Ten (10) excerpts from VirusMythDotCom . Compiled by Bernie: of the family: Brauer

Last updated: June 18, 2012





  HIV does not cause AIDS...

  AIDS is not sexually transmitted...

  AZT makes AIDS worse, not better...

So argues Dr. Peter Duesberg, one of the world's leading microbiologists, a pioneer in the discovery of the HIV family of viruses, and a member of the National Academy of Sciences.

Duesberg's evidence - revealed in top scientific journals but kept out of the mainstream press - raises questions the AIDS research establishment has so far declined to answer:

·         If HIV causes AIDS, why have thousands of AIDS victims never had HIV?

·         Why have hundreds of thousands who have had HIV - for many years - remained perfectly healthy?

·         Why does the discoverer of the HIV virus now claim it can not be the sole cause of AIDS?

·         Why has more than ten years of AIDS research - costing tens of billions of dollars - failed to show how (or even if) HIV causes AIDS or attacks the immune system?

With annual federal funding at more than $7 billion, AIDS research is better funded than any other disease - including cancer. Yet it has also produced the least results. Why? Duesberg explains how the lure of money and prestige, combined with powerful political pressures, have tempted otherwise responsible scientists to overlook - even suppress - major flaws in current AIDS theory.

The answer? Not more funding for more flawed research. Instead, start with an open airing of all the facts and failures, then determine the real cause of the disease.

This book does both. For Duesberg's solution to the AIDS mystery is as convincing as his critique of the HIV theory - and could save hundreds of thousands of lives at risk today

 Peter Duesberg is professor of molecular and cell biology at the University of California at Berkeley, a pioneer in retrovirus research, the first scientist to isolate a cancer gene, and recipient of the Outstanding Investigator Grant from the National Institutes of Health. His articles challenging the HIV/AIDS hypothesis have appeared in scientific journals including The New England Journal of Medicine, Science, Nature, The Lancet, British Medical Journal, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, and Cancer Research.

Peter H. Duesberg, Ph.D. is a professor of Molecular and Cell Biology at the University of California, Berkeley. Biographical Sketch

He isolated the first cancer gene through his work on retroviruses in 1970, and mapped the genetic structure of these viruses. This, and his subsequent work in the same field, resulted in his election to the National Academy of Sciences in 1986. He is also the recipient of a seven-year Outstanding Investigator Grant from the National Institutes of Health.


On the basis of his experience with retroviruses, Duesberg has challenged the virus-AIDS hypothesis in the pages of such journals as Cancer Research, Lancet, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Science, Nature, Journal of AIDS, AIDS Forschung, Biomedicine and Pharmacotherapeutics, New England Journal of Medicine and Research in Immunology. He has instead proposed the hypothesis that the various American/European AIDS diseases are brought on by the long-term consumption of recreational drugs and/or AZT itself, which is prescribed to prevent or treat AIDS.  See The AIDS Dilemma: Drug diseases blamed on a passenger virus.  More HERE


This book challenges the theory that AIDS is caused by a virus called HIV. It puts foward the view that in the rush to identify the cause of an apparently new disease, a harmless 'passenger' virus was leapt upon as the sole culprit.

It is believed by an increasing number of scientists that HIV is the wrong type of virus to cause a fatal disease. It is present in the bodies of patients in quantities too small for it to do so and is, anyway, inactive for most of its life.

The easiest of the arguments against HIV causing AIDS relates to the AIDS patients who have no trace of the virus - or even antibodies to it - despite being screened by the nost sophisticated methods. Unfortunately for research into this issue, so few AIDS patients now receive even an antibody test that we cannot be sure what they are carrying. Virtually anything could be causing their disease.

Conversely, the world is full of healthy people who have antibodies to HIV but show no signs of developing AIDS. The message of doom from early in the epidemic, based on estimates of the number of HIV infections, has not been borne out by a vast increase in AIDS cases or by the predicted spread of the syndrome outside the 'at risk' categories.

AIDS; The HIV Myth follows the early years of research and shows how the work from the failed virus-cancer research programme, attempting to discover viruses which cause cancer, was grafted on to AIDS research.

The result of the misidentification of HIV as the cause of AIDS has been the diversion of all research funds exclusively into HIV. The real cause of AIDS is not being investigated. Instead, an 'AIDS establishment' has come into being, committed to the HIV hypothesis and fiercely resisting anyone who challenges it.

