Chief Science Officer, Boveran, Inc.
San Ramon, CA 94583
Send response to journal:
Peter Flegg is annoyed that I bring out into the open the demonstrable fact that there is indeed a systematic refusal in the USA to fund and publish any work on AIDS that does not accept HIV dogma. Here is where Foley and Floyd's talents for doing PubMed searches would come in handy. Search for the number of scientific publications in mainstream journals studying or accepting HIV as the cause of AIDS. Then do the same thing for scientific publications in mainstream journals not studying or accepting HIV as the cause of AIDS. Then report the results in BMJ, one of the rare journals that permits free and open discourse and debate on AIDS. Let's see if there is numerical support for Flegg's faith in free and open access to the scientific journals to those who do not accept HIV dogma.
Peter Duesberg's experience provides numerical evidence that Flegg is wrong and that there is indeed a systematic denial of access to funding and publishing to those who do not accept HIV dogma. Duesberg is a member of the National Academy of Sciences in the USA and he cannot get any of his grant proposals funded because he disputes the contagious/HIV hypothesis of AIDS. Prior to Duesberg's critique of the pathogenicity of retroviruses, and HIV in particular (1), he did not have even one grant proposal turned down by any of the major funding sources. After that publication appeared, he has had 23 grant proposals in a row turned down and not one approved.
Through the end of 2003, US tax payers will have spent $118 billion on AIDS (2,3), and not one penny of that colossal figure went to researchers who do not accept HIV as the cause of AIDS. Because of this, Peter Duesberg has said "they could spend billions to study HIV on the moon or Jupiter if they wanted, but they can't afford $50,000 to prove themselves wrong." Flegg can find out the specifics of how Duesberg has been isolated and neutralized within scientific circles on pages 396-406 in his book Inventing the AIDS Virus (4).
Flegg doubts that conspiracy is behind the systemic denial of access to research funding and publishing by dissident scientists. But, shortly after Duesberg's paper appeared in Cancer Research, a memo was sent out from the office of the secretary of Health and Human Services under the heading "MEDIA ALERT". The memo noted that, "[t]he article apparently went through the normal pre- publication process and should have been flagged at the NIH" (4). No one bothered to ask: what business does a government agency have flagging any scientific paper? The memo pointed out the threat Duesberg posed for the government:
"This obviously has the potential to raise a lot of controversy (If this isn't the virus, how do we know the blood supply is safe? How do we know anything about transmission? How could you all be so stupid, and why should we ever believe you again?) and we need to be prepared to respond. I have already asked NIH public affairs to start digging into this." (5)
Copies of the memo were addressed to the secretary, under secretary, and assistant secretary of Health and Human Services, as well as the assistant secretary of public affairs, the chief of staff, the Surgeon General, and the White House (4).
One thing critics discover very soon is that the high priests of HIV dogma rarely if ever address the specific criticisms of the AIDS axioms. (Flegg, for example, completely ignores my specific and pointed questions.) Instead, they do everything possible to silence their critics. To save their careers most scientists stop asking embarrassing questions and prostrate themselves before the golden idol of HIV. The courageous (or stubborn, depending on you point of view) few who stick to their principles are forced to scrape up the money any way they can to do their research. Duesberg's lab, for example, relies on the generosity of wealthy individuals, private foundations, and general donations.
But even if you get the money to do the work, you won't be able to get your results published in American scientific or medical journals and you will no longer be invited to professional meetings. If you publicly question HIV dogma too loudly you risk ad hominem attacks and are accused of being a homophobe, or of encouraging people to stop taking AZT and the other DNA chain- terminating drugs (to which I plead guilty), or of causing people to stop using condoms.
Since the middle 1980s the United States has been engaged in a kind of medical McCarthyism, where anyone who asks questions about the HIV dogma is punished as a heretic. Those who are seen talking with a dissident are warned that they risk their careers and reputations if they continue. Even heads of state are not immune to threats and intimidation.
South African President Thabo Mbeki continues to receive intense personal attacks because he included on his AIDS Advisory Panel in 2000 a number of scientists and physicians from around the world who dispute the mainstream dogma of AIDS. Having failed to silence Mbeki, the AIDS establishment has orchestrated an international campaign to portray him as insane because he insists on getting answers to some very simple questions:
1) Why is AIDS in Africa so completely different from AIDS in the USA and Europe?
