage to the pancreas, and destroy nerves throughout the body. On an experimental basis, doctors began giving ddl to thousands of AIDS patients who could not tolerate AZT. Hundreds of unexplained deaths occurred among these patients, but the FDA managed to quell growing concerns. . 325
Years and years of uncareful studies and administering this awful drug to patients with or without AIDS symptoms, it was found in the mid 1990s that AZT was extremely toxic, actually caused symptoms associated with AIDS infection, and more responsible for the death of patients than the disease itself. "It was not as good a drug as we thought it was." (When it takes 8-10 years to determine this, when will the experts decide that the covid "jab" is not as good a drug as they thought it was?) p. 330-331 "Tony Fauci, you killed our friends." p. 333 AZT was a war on people - pushed by all health agencies combined with manufacturer.
"AZT, known for decades as a failed and toxic cancer chemotherapy, was resurrected for political reasons and rushed through the FDA's fast track approval. One experiment after another, despite flaws, has confirmed the drug's toxicity in humans. The virus hunters bring tremendous political and financial momentum behind each of their projects." p. 335 " With 270,000 dead from AIDS and millions more infected with HIV, you [Fauci] should not be honored at a dinner. He should be put before a firing squad." p. 333 (How did Fauci remain in his position with this, now 40 years later, carrying out the same kinds of damage, when many others heading the studies resigned?)
February 16, 2026
This book is as fascinating as a murder mystery – and it might be exactly that: murder by government.
The author's perspective appeared most plausible when he published in 1995, and certainly seems so today. There are many interwoven layers of clues, no set of which appears to be entirely internally consistent. Almost every character except the author himself is shown to have ulterior motives. And if the author is right, what government and scientists have done is tantamount to murder.
"I'm from the government, and I'm here to help" should always be greeted with suspicion. AIDS has been a great boon to many governmental agencies. They grew enormously. The people in charge received grand titles, increased salaries, government-paid travel hither and yon, and prestigious awards. They received royalties from intellectual property associated with the HIV virus and medicines to treat it. They founded and owned stock in biotechnology companies which contracted to deliver analysis kits and medicines to the government. They scared the hell out of two generations of sexually active kids. Whether they advanced the public interest is another question.
Even the undisputed public record indicates that these are not humble, selfless men of science. There was a very public squabble when one of them, Robert Gallo, stole the AIDS virus from the Frenchman, Luc Montagnier, who naïvely sent him a sample. Gallo went on to patent it, creating a money tree for himself. David Baltimore, Nobel laureate, apparently fudged data in one of his seminal reports, claiming that the insertion of a foreign gene into a mouse can induce the mouse's genes to produce antibodies mimicking those of the foreign gene. It was a key paper supporting the AIDS hypothesis. The bureaucrats' loudly trumpeted claims about the nature, cause and cures for AIDS, even if true, serve their private interests. As such they deserve to be investigated. Peter Duesberg has done exactly that.
Viruses that are caused by infectious diseases share several characteristics. They multiply rapidly in a newly infected victim. They are equal-opportunity: they do not discriminate among victims on the basis of age, sex or sexual orientation. The incidence of cases in the victim population increases rapidly, until every potential victim has been exposed and rejected the infection through its own immune reaction, overcome the illness and recovered, or succumbed. Recovered victims carry antibodies, a mark of prior infection and protection against renewed infection. Mankind's major viral diseases include Bubonic plague, polio, influenza, measles, mumps, smallpox, rabies, herpes and the common cold.
Viruses differ somewhat in their behavior. Most viruses simply go away. All that remain are the antibodies created to fight them. Some, such as common cold and influenza, mutate rapidly in order to overcome antibody resistance. Chicken pox and the closely related herpes virus can linger, flaring up as shingles and cold sores.
Two great victories over viruses were celebrated in the last century: polio and smallpox. After taking their victory laps, the numerous and theretofore well-funded virus hunters asked themselves, "What next?" On the strength of research by Duesberg himself that some viruses cause cancer, they became extensively involved in President Nixon's proclaimed War on Cancer. After a decade of futile efforts to make a connection, they were more than willing to jump on the AIDS bandwagon when that disease emerged in the early 1980s.
Viruses are all around us. Most of them are totally harmless, many even essential to our metabolism. To associate a virus with a disease, researchers must satisfy the criteria first postulated by Robert Koch in 1884, and copied here from Wikipedia.
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.
It is possible to take polio virus from an animal infected with the disease, isolate the virus and grow it in the lab, infect another animal by injecting the lab-grown virus, and lastly, confirm that what ails the second animal is identical to the virus taken from the first one. That's how we know that the polio virus, instead of one of the millions of other viruses coursing around in our bodies, causes the polio disease.
Duesberg's thesis is that AIDS is a lifestyle disease and that HIV itself is a harmless virus that happens to be transmitted by activities associated with homosexual and drug using lifestyles. It exists at higher frequency in some populations than others. It makes sense that the incidence is highest in Africa, which the AIDS literature itself emphasizes has looser constraints on sexual behavior than other places.