AIDS: The Unheard Voices, the making of which led to the writing of this book, received the Royal Television Award for the best International Current Affairs Documentary. It gained high praise from the critics: 'important and accessible' (Independent), 'astonishing... impressive' (Daily Mail), 'startling' (Guardian), 'outstanding documentary' (Sunday Telegraph).  More HERE





In 1993, Dr. Willner stunned Spain by inoculating himself with the blood of Pedro Tocino, an HIV positive hemophiliac. This demonstration of devotion to the truth and the Hippocratic Oath he took, nearly 40 years before, was reported on the front page of every major newspaper in Spain. His appearance on Spain's most popular television show envoked a 4 to 1 response by the viewing audience in favor of his position against the "AIDS hypothesis." When asked why he would put his life on the line to make a point, Dr. Willner replied: "I do this to put a stop to the greatest murderous fraud in medical history. By injecting myself with HIV positive blood, I am proving the point as Dr. Walter Reed did to prove the truth about yellow fever. In this way it is my hope to expose the truth about HIV in the interest of all mankind."

In Deadly Deception Dr. Willner proves:


·         The AIDS hypothesis is totally fraudulent.

·         Its perpetrators are guilty of criminal fraud and murder!

·         The HIV virus does not and could not possibly cause AIDS or any serious disease.

·         AIDS is not transmitted sexually nor is it contagious by any method!


Each day healthy individuals continue to be diagnosed "positive" by a totally inaccurate HIV test. They are then treated for an imaginary, non-existent disease with AZT (Zidovudine) - the drug that was shelved because it was too toxic to treat cancer! AZT actually causes Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome and thereby fulfils the prophecy of death by "AIDS.

Backed by scientific and factual proof you learn the truth:


·         What really causes AIDS, how it can be avoided and even cured.

·         How the HIV test can be positive because of having a simple "Flu" vaccination, the measles or many other common infections!

·         Why AIDS is not an epidemic but a total myth based on false projections and disproved by time and the statistics.

·         Why the homosexual community erroneously became identified as AIDS carriers.

·         Why AIDS is a syndrome and not a transmittable disease.

·         Why 25 to 30 diseases were, for the first time in recorded history, lumped together under a new name in an attempt to give the appearance of an epidemic!

·         Acquired Immune Deficiency is not new; it has been known and written about in medical books for almost seventy years.


All of this and much, much more are revealed in: Deadly Deception!  More HERE







John Lauritsen, 'The AIDS War; Propaganda, profiteering and genocide from the medical-industrial complex' Asklepious Press USA 1993, ISBN 0-943742-08-0.

The AIDS epidemic is an epidemic of lies, through which hundreds of thousands of people have died and are dying unnecessarily, billions of dollars have gone down the drain, the Public Health Service has disgraced itself, and Science has plunged into whoredom.


The official AIDS paradigm - including the preposterous notion that a biochemically inactive microbe, the so-called "human immunodeficiency virus" (HIV-1), causes the (at last count) 29 AIDS-indicator diseases - represents the most colossal blunder in medical history. But it is more than a blunder. In the course of this book it will become plain why I have employed the metaphor of war: the terrible suffering and loss of life, propaganda, censorship, rumors, hysteria, profiteering, espionage, and sabotage.

A Harvard-educated survey research analyst by profession, John Lauritsen began reviewing AIDS research in 1983, and is now regarded by AIDS-critics around the world as their foremost journalist. His first AIDS book, Poison By Prescription: The AZT Story, has saved thousands of lives, and is in its fourth printing. The AIDS War is a collection of his major writings on AIDS, going back to February 1985.  More HERE






Jon Rappoport, 'AIDS Inc.; Scandal of the century' Human Energy Press, USA 1988, 1993, ISBN 0-941523-03-9.

  Virus is not the cause.

  Definition of AIDS is worthless.

  Treatment is poison.


Investigative reporter Jon Rappoport uncovers the shocking truth about AIDS: Thousands die needlessly as the medical world and media pull off the bigest scandal of our time - all for the love of power and money.

AIDS Inc. takes you on a sizzling behind-the-scenes tour of laboratories, newsrooms and even the White House to expose the real killers behind the disease. It's the most explosive, myth-shattering book you'll read.