2) How does a virus know to cause different diseases on different continents?
3) How does a virus know if you are male or female, gay or straight, white or black?
Journalists who interview dissidents almost never see their work published or broadcast, they are no longer invited to mainstream meetings, and are vilified by former friends and colleagues.
On page 709 of his book Challenges (6), Serge Lang, the legendary Yale mathematician and member of the National Academy of Sciences, describes his unsuccessful effort to publish his commentary on Richard Horton's (editor of The Lancet) review of Peter Duesberg's book Inventing the AIDS Virus published in the New York Review of Books. Since the New York Review of Books would not publish his commentary, Lang sent a letter to the editor of The Lancet concerning the HIV scandal but it was turned down. He then sent a check along with his letter to have it published in the advertisement section of the journal. Yielding to Lang's persistence, the editor of The Lancet finally published Lang's letter (in the letters to the editor section) and returned his check.
There are countless more stories of censorship, intimidation, and financial and professional manipulation. But the discordant data still sits there, indestructible and unresolved.
With so many careers dependent on, and billions of dollars invested in, the HIV dogma and the axioms of AIDS, it is easy to see what is at stake. If some or all of the AIDS axioms are false (I'm certain that all of them are false), then we are faced with the biggest blunder of the 20th Century. It would require superhuman courage and integrity on the part of numerous government officials and the directors of the National Institutes of Health, the Medical Research Council, the World Health Organization, and the Centers for Disease Control, and of countless physicians, scientists, health care workers, journalists, celebrities and average citizens, to admit that they made a big mistake--that they got it all wrong about AIDS.
Many informed critics think that the billions of dollars at stake is the biggest roadblock to ending the AIDS insanity. That money is certainly a formidable weapon in the service of the HIV/AIDS establishment. However, I think it is simple human embarrassment that is the biggest obstacle to bringing this insanity to an end. It is the fear of being so obviously and hopelessly wrong about AIDS that keeps lips sealed, the money flowing and AIDS rhetoric spiraling to stratospheric heights of absurdity.
The physicians who know or suspect the truth are embarrassed or afraid to admit that the HIV tests are absurd and should be outlawed, and that the anti-HIV drugs are injuring and killing people. We are taught to fear antibodies, and to believe that antibodies to HIV are a harbinger of disease and death ten years in the future. When you protest this absurdity and point out to health care workers that antibodies are the very essence of anti- viral immunity your objections are met with either contempt or embarrassed silence.
The National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control, the Medical Research Council, and the World Health Organization are terrorizing hundreds of millions of people around the world by their reckless and absurd policy of equating sex with death. Linking sex to death has put these organizations in an impossible situation. It would be intolerably embarrassing for them to admit at this late date that they are wrong, that AIDS is not sexually transmitted. Such an admission could very well destroy these organizations or at the very least put their future credibility in jeopardy. Self preservation compels these institutions to not only maintain but to actually compound their errors, which adds to the fear, suffering, and misery of the world--the antithesis of their reason for being.
PS: Flegg says that I misquoted him. However, that is not true. I did not quote Flegg but paraphrased his characterization when I said: If, as Flegg says, after a short time following infection an HIV positive individual eventually fights off HIV and is thus unable to spread the infection, then by definition that individual has become immunized against HIV. I did not put that in quotation marks. I did not quote Flegg as having said that.
1. Duesberg, P. H. (1987) Retroviruses as carcinogens and pathogens: expectations and reality, Cancer Res. 47, 1199-1220
2. Johnson, J. A. (2000) AIDS funding for federal government programs: FY1981-FY2001, Washington DC, Congressional Research Service, The Library of Congress, November 6, RL30731
3. HHS. (2002) Budget for HIV/AIDS Increases 8 Percent: Targets Expanded Efforts on Research, Washington DC, US Dept. of Health and Human Services, Feb. 4, Press release, http:// newsroom.hrsa.gov/releases/2002releases/HHSnews-HIV.htm
4. Duesberg, P. H. (1996) Inventing the AIDS Virus, Regnery Publishing Inc., Washington
5. Kline, C. (1987) MEDIA ALERT, memorandum of the office of the secretary, Washington, DC, Health and Human Services, April 28,
6. Lang, S. (1998) Challenges (Springer, Ed.), Springer, New York
Competing interests: None declared