The AIDS community contends that AIDS is caused by HIV. They say that HIV is a different sort of virus, one with a long latency period. They have stretched said period from one or two years to many, as the incidence of people who live uneventfully with the HIV virus seem stubbornly to be surviving. Duesberg claims that HIV is a harmless passenger virus and that the AIDS researchers have not, in three decades of attempts, been able to satisfy Koch's four postulates, named above.
I, the outsider, was flabbergasted to find in my Google search for such a demonstration of the four principles a citation of the patients of gay Stuart, Florida dentist David Acer. After Acer died of AIDS in 1990 the researchers looked for HIV among his patients. A handful had the virus. They inferred that the patients must have gotten it from their dentist, and treated them with AZT. Some got sick and died.
Here's the problem. All the analysis was done after the fact. None at all was the type of controlled research Koch talked about. Most importantly, AZT is poisonous. Many others who took it died. Duesberg asks whether these people died because of the AZT treatment, and that their being HIV positive was incidental. It seems to this reviewer to be a very good question. As a statistician, I can say with absolute certainty that nobody should draw conclusions about something as serious as AIDS, and the billions being spent, on the basis of a sample of six or so people without any scientific controls.
The fact that there has been no more research convinces me of Duesberg's point. They don't ask the question because they are afraid of the answer. No matter how weak the evidence above, it is better for them than evidence that goes the other way – which a proper investigation might reveal. They have a huge vested interest in AIDS being caused by HIV, and don't want anything to get in the way.
Culturing the virus is another weakness that Duesberg points out. With most viruses it is quite easy to get them to grow in a culture. AIDS has proven difficult. A person who is "HIV infected" may have antibodies against HIV, but it is sometimes hard to find the virus itself. Part of this, the explanation goes, is that it is a retrovirus, hidden in the depths of the cell. Duesberg suggests that it might not even be there in any meaningful concentration. The researchers have developed powerful techniques to literally make mountains out of molehills. Whatever trace of HIV they find, they claim to be an infection. A realistic criterion would be that the virus presence is numerous and growing.
Another problem with AIDS is that it has remained stubbornly confined to male homosexuals and drug abusers. Communicable diseases hit everybody. This was exactly the fear about AIDS in the 1980s – it would spread to the heterosexual population. This has not happened. The HIV theory supporters were wrong. Why were they, and why aren't they asking themselves that question?
The reasons not to ask are again, the vested interests of the doctors. Also, gays and drug users are not the most sympathetic victims, especially if their lifestyles bring the problem upon themselves.
AIDS is defined as a vast complex of diseases. The theory is that HIV ravages the immune system, and the opportunistic diseases then attack the weakened organism. They list a grab-bag of 27: yeast infections, several cancers, salmonella, pneumonia, herpes and tuberculosis among them.
There are two problems with this thesis. First, these diseases have been around far longer than AIDS and occur in people without HIV. To call it AIDS only when it occurs in a person with HIV is circular: you have AIDS only because they said you have AIDS. Second, there are lots of people with HIV who don't have any of these diseases. The theory is that AIDS is "latent" in them for ten, twenty, or thirty years… a figure which has grown as quickly as the years since AIDS' emergence.
The HIV-AIDS theory fares badly in Africa, where up to a quarter of the population has HIV. Twenty five years ago the dire projections were that everybody in Sub-Saharan Africa would die of AIDS. They have not. In fact, these countries have the highest population growth rates of any in the world. They are poor, and people die of disease every day, but there is little evidence that things are any worse than before. They can be suffering an "AIDS epidemic" only by definition. A person dying of many common diseases is defined as dying of AIDS if they had HIV. This tautology is good for funding, but no help at all in understanding what's going on.
Duesberg's thesis is that the two affected groups of people, male homosexuals and drug abusers, are prone to the AIDS complex of diseases because they compromise victims' immune systems. How do they do that?
"Fast track" male homosexuals tend to have much, much more sex than other people, and with many, more partners. Straight men are severely constrained by women, who want love and commitment, and are not generally interested in day-and-night sex. Harems are out of the question, and call girls are expensive. Most heterosexual men are happy with sex a couple of times a week with the same woman. Since prostitutes demand protection for themselves, their partners are likewise protected. See the case of Elliot Spitzer for an example of how insistent the girls can be.
For gays, among whom both partners seem to want lots of sex, don't want love and commitment, and aren't choosy about who they pair up with, there is vastly more exposure to STDs. Anybody who works in a gay clinic will say as much. Whether or not they intend to be careful, both partners are often inclined to be high when they have sex, and they get careless. Besides, as Spitzer said, condoms are a drag.
Duesberg writes more than I had ever known on the subject of "poppers." Like most straights, I have no experience with anal sex, but my imagination tells me that the body is not constructed for it. Duesberg says I'm right. Gays take drugs such as amyl nitrite to relax their muscles, loosen up so it can happen. Again and again. These drugs, he contends, take a toll on the immune system as well.
He contends that the bathhouse crowd also tends to abuse more traditional recreational drugs: marijuana, cocaine, amphetamines. It isn't good for them. HIV/AIDS aside, they tend to have more health problems than the population at large.