Jon Rappoport is an internationally known investigative reporter, whose articles on politics, science, and environment issues have appeared in Stern, LA Weekly, Environmental Action, In These Times, and many other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe.  More HERE




Health Education AIDS Liaison, Toronto

10 Scientific Reasons Why HIV Cannot Cause AIDS

For anyone convinced that HIV has been isolated.

1.   HIV is neutralized by antibody immunity.

When a person tests "positive" to HIV, it means they carry antibodies to the virus. Which means that they have immunity. This is clear from the fact that there is so little virus to be found in HIV antibody positive people.* The antibodies have done their job and the virus is well under control. There are no known viruses that cause illness in every case only long after antibodies appear, which is how AIDS is defined.

One has to question why 12 years and billions of dollars have been spent developing a vaccine against HIV when the best vaccine possible already exists when a person tests positive.

2.   HIV does not kill the T cells it infects.

HIV can only kill T cells under rare laboratory conditions. In fact, HIV researchers use T cells to grow the virus because T cells live quite compatibly with HIV.

3.   HIV does not infect enough T cells to cause AIDS.

HIV never infects more than 1 out of 1000 T cells; commonly just 1 out of 10,000 T cells.* People replace 5% of their T cells per day. Simple math shows that HIV cannot infect enough T cells to cause them to die off and bring down the whole immune system. Even supporters of the HIV/AIDS theory admit that this low level of T cell infection is a challenge to explain.

* The recent invention of "viral load" testing is an attempt to explain away the fact that almost no sign of HIV can be found by standard measurements. Viral load tests do not measure viable virus and have not been approved by the FDA to diagnose HIV infection.

4.   HIV has no AIDS causing gene.

HIV has no specific gene or unique reason to cause AIDS. All retroviruses have only 3 major genes, GAG, ENV and POL and only 6 minor genes. Because the genes and genetic sequences are so limited in these simple organisms, they need all their genes to replicate. HIV is almost identical to all other retroviruses genetically. There are 50 to 100 different retroviruses that can be found in every healthy human body. All have been brought under control by antibody response. HIV behaves no differently than any of these others. If none of these other retroviruses cause AIDS, why should HIV? And vice versa, if HIV causes AIDS, why don't all the rest? So there is no genetic reason why HIV would cause AIDS.

5.   There is no such thing as a "slow virus".

HIV is claimed to take 10 to 20 years (the "latency period") after infection to cause AIDS. The only way to explain this is to give HIV magical abilities to reactivate, mutate, migrate and hibernate. These slow virus hypotheses were devised by scientists who used them to buy time when their viruses failed to perform. The slow virus proponents point to examples like the herpes viruses that smolder and hide and then reemerge in persons when they have suppressed immunity and cannot generate a sufficient defense. These differ greatly from HIV because large amounts of active virus can be found causing specific symptoms. By contrast, a slow virus is an invention credited with the ability to cause disease only years after infection - termed the latency period - in previously healthy persons, regardless of their state of immunity. Such a concept allows scientists to blame a long-neutralized virus for any disease that appears decades after infection. HIV is inactive, then is said to cause 30 different diseases 10 years later. None of which are specific to HIV itself.

6.   HIV is not a new virus, so it could not cause a new epidemic.

AIDS cases went from almost none in 1980 to a reported half a million in North America alone by 1995. Therefore, scientists claim HIV must be a new virus or we would have had an epidemic years or centuries ago. However, this claim does not stand up to the principals of Farr's Law. Farr's Law asserts that new infections spread exponentially through the population. HIV has been reported at more or less 1 million infected in the USA each year since they had a test for it in 1984. So it cannot be a new virus.

7.   HIV fails Koch's postulates.

The universal test used by scientists to determine if a disease is truly being caused by an infection was designed over one hundred years ago by Robert Koch.

Koch's postulates state:

The organism:

1.   must be found in all cases of the disease.

2.   must be isolated from the host and grown in pure culture.

3.   must cause the same disease when injected into a new, healthy host.

4.   must be found growing again in the newly diseased host.

Here is how HIV does on this test:

5.   The germ must be found in all cases of the diseases. FAILS.

§         10 to 20% of AIDS patients have no HIV at all.

§         Only tiny amounts of HIV, usually dormant, can be found in any AIDS patient.

