The great Virus debate.

CobraBoy (
Fri, 23 Jan 1998 13:44:42 -0800

HB is a strange town. It really is a world of it's own as I realized last
night. It really has nothing to do with anything in the world, other than
HB and the HB lifestyle.

In this strange town is Time Warner Cable. You can regularly turn on TWC
and spend an entire night watching home made cable shows on board sports.
(surf, snow, skate)

Last night I was going through the channels and saw the beginning of what I
thought was another A.I.D.'s "hey kids don't have sex commericals." It had
the kid and mother from Home Improvement. It actually turned out to be a
show about what is possibly the greatest debacle in the world. That being
the HIV=AIDS=Death.

I personally don't believe that HIV causes death. Nor Aids for that matter.
That facts just aren't there. I do 100% believe that AZT etc. will kill you
and kill you damn quick. I am not HIV positive, however I could test
positive by drinking a couple half gallons of whole milk and going down
first thing in the morning and getting tested. Then I could go on AZT and
die. Great...

Anyway, I don't really respect a lot of people in this world. Kary Mullis
is one I do have a lot of respect for though. This is his forward to a book
by Dr. Peter Duesenberg. If you don't know anything about this you might
want to read it and check it out.


By Kary Mullis

In 1988 I was working as a consultant at Specialty Labs in Santa
setting up analytic routines for the Human Immunodeficiency Virus
(HIV). I
knew a lot about setting up analytic routines for anything with
nucleic acids
in it because I had invented the Polymerase Chain Reaction. That's why
they had hired me.

Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS), on the other hand, was
something I did not know a lot about. Thus, when I found myself
writing a
report on our progress and goals for the project, sponsored by the
Institutes of Health, I recog nized that I did not know the
scientific reference
to support a statement I had just written: "HIV is the probable
cause of

So I turned to the virologist at the next desk, a reliable and
fellow, and asked him for the reference. He said I didn't need one. I
disagreed. While it's true that certain scientific discov eries or
techniques are
so well established that their sources are no longer referenced in the
contemporary literature, that didn't seem to be the case with the
connection. It was totally remarkable to me that the individual who had
discovered the cause of a deadly and as-yet-uncured disease would
not be
con tinually referenced in the scientific papers until that disease
was cured
and forgotten. But as I would soon learn, the name of that
individual - who
would surely be Nobel material - was on the tip of no one's tongue.

Of course, this simple reference had to be out there somewhere.
tens of thousands of public servants and esteemed scientists of many
callings, trying to solve the tragic deaths of a large number of
and/or intravenous (IV) drug-using men between the ages of twenty-five
and forty, would not have allowed their research to settle into one
channel of investigation. Everyone wouldn't fish in the same pond
unless it
was well estab lished that all the other ponds were empty. There
had to be a
pub lished paper, or perhaps several of them, which taken together
that HIV was the probable cause of AIDS. There just had to be.

I did computer searches, but came up with nothing. Of course, you
can miss
something important in computer searches by not putting in just the
key words. To be certain about a scientific issue, it's best to ask
scientists directly. That's one thing that scientific conferences
in faraway
places with nice beaches are for.

I was going to a lot of meetings and conferences as part of my job.
I got in
the habit of approaching anyone who gave a talk about AIDS and asking
him or her what reference I should quote for that increasingly
statement, "HIV is the probable cause of AIDS."

After ten or fifteen meetings over a couple years, I was getting
pretty upset
when no one could cite the reference. I didn't like the ugly
conclusion that
was forming in my mind: The entire campaign against a disease
regarded as a twentieth century Black Plague was based on a hypothesis
whose origins no one could recall. That defied both scientific and

Finally, I had an opportunity to question one of the giants in HIV
and AIDS
research, Dr Luc Montagnier of the Pasteur Institute, when he gave
a talk in
San Diego. It would be the last time I would be able to ask my
little question
without showing anger, and I figured Montagnier would know the answer.
So I asked him.

With a look of condescending puzzlement, Montagnier said, "Why don't
you quote the report from the Centers for Disease Control? "

I replied, "It doesn't really address the issue of whether or not
HIV is the
probable cause of AIDS, does it?"

"No," he admitted, no doubt wondering when I would just go away. He
looked for support to the little circle of people around him, but
they were all
awaiting a more definitive response, like I was.

"Why don't you quote the work on SIV [Simian Immunodeficiency
Virus]?" the good doctor offered.

"I read that too, Dr Montagnier," I responded. "What happened to those
monkeys didn't remind me of AIDS. Besides, that paper was just
only a couple of months ago. I'm looking for the original paper where
somebody showed that HIV caused AIDS.

This time, Dr Montagnier's response was to walk quickly away to
greet an
acquaintance across the room.

Cut to the scene inside my car just a few years ago. I was driving from
Mendocino to San Diego. Like everyone else by now, I knew a lot more
about AIDS than I wanted to. But I still didn't know who had determined
that it was caused by HIV. Getting sleepy as I came over the San
Bernardino Mountains, I switched on the radio and tuned in a guy
who was
talking about AIDS. His name was Peter Duesberg, and he was a prominent
virologist at Berkeley. I'd heard of him, but had never read his
papers or
heard him speak. But I listened, now wide awake, while he explained
exactly why I was having so much trouble finding the references
that linked
HIV to AIDS. There weren't any. No one had ever proved that HIV causes
AIDS. When I got home, I invited Duesberg down to San Diego to present
his ideas to a meeting of the American Association for Chemistry.
skeptical at first, the audience stayed for the lecture, and then
an hour of
questions, and then stayed talking to each other until requested to
clear the
room. Everyone left with more questions than they had brought.

I like and respect Peter Duesberg. I don't think he knows
necessarily what
causes AIDS; we have disagreements about that. But we're both certain
about what doesn't cause AIDS.

We have not been able to discover any good reasons why most of the
on earth believe that AIDS is a disease caused by a virus called
HIV. There
is simply no scientific evidence demonstrating that this is true.

We have also not been able to discover why doctors prescribe a
toxic drug
called AZT (Zidovudine) to people who have no other complaint than the
presence of antibodies to HIV in their blood. In fact, we cannot
why humans would take that drug for any reason.

We cannot understand how all this madness came about, and having both
lived in Berkeley, we've seen some strange things indeed. We know
that to
err is human, but the HIV/AIDS hypothesis is one hell of a mistake.


Choose life. Choose a job. Choose a career. Choose a family. Choose a big television. Choose washing machines, cars, compact disc players, and electrical can openers. Choose sitting on the couch watching mindnumbing, sprit-crushing game shows.

<> <>