Intravenous drug users likewise compromise their immune systems, injecting diseases from those with whom they share needles. A druggie lifestyle also typically involves careless sex, bad diet, exposure to people with diseases and other risk factors. It is not surprising that the down-and-outers who use drugs tend to get sick. They also get the HIV virus; it piggybacks on dirty needles, etc. Since the coincidence of HIV and any of the opportunistic diseases these folks are likely to suffer is defined as AIDS, they by definition become AIDS victims.
A low T-cell count is defined as a symptom of AIDS. It is the sign of a compromised immune system. Duesberg contends, however, that victims generally get that way by overloading their immune systems with threats. The immune system eventually gives up. Some, like hemophiliacs, are constantly challenged simply by receiving blood transfusions. With lower immunity, they are subject to many diseases, including the 27 (number subject to change) which are defined as being associated with AIDS.
Duesberg as a lot to say about the drug AZT (Zidovudine). It is chemically simple: C10H13N5O4. Probably quite cheap to make, if not to buy when it was under patent. It was in Burroughs-Welcome's inventory, having been tried and rejected earlier as a cure for other diseases. It was known to be poisonous. It was hoped that it would fight HIV, the supposed cause of AIDS. Its poisonous nature aroused resistance from gay groups early in the game. There was this 1992 press notice about one of Dr. Acer's supposed victims: "Webb is 66, a retired schoolteacher and a grandmother. She was the second of five patients to be infected with the AIDS virus by David Acer. The young and beautiful Kimberly Bergalis had been the first. Webb does not yet have AIDS itself, though the medication she takes to thwart its onset has a litany of side effects, including fatigue and relentless pain in her joints."
1992 was a year in which the AIDS fighters were trying hard to gain credibility, both for their analysis of the nature of the disease and a cure. Duesberg contends that they rushed the "cure" into use before it had much clinical testing, such as animal studies, on the basis that they were fighting an emergency. If he is right, some of the earliest AIDS victims were done in by the cure, rather than the phantom disease. Note that the concentration of AZT has been significantly reduced, if not eliminated, from today's anti-HIV drugs. Survival rates are up. This would be true if (1) the drug actually helped fight a real disease, or (2) it amounted to no longer poisoning people with a phantom disease.
The AIDS community's projection 1992 was that the disease would have spread very widely among straights and gays and all races by now. Duesberg's projection would have been that it would remain with the groups with dangerous lifestyles. What has happened? AIDS deaths in the US have declined steadily over the past decade, and it remains more and more concentrated among gays, drug users and blacks. It is under control in Europe. As noted above, the dire predictions about Africa have not come to pass. The evidence fits Duesberg's hypotheses far better than that of the establishment. Will he ever get the pleasure of a "Told you so?" An apology? Not a chance!
Duesberg is a man of accomplishments. His work demonstrating how a virus causes cancer in chickens could have brought him a Nobel Prize, had he played his cards right. However, when he started to question AIDS in the manner shown above, he rapidly acquired enemies. Well-funded enemies: the drug companies and the AIDS bureaucracy. I invite you, the reader, to look at the entries for Peter Duesberg and Kary Mullis (the Nobel winner who wrote the introduction to this book) to witness two of the most egregious smear jobs every to slip through the Wikipedia process. I am keeping copies, in case this humble review might cause the powers that be to amend them.
Duesberg's conclusion when he published this book in 1996 was rather optimistic. He had letters from Congressman and other officials stating that he had been right, and promising investigation. A suggestion that things would change. They quite obviously have not. As I write this seventeen years later, President Obama has just pledged another hundred million dollars to AIDS research. The US government advertises weekly hiring for their team here in Ukraine attempting to stamp it out. In a word, the old paradigm, against which this book rails, remains in full force.
Duesberg's enemies have effectively quarantined him, preventing his getting published and speaking at conferences. They attempted to get him fired from Berkeley. But they have not shut him up. A fairly lengthy chapter in the book goes into how effective they were, however, in shutting up others who initially agreed with him, or at least supported the notion that is voice should be heard. Duesberg writes in the third person, relating with sadness rather than rancor how supposed allies were seduced or suborned into deserting Duesberg. They didn’t have tenure; they had career aspirations, etc. etc.
I am all the more willing to accept Duesberg's story because it parallels that of other dissidents. The global warming camp centered around the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Control is hugely funded by governments and business interests. They use the same measures to exclude, discredit, defund and have fired such dissidents such as Fritz Vahrenholt, Sebastian Lüning and Fred Singer. I did my PhD work in educational statistics – academic and IQ testing. The foremost intelligence researcher of the 20th century, Arthur Jensen, could not get his capstone work, "The g Factor," published by his longtime publisher, or anybody else. Other researchers such as Philippe Rushton suffered the same problem. The Prime Minister of Finland Matti Vanhanen had to distance himself from his own father, Tatu, on account of the latter's publications on intelligence. None of these men's work on intelligence has been refuted by recognized scientists. Rather, it has been shouted down and shut out because people don't want to hear it. "No Child Left Behind," the belief that every child has the potential to succeed, is at the heart of a trillion dollar industry. Nobody wants to hear that some kids are just too slow. Stephen Pinker courageously reported what happened to Jensen in his own masterpiece, "The Blank Slate." Napoleon Chagnon reports on a smaller but similarly vicious brouhaha in "Noble Savages: My Life Among Two Dangerous Tribes -- the Yanomamo and the Anthropologists." Powerful vested interests did not want to hear that violence is part of human nature. Pinker again, to his credit, wrote a book jacket squib for Chagnon.