6.   The germ must be isolated from the host and grown in pure culture. PASSES - but only on a technicality.

§         Huge amounts of cell tissue are needed to find HIV.

§         HIV needs a chemically induced process to reactivate.

§         By contrast, large amounts of active virus can be found with other viruses.

7.   The germ must cause the same disease when injected into a new, healthy host. FAILS - hands down.

§         HIV does not cause AIDS in test animals like chimpanzees.

§         human health care workers accidentally infected with HIV rarely get AIDS unless they use recreational drugs ... or AZT.

8.   The germ must be found growing again in the newly diseased host. FAILS - for not passing postulate 3.

HIV fails this test.

HIV scientists claim that Koch's postulates are old and out of date with modern science. But they have stood the test of time. Disease hypotheses that ignored Koch's postulates have been a failure. The infectious theories of scurvy, pellagra, beriberi, SMON and virus/cancer research have all ignored Koch's postulates and all have been a dismal failure. And now HIV/AIDS?

8.   AIDS has remained in the original risk groups for over 15 years.

If a disease does not spread it must be caused by something non-infectious. The US CDC reports (1997) confirm that AIDS is not spreading into the general population.

AIDS cases by risk group (US):

Admitted gay males


Admitted IV drug users




Transfusion recipients


Claimed heterosexual contact






If AIDS is truly caused by a virus AIDS patients not in a risk group should be growing above an estimated 10% as the disease spreads.

Note that the US army has found that when testing recruits HIV positive results were divided equally between men (50%) and women (50%). Yet 85% of AIDS cases in the US are male.

Note too that in the US men use over 80% of all hard drugs. Among women with AIDS 60% (admit they) use hard drugs.

9.   International comparisons of AIDS differ greatly.

A germ related disease would effect the population in the same way around the world. An outbreak of cholera in India and Honduras would be much the same. But AIDS is totally different in the USA or western industrialized countries and Africa.



Aids by sexual percentage

85% male

50% male

15% female

50% female

AIDS among risk groups

At least 90%

No risk group

risk groups

(at random)

AIDS diseases caused by microbes



Estimated HIV Infections

1 million

14 million

Official documented cases of AIDS (1995/96)



AIDS in Africa should be 14 times higher than in the US. Instead, people with HIV in the US develop AIDS 10 to 20 times faster than in Africa. This means that whereas the latency period in the US is predicted at 10 -15 years, in Africa it is at least 100 to 150 years!

10.                     AIDS occurs without HIV Infection and most people with HIV never develop AIDS.

The evidence for the HIV/AIDS hypothesis is based solely on correlation. Because the virus is found in most AIDS patients, it is thought to cause AIDS. But the logic of that assumption is flawed because CORRELATION DOES NOT PROVE CAUSATION.

The common presence of HIV in AIDS patients is no more proof that HIV causes AIDS than the presence of birds on power lines is proof that birds cause power failures.

So, if HIV and AIDS are only correlated, we should find AIDS without HIV and healthy people who have HIV and never get AIDS. That is exactly what is happening.

In Africa studies have shown over 65% of AIDS patients are not HIV positive. In Africa a positive HIV antibody test result is not necessary for reporting AIDS cases; prolonged symptoms are enough.

4621 cases of AIDS without HIV were found in the US Center for Disease Control (CDC) reports up to 1993. And the number could be much larger but the official definition of AIDS is designed to eliminate AIDS cases without HIV.

AIDS is distinguished from virtually every other disease in history by the fact that it has no constant specific symptoms. AIDS is an umbrella term for 29 old diseases and one non-disease (a T4 cell count of less than 200/ul of blood) when a person has an HIV-positive antibody test result. The official CDC definition of AIDS excludes HIV-negative AIDS by definition.

How the CDC's AIDS definition works:

o        Kaposi's Sarcoma + HIV = AIDS

o        Kaposi's Sarcoma - HIV = Kaposi's Sarcoma

o        Pneumonia + HIV = AIDS

o        Pneumonia - HIV = Pneumonia

o        Dementia + HIV = AIDS

o        Dementia - HIV = Dementia

and so on...

o        <200 T4 cell count + HIV = AIDS

o        <200 T4 cell count - HIV = no disease

There is no disease that is only caused by HIV. HIV is said to cause 29 old diseases when it is present. When it is not, the original causes of these diseases are responsible for them.