I write this review confidently, inasmuch as I have no job to lose. I wish you, the reader, could be sure other reviewers of any book were equally disinterested and immune from outside pressure. For a sampler of opinions telling me to shut up, I invite you to read comments on my reviews of the above-named authors.
(Continues in comments)
The author's perspective appeared most plausible when he published in 1995, and certainly seems so today. There are many interwoven layers of clues, no set of which appears to be entirely internally consistent. Almost every character except the author himself is shown to have ulterior motives. And if the author is right, what government and scientists have done is tantamount to murder.
"I'm from the government, and I'm here to help" should always be greeted with suspicion. AIDS has been a great boon to many governmental agencies. They grew enormously. The people in charge received grand titles, increased salaries, government-paid travel hither and yon, and prestigious awards. They received royalties from intellectual property associated with the HIV virus and medicines to treat it. They founded and owned stock in biotechnology companies which contracted to deliver analysis kits and medicines to the government. They scared the hell out of two generations of sexually active kids. Whether they advanced the public interest is another question.
Even the undisputed public record indicates that these are not humble, selfless men of science. There was a very public squabble when one of them, Robert Gallo, stole the AIDS virus from the Frenchman, Luc Montagnier, who naïvely sent him a sample. Gallo went on to patent it, creating a money tree for himself. David Baltimore, Nobel laureate, apparently fudged data in one of his seminal reports, claiming that the insertion of a foreign gene into a mouse can induce the mouse's genes to produce antibodies mimicking those of the foreign gene. It was a key paper supporting the AIDS hypothesis. The bureaucrats' loudly trumpeted claims about the nature, cause and cures for AIDS, even if true, serve their private interests. As such they deserve to be investigated. Peter Duesberg has done exactly that.
Viruses that are caused by infectious diseases share several characteristics. They multiply rapidly in a newly infected victim. They are equal-opportunity: they do not discriminate among victims on the basis of age, sex or sexual orientation. The incidence of cases in the victim population increases rapidly, until every potential victim has been exposed and rejected the infection through its own immune reaction, overcome the illness and recovered, or succumbed. Recovered victims carry antibodies, a mark of prior infection and protection against renewed infection. Mankind's major viral diseases include Bubonic plague, polio, influenza, measles, mumps, smallpox, rabies, herpes and the common cold.
Viruses differ somewhat in their behavior. Most viruses simply go away. All that remain are the antibodies created to fight them. Some, such as common cold and influenza, mutate rapidly in order to overcome antibody resistance. Chicken pox and the closely related herpes virus can linger, flaring up as shingles and cold sores.
Two great victories over viruses were celebrated in the last century: polio and smallpox. After taking their victory laps, the numerous and theretofore well-funded virus hunters asked themselves, "What next?" On the strength of research by Duesberg himself that some viruses cause cancer, they became extensively involved in President Nixon's proclaimed War on Cancer. After a decade of futile efforts to make a connection, they were more than willing to jump on the AIDS bandwagon when that disease emerged in the early 1980s.
Viruses are all around us. Most of them are totally harmless, many even essential to our metabolism. To associate a virus with a disease, researchers must satisfy the criteria first postulated by Robert Koch in 1884, and copied here from Wikipedia.
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.
It is possible to take polio virus from an animal infected with the disease, isolate the virus and grow it in the lab, infect another animal by injecting the lab-grown virus, and lastly, confirm that what ails the second animal is identical to the virus taken from the first one. That's how we know that the polio virus, instead of one of the millions of other viruses coursing around in our bodies, causes the polio disease.
Duesberg's thesis is that AIDS is a lifestyle disease and that HIV itself is a harmless virus that happens to be transmitted by activities associated with homosexual and drug using lifestyles. It exists at higher frequency in some populations than others. It makes sense that the incidence is highest in Africa, which the AIDS literature itself emphasizes has looser constraints on sexual behavior than other places.
The AIDS community contends that AIDS is caused by HIV. They say that HIV is a different sort of virus, one with a long latency period. They have stretched said period from one or two years to many, as the incidence of people who live uneventfully with the HIV virus seem stubbornly to be surviving. Duesberg claims that HIV is a harmless passenger virus and that the AIDS researchers have not, in three decades of attempts, been able to satisfy Koch's four postulates, named above.
I, the outsider, was flabbergasted to find in my Google search for such a demonstration of the four principles a citation of the patients of gay Stuart, Florida dentist David Acer. After Acer died of AIDS in 1990 the researchers looked for HIV among his patients. A handful had the virus. They inferred that the patients must have gotten it from their dentist, and treated them with AZT. Some got sick and died.
Here's the problem. All the analysis was done after the fact. None at all was the type of controlled research Koch talked about. Most importantly, AZT is poisonous. Many others who took it died. Duesberg asks whether these people died because of the AZT treatment, and that their being HIV positive was incidental. It seems to this reviewer to be a very good question. As a statistician, I can say with absolute certainty that nobody should draw conclusions about something as serious as AIDS, and the billions being spent, on the basis of a sample of six or so people without any scientific controls.