The official definition of AIDS creates a 100% correlation between the virus and AIDS. This "correlation" is not objective or scientific, but is artificial and deceptively self-fulfilling.

Estimated total HIV infected worldwide: 28,000,000 ?
Total of reported AIDS cases worldwide: 1,400,000

95% percent of people with HIV do not have AIDS.







·         Dr. Kary Mullis, Biochemist, 1993 Nobel Prize for Chemistry:

"If there is evidence that HIV causes AIDS, there should be scientific documents which either singly or collectively demonstrate that fact, at least with a high probability. There is no such document." (Sunday Times (London) 28 nov. 1993)

·         Dr. Heinz Ludwig Sänger, Emeritus Professor of Molecular Biology and Virology, Max-Planck-Institutes for Biochemy, München. Robert Koch Award 1978:

"Up to today there is actually no single scientifically really convincing evidence for the existence of HIV. Not even once such a retrovirus has been isolated and purified by the methods of classical virology." (Letter to Süddeutsche Zeitung 2000)

·         Dr. Serge Lang, Professor of Mathematics, Yale University:

"I do not regard the causal relationship between HIV and any disease as settled. I have seen considerable evidence that highly improper statistics concerning HIV and AIDS have been passed off as science, and that top members of the scientific establishment have carelessly, if not irresponsible, joined the media in spreading misinformation about the nature of AIDS." (Yale Scientific, Fall 1994)

·         Dr. Harry Rubin, Professor of Molecular and Cell Biology, University of California at Berkeley:

"It is not proven that AIDS is caused by HIV infection, nor is it proven that it plays no role whatever in the syndrome." (Sunday Times (London) 3 April 1994)

·         Dr. Richard Strohman, Emeritus Professor of Cell Biology at the University of California at Berkeley:

"In the old days it was required that a scientist address the possibilities of proving his hypothesis wrong as well as right. Now there's none of that in standard HIV-AIDS program with all its billions of dollars." (Penthouse April 1994)

·         Dr. Harvey Bialy, Molecular Biologist, former editor of Bio/Technology and Nature Biotechnology:

"HIV is an ordinary retrovirus. There is nothing about this virus that is unique. Everything that is discovered about HIV has an analogue in other retroviruses that don't cause AIDS. HIV only contains a very small piece of genetic information. There's no way it can do all these elaborate things they say it does." (Spin June 1992)

·         Dr. Roger Cunningham, Immunologist, Microbiologist and Director of the Centre for Immunology at the State University of New York at Buffalo:

"Unfortunately, an AIDS 'establishment' seems to have formed that intends to discourage challenges to the dogma on one side and often insists on following discredited ideas on the other." (Sunday Times (London) 3 April 1994)

·         Dr. Gordon Stewart, Emeritus Professor of Public Health, University of Glasgow:

"AIDS is a behavioural disease. It is multifactorial, brought on by several simultaneous strains on the immune system - drugs, pharmaceutical and recreational, sexually transmitted diseases, multiple viral infections." (Spin June 1992)

·         Dr. Alfred Hässig, (1921-1999), former Professor of Immunology at the University of Bern, and former director Swiss Red Cross blood banks:

"The sentence of death accompanying the medical diagnosis of AIDS should be abolished." (Sunday Times (London) 3 April 1994)

·         Dr. Charles Thomas, former Professor of Biochemistry, Harvard and John Hopkins Universities:

"The HIV-causes-AIDS dogma represents the grandest and perhaps the most morally destructive fraud that has ever been perpetrated on young men and women of the Western world." (Sunday Times (London) 3 April 1994)

·         Dr. Joseph Sonnabend, New York Physician, founder of the American Foundation for AIDS Research (AmFAR):

"The marketing of HIV, through press releases and statements, as a killer virus causing AIDS without the need for any other factors, has so distorted research and treatment that it may have caused thousands of people to suffer and die." (Sunday times (London) 17 May 1992)

·         Dr. Andrew Herxheimer, Emeritus Professor of Pharmacology, UK Cochrane Centre, Oxford:

"I think zidovudine [AZT] was never really evaluated properly and that its efficacy has never been proved, but it's toxicity certainly is important. And I think it has killed a lot of people. Especially at the high doses. I personally think it not worth using alone or in combination at all." (Continuum Oct. 2000)