The fact that there has been no more research convinces me of Duesberg's point. They don't ask the question because they are afraid of the answer. No matter how weak the evidence above, it is better for them than evidence that goes the other way – which a proper investigation might reveal. They have a huge vested interest in AIDS being caused by HIV, and don't want anything to get in the way.
Culturing the virus is another weakness that Duesberg points out. With most viruses it is quite easy to get them to grow in a culture. AIDS has proven difficult. A person who is "HIV infected" may have antibodies against HIV, but it is sometimes hard to find the virus itself. Part of this, the explanation goes, is that it is a retrovirus, hidden in the depths of the cell. Duesberg suggests that it might not even be there in any meaningful concentration. The researchers have developed powerful techniques to literally make mountains out of molehills. Whatever trace of HIV they find, they claim to be an infection. A realistic criterion would be that the virus presence is numerous and growing.
Another problem with AIDS is that it has remained stubbornly confined to male homosexuals and drug abusers. Communicable diseases hit everybody. This was exactly the fear about AIDS in the 1980s – it would spread to the heterosexual population. This has not happened. The HIV theory supporters were wrong. Why were they, and why aren't they asking themselves that question?
The reasons not to ask are again, the vested interests of the doctors. Also, gays and drug users are not the most sympathetic victims, especially if their lifestyles bring the problem upon themselves.
AIDS is defined as a vast complex of diseases. The theory is that HIV ravages the immune system, and the opportunistic diseases then attack the weakened organism. They list a grab-bag of 27: yeast infections, several cancers, salmonella, pneumonia, herpes and tuberculosis among them.
There are two problems with this thesis. First, these diseases have been around far longer than AIDS and occur in people without HIV. To call it AIDS only when it occurs in a person with HIV is circular: you have AIDS only because they said you have AIDS. Second, there are lots of people with HIV who don't have any of these diseases. The theory is that AIDS is "latent" in them for ten, twenty, or thirty years… a figure which has grown as quickly as the years since AIDS' emergence.
The HIV-AIDS theory fares badly in Africa, where up to a quarter of the population has HIV. Twenty five years ago the dire projections were that everybody in Sub-Saharan Africa would die of AIDS. They have not. In fact, these countries have the highest population growth rates of any in the world. They are poor, and people die of disease every day, but there is little evidence that things are any worse than before. They can be suffering an "AIDS epidemic" only by definition. A person dying of many common diseases is defined as dying of AIDS if they had HIV. This tautology is good for funding, but no help at all in understanding what's going on.
Duesberg's thesis is that the two affected groups of people, male homosexuals and drug abusers, are prone to the AIDS complex of diseases because they compromise victims' immune systems. How do they do that?
"Fast track" male homosexuals tend to have much, much more sex than other people, and with many, more partners. Straight men are severely constrained by women, who want love and commitment, and are not generally interested in day-and-night sex. Harems are out of the question, and call girls are expensive. Most heterosexual men are happy with sex a couple of times a week with the same woman. Since prostitutes demand protection for themselves, their partners are likewise protected. See the case of Elliot Spitzer for an example of how insistent the girls can be.
For gays, among whom both partners seem to want lots of sex, don't want love and commitment, and aren't choosy about who they pair up with, there is vastly more exposure to STDs. Anybody who works in a gay clinic will say as much. Whether or not they intend to be careful, both partners are often inclined to be high when they have sex, and they get careless. Besides, as Spitzer said, condoms are a drag.
Duesberg writes more than I had ever known on the subject of "poppers." Like most straights, I have no experience with anal sex, but my imagination tells me that the body is not constructed for it. Duesberg says I'm right. Gays take drugs such as amyl nitrite to relax their muscles, loosen up so it can happen. Again and again. These drugs, he contends, take a toll on the immune system as well.
He contends that the bathhouse crowd also tends to abuse more traditional recreational drugs: marijuana, cocaine, amphetamines. It isn't good for them. HIV/AIDS aside, they tend to have more health problems than the population at large.
Intravenous drug users likewise compromise their immune systems, injecting diseases from those with whom they share needles. A druggie lifestyle also typically involves careless sex, bad diet, exposure to people with diseases and other risk factors. It is not surprising that the down-and-outers who use drugs tend to get sick. They also get the HIV virus; it piggybacks on dirty needles, etc. Since the coincidence of HIV and any of the opportunistic diseases these folks are likely to suffer is defined as AIDS, they by definition become AIDS victims.
A low T-cell count is defined as a symptom of AIDS. It is the sign of a compromised immune system. Duesberg contends, however, that victims generally get that way by overloading their immune systems with threats. The immune system eventually gives up. Some, like hemophiliacs, are constantly challenged simply by receiving blood transfusions. With lower immunity, they are subject to many diseases, including the 27 (number subject to change) which are defined as being associated with AIDS.
Duesberg as a lot to say about the drug AZT (Zidovudine). It is chemically simple: C10H13N5O4. Probably quite cheap to make, if not to buy when it was under patent. It was in Burroughs-Welcome's inventory, having been tried and rejected earlier as a cure for other diseases. It was known to be poisonous. It was hoped that it would fight HIV, the supposed cause of AIDS. Its poisonous nature aroused resistance from gay groups early in the game. There was this 1992 press notice about one of Dr. Acer's supposed victims: "Webb is 66, a retired schoolteacher and a grandmother. She was the second of five patients to be infected with the AIDS virus by David Acer. The young and beautiful Kimberly Bergalis had been the first. Webb does not yet have AIDS itself, though the medication she takes to thwart its onset has a litany of side effects, including fatigue and relentless pain in her joints."
1992 was a year in which the AIDS fighters were trying hard to gain credibility, both for their analysis of the nature of the disease and a cure. Duesberg contends that they rushed the "cure" into use before it had much clinical testing, such as animal studies, on the basis that they were fighting an emergency. If he is right, some of the earliest AIDS victims were done in by the cure, rather than the phantom disease. Note that the concentration of AZT has been significantly reduced, if not eliminated, from today's anti-HIV drugs. Survival rates are up. This would be true if (1) the drug actually helped fight a real disease, or (2) it amounted to no longer poisoning people with a phantom disease.
The AIDS community's projection 1992 was that the disease would have spread very widely among straights and gays and all races by now. Duesberg's projection would have been that it would remain with the groups with dangerous lifestyles. What has happened? AIDS deaths in the US have declined steadily over the past decade, and it remains more and more concentrated among gays, drug users and blacks. It is under control in Europe. As noted above, the dire predictions about Africa have not come to pass. The evidence fits Duesberg's hypotheses far better than that of the establishment. Will he ever get the pleasure of a "Told you so?" An apology? Not a chance!
Duesberg is a man of accomplishments. His work demonstrating how a virus causes cancer in chickens could have brought him a Nobel Prize, had he played his cards right. However, when he started to question AIDS in the manner shown above, he rapidly acquired enemies. Well-funded enemies: the drug companies and the AIDS bureaucracy. I invite you, the reader, to look at the entries for Peter Duesberg and Kary Mullis (the Nobel winner who wrote the introduction to this book) to witness two of the most egregious smear jobs every to slip through the Wikipedia process. I am keeping copies, in case this humble review might cause the powers that be to amend them.
Duesberg's conclusion when he published this book in 1996 was rather optimistic. He had letters from Congressman and other officials stating that he had been right, and promising investigation. A suggestion that things would change. They quite obviously have not. As I write this seventeen years later, President Obama has just pledged another hundred million dollars to AIDS research. The US government advertises weekly hiring for their team here in Ukraine attempting to stamp it out. In a word, the old paradigm, against which this book rails, remains in full force.
Duesberg's enemies have effectively quarantined him, preventing his getting published and speaking at conferences. They attempted to get him fired from Berkeley. But they have not shut him up. A fairly lengthy chapter in the book goes into how effective they were, however, in shutting up others who initially agreed with him, or at least supported the notion that is voice should be heard. Duesberg writes in the third person, relating with sadness rather than rancor how supposed allies were seduced or suborned into deserting Duesberg. They didn’t have tenure; they had career aspirations, etc. etc.
I am all the more willing to accept Duesberg's story because it parallels that of other dissidents. The global warming camp centered around the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Control is hugely funded by governments and business interests. They use the same measures to exclude, discredit, defund and have fired such dissidents such as Fritz Vahrenholt, Sebastian Lüning and Fred Singer. I did my PhD work in educational statistics – academic and IQ testing. The foremost intelligence researcher of the 20th century, Arthur Jensen, could not get his capstone work, "The g Factor," published by his longtime publisher, or anybody else. Other researchers such as Philippe Rushton suffered the same problem. The Prime Minister of Finland Matti Vanhanen had to distance himself from his own father, Tatu, on account of the latter's publications on intelligence. None of these men's work on intelligence has been refuted by recognized scientists. Rather, it has been shouted down and shut out because people don't want to hear it. "No Child Left Behind," the belief that every child has the potential to succeed, is at the heart of a trillion dollar industry. Nobody wants to hear that some kids are just too slow. Stephen Pinker courageously reported what happened to Jensen in his own masterpiece, "The Blank Slate." Napoleon Chagnon reports on a smaller but similarly vicious brouhaha in "Noble Savages: My Life Among Two Dangerous Tribes -- the Yanomamo and the Anthropologists." Powerful vested interests did not want to hear that violence is part of human nature. Pinker again, to his credit, wrote a book jacket squib for Chagnon.
I write this review confidently, inasmuch as I have no job to lose. I wish you, the reader, could be sure other reviewers of any book were equally disinterested and immune from outside pressure. For a sampler of opinions telling me to shut up, I invite you to read comments on my reviews of the above-named authors.
(Continues in comments)
February 2, 2020
Inutilmente utile.
Utile per studenti universitari per imparare ad affinare la mentalità critica. Quando si studia per diventare ricercatori confrontarsi con questi testi è fondamentale. L'ho letto subito dopo la laurea (1998), appena iniziato il PhD perché volevo su quali basi poggiassero le perplessità dell'autore che non era un personaggio qualunque ma uno scienziato affermato (altrimenti non lo avrei nemmeno degnato perché di fuffaroli che parlano del nulla ne abbiamo fin troppi come ben insegna Capanna che parla di OGM).
L'ho affrontato come avrei fatto con un saggio o un articolo scientifico cioè valutando le prove a carico della tesi e le controprove non citate. Segnavo tutti i punti su cui dovevo riflettere, quelli facilmente spiegabili e quelli le cui critiche dell'autore erano del tutto smantellabili. Alla fine del libro soppesando le prove a carico e a discarico, il giudizio è del tutto negativo circa la non sussistenza delle obiezioni sollevate dall'autore: ricordo a tutti che ipotizzava come agente causale un micoplasma invece di un virus (importante perché non si trattava di discutere l'AIDS ma quale fosse l'agente causale).
Sono passati anni da quella lettura e le sue tesi sono state definitivamente accantonate. Questo è il bello della Scienza: le parole stanno a zero se non verifichi le ipotesi validandole con prove non attaccabili. Certo ho buttato via un po di tempo ma è stato come leggere un libro di SF, anche se meno credibile.
Il problema di questi testi ancora oggi circolanti è che mancando di una prefazione aggiornata, la persona non del campo che lo leggesse sedimenterebbe idee totalmente infondate basate sul nulla ... .
Utile per studenti universitari per imparare ad affinare la mentalità critica. Quando si studia per diventare ricercatori confrontarsi con questi testi è fondamentale. L'ho letto subito dopo la laurea (1998), appena iniziato il PhD perché volevo su quali basi poggiassero le perplessità dell'autore che non era un personaggio qualunque ma uno scienziato affermato (altrimenti non lo avrei nemmeno degnato perché di fuffaroli che parlano del nulla ne abbiamo fin troppi come ben insegna Capanna che parla di OGM).
L'ho affrontato come avrei fatto con un saggio o un articolo scientifico cioè valutando le prove a carico della tesi e le controprove non citate. Segnavo tutti i punti su cui dovevo riflettere, quelli facilmente spiegabili e quelli le cui critiche dell'autore erano del tutto smantellabili. Alla fine del libro soppesando le prove a carico e a discarico, il giudizio è del tutto negativo circa la non sussistenza delle obiezioni sollevate dall'autore: ricordo a tutti che ipotizzava come agente causale un micoplasma invece di un virus (importante perché non si trattava di discutere l'AIDS ma quale fosse l'agente causale).
Sono passati anni da quella lettura e le sue tesi sono state definitivamente accantonate. Questo è il bello della Scienza: le parole stanno a zero se non verifichi le ipotesi validandole con prove non attaccabili. Certo ho buttato via un po di tempo ma è stato come leggere un libro di SF, anche se meno credibile.
Il problema di questi testi ancora oggi circolanti è che mancando di una prefazione aggiornata, la persona non del campo che lo leggesse sedimenterebbe idee totalmente infondate basate sul nulla ... .
March 7, 2020
"Ce livre est la pire des machine de guerre dont le but n'est en rien de protéger le faible et l'innocent. Son auteur dont la perversité a depuis longtemps atteint sont comble, n'est autre que le chantre du déni le plus meurtrier et le plus abjecte du nouveau millénaire. Lire ce livre n'est en rien comparable a lire un "Mein Kampf" dont la portée semble éteinte, c'est bien pire encore. C'est à vomir de scepticisme incongru. Voici peut-être une prochaine victime pour l'entarteur fou ou peut-être faudra-t-il inventer un crime d'orgueil."
That's what I thought, four-five years ago. Obviously, today, I know I was wrong. But you wouldn't know how much, I was wrong.
That's what I thought, four-five years ago. Obviously, today, I know I was wrong. But you wouldn't know how much, I was wrong.
August 20, 2009
I thought it was sort of awesome at the time... now I think it's very unconvincing, and the sort of misinformation that people die from (e.g. HIV denial in South Africa)
July 9, 2014
Incredibly powerful. Your views on HIV and AIDS cannot remain after reading this book. Despite being published in 1996, just about everything it says is valid today.
October 18, 2017
AIDS denialist falsehoods from a crook who should be in jail.
January 9, 2022
Well written and documented, this is a must-read, not only to understand AIDS, but also because of its parallels to the current Covid situation.
May 1, 2024
I had heard through the years what I thought was a theory that HIV exists but is not really the cause of AIDS. As I aged and thought about things differently, and especially after the years 2020 through 2022 I decided to search out this book and am I glad I did. I encourage others to do the same as you will not look at The Pandemic Years the same again. This book was published in 1996, written by the brilliant scientist Peter Duesberg. You will learn how the medical community (CDC, NIH, etc) has changed over the years to virus hunters and how that systemic way of thinking has tainted research and promoted too close relationships between government and the drug companies, how in order to get grants scientists must toe the party line. Once I read this, I saw clearly why The Pandemic Years occurred the way they did. You will learn that vaccines did not save mankind, but better hygiene, sewage treatment, and better nutrition occurred right around the time that vaccines began being developed. I understand the author is in advanced years, but were he to update the book, I'd suggest the title to be Inventing the AIDS and COVID Virus. The similarites between the two events is remarkable. Remdesivir vs. AZT comes to mind. Fascinating reading.
March 5, 2025
This book was written in 1996 and I expected a lot of outdated information, but found it to be totally relevant. The same good-ole-boy, insestuous pharma/CDC/NIH relationships that are present now were present then. 'The Science' that is controlling studies, funding, and official dogma now, was controlling pure scientific research then. At least one name is persistent throughout the decades. It is tragic that this could not get traction before so much time has passed. Other associated reading: The Real AIDS Epidemic- R. Cutshaw, Blind Spots-M. Makary. More technical testing, etc. (Real AIDS Epidemic) with increasing logical gaps in the theory cost careers now, and then. I look at this story through dual lenses--that of a freshly-minted, idealistic MD with absolute trust in 'science' provided by the authorities vs. a wizened, post-covid medical skeptic. This seems to be too far gone with too much money spent, and too powerful a support structure.
July 6, 2023
AIDS
- Select a group of individuals who are being affected by a series of diseases (homosexuals, drug addicts, 90% men)
- Blame it on a virus called HIV (1984 press conference declaring HIV causes AIDS x Robert Gallo) without mediating peer-review.
- In the presence of HIV, 30 pre-existing diseases become symptoms of AIDS
- Begin treatment with AZT which depresses the immune system and causes the same symptoms as AIDS. Most patients die after a few months or years.
COVID
- Select a series of individuals who are mostly affected by the same ailments (flu)
- Invent a virus using a computer program and use a rigged lab test to misdiagnose it (PCR). In the presence of a positive, all flu symptoms become covid symptoms.
- Begin iatrogenic treatment (ventilators, no autopsies) and immunization with mRNA vaccines that cause more damage to the population.
- Select a group of individuals who are being affected by a series of diseases (homosexuals, drug addicts, 90% men)
- Blame it on a virus called HIV (1984 press conference declaring HIV causes AIDS x Robert Gallo) without mediating peer-review.
- In the presence of HIV, 30 pre-existing diseases become symptoms of AIDS
- Begin treatment with AZT which depresses the immune system and causes the same symptoms as AIDS. Most patients die after a few months or years.
COVID
- Select a series of individuals who are mostly affected by the same ailments (flu)
- Invent a virus using a computer program and use a rigged lab test to misdiagnose it (PCR). In the presence of a positive, all flu symptoms become covid symptoms.
- Begin iatrogenic treatment (ventilators, no autopsies) and immunization with mRNA vaccines that cause more damage to the population.
September 15, 2020
I’m sure there are many who want to burn/ban this book, which is why I’m giving it 4/5 and not 3/5.
The first half of the book was solid and great. I loved the examples he used of instances where viruses and other suspected pathogens were blamed for diseases that were not of an infectious nature. He also teaches you about Koch’s postulates and other famous experiences in microbiology.
Then he goes on to list multiple instances where the establishment can very quickly polarize into group think that goes against the scientific method and how popularizing science has become something akin to news reporting. All very good
Second half is boring.. anecdotal evidence and melodrama about his life.
That’s it
Would recommend for undergrad microbiology students
The first half of the book was solid and great. I loved the examples he used of instances where viruses and other suspected pathogens were blamed for diseases that were not of an infectious nature. He also teaches you about Koch’s postulates and other famous experiences in microbiology.
Then he goes on to list multiple instances where the establishment can very quickly polarize into group think that goes against the scientific method and how popularizing science has become something akin to news reporting. All very good
Second half is boring.. anecdotal evidence and melodrama about his life.
That’s it
Would recommend for undergrad microbiology students
August 16, 2021
An absolute must read in 2021, a stark reminder of the issues in Germ Theory and the behaviour of Microbe Hunters and their "science". This book will also introduce you to our friend Anthony Fauci and his skills as a censor.
May 31, 2024
Interesting question on why no more research regarding poppers/drugs and AZT, and their contribution to aids. Author feels a little butthurt but this is a good overall explanation of how aids was/wasn’t studied in the beginning years.
August 18, 2017
Well written, but like a lawyer's plea has guile, ignorance and skill
May 20, 2023
Questioning Fauci before questioning Fauci was the cool thing to do.
Want to read
January 10, 2025Rogan Gibson
July 21, 2025
One of the best nonfiction books I've read in years. Duesberg is a hero of science & prophet w/o honor.
Read
October 4, 2023I'm not going to pretend this isn't one of the most fascinating books I've ever read.
Whether Duesberg is right or not of course is a separate question.
Whether Duesberg is right or not of course is a separate question.
January 21, 2022
Per certi versi andrebbe letto proprio in questo momento per dare un peso alla presunta controinformazione. La lettura attuale fa anche abbastanza sorridere per gli evidenti errori che vengono negati o minimizzati. Non so comunque se il finale noto valga il tempo di lettura.
December 11, 2008
Dr. Peter Duesberg claims that HIV does not cause AIDS. Instead, he says that AIDS is caused by chemical factors and malnutrition. HIV is a harmless passenger retrovirus. The author is hard to dismiss since he is a professor of molecular and cellular biology at UC Berkley, was inducted to the National Academy of Sciences, is an expert in retrovirus research, and was one of the first scientists to discover cancer genes.
March 9, 2008
the introductory chapters are very interesting. after that it is more of a rant.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 31 reviews