·         Dr. Etienne de Harven, Emeritus Professor of Pathology, at the University of Toronto:

"Dominated by the media, by special pressure groups and by the interests of several pharmaceutical companies, the AIDS establishment efforts to control the disease lost contact with open-minded, peer-reviewed medical science since the unproven HIV/AIDS hypothesis received 100% of the research funds while all other hypotheses were ignored." (Reappraising AIDS Nov./Dec. 1998)

·         Dr. Bernard Forscher, former editor of the U.S. Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences:

"The HIV hypothesis ranks with the 'bad air' theory for malaria and the 'bacterial infection' theory of beriberi and pellagra [caused by nutritional deficiencies]. It is a hoax that became a scam." (Sunday Times (London) 3 April 1994)





Factors Known to Cause False Positive HIV Antibody Test Results

By Christine Johnson

Continuum Sept./Oct. 1996


The AIDS establishment has managed to convince many people that the HIV antibody tests (ELISA, IFA and Western blot) are "99.5% accurate". In this article Christine Johnson from HEAL Los Angeles, lists conditions documented in the scientific literature known to cause positives on these tests, and gives her references.

It is expected that this list will generate much discussion and dissension. For the time being, a few clarifications should be made at the outset.

Just because something is on the list doesn't mean that it will definitely, or even probably, cause a false-positive. It depends on what antibodies the individual carries; as well as the characteristics of each particular test kit.

For instance, some, but not all, people who have had blood transfusions, prior pregnancies or an organ transplant will make HLA antibodies. And some, but not all, test kits (both ELISA and Western blot) will be contaminated with HLA antigens to which these antibodies can react. Only if these two conditions coincide might you get a false-positive due to HLA cross-reactivity.

Some things are more likely than others to cause false-positives. And some things that we aren't aware of yet, but which may be documented in the future, may cause false-positives. Some of the factors on the list have been documented only for ELISA, some for both ELISA and Western blot (WB).

Some people may be eager to argue that if a factor is only known to cause false-positives on ELISA, this problem won't be carried over to the WB, so everything should be OK. But remember, a WB is positive by virtue of accumulating enough individual positive bands to add up to the total required by whatever criteria you use to interpret it (39) So the more exposures a person has had to foreign antigens, proteins and infectious agents, the more various antibodies he or she will have in their system, and the more likely it is that there will be several cross-reacting antibodies, enough to make the WB positive.

It is to be noted that all AIDS risk groups (and Africans as well), but not the general US or Western European population, have this problem in common: they have been exposed to a plethora of foreign antigens and proteins. This is why people in the AIDS "risk groups" tend to have positive WBs (i.e., to be considered "HIV-infected") and people in the general population don't. However, even people in the low-risk populations may have false-positive Western blots for poorly understood reasons.(47)

Since false-positives to every single HIV protein have been documented (36), how do you know the positive WB bands represent the various proteins to HIV, or just a collection of false-positive bands reacting to several different non-HIV antibodies?

50 Factors Known to Cause False-Positive HIV Antibody Test Results

·         Anti-carbohydrate antibodies (52, 19, 13)

·         Naturally-occurring antibodies (5, 19)

·         Passive immunization: receipt of gamma globulin or immune globulin (as prophylaxis against infection which contains antibodies)(18, 26, 60, 4, 22, 42, 43, 13)

·         Leprosy (2, 25)

·         Tuberculosis (25)

·         Mycobacterium avium (25)

·         Systemic lupus erythematosus (15, 23)

·         Renal (kidney) failure (48, 23, 13)

·         Hemodialysis/renal failure (56, 16, 41, 10, 49)

·         Alpha interferon therapy in hemodialysis patients (54)

·         Flu (36)

·         Flu vaccination (30, 11, 3, 20, 13, 43)

·         Herpes simplex I (27)

·         Herpes simplex II (11)

·         Upper respiratory tract infection (cold or flu)(11)

·         Recent viral infection or exposure to viral vaccines (11)

·         Pregnancy in multiparous women (58, 53, 13, 43, 36)

·         Malaria (6, 12)

·         High levels of circulating immune complexes (6, 33)

·         Hypergammaglobulinemia (high levels of antibodies) (40, 33)

·         False positives on other tests, including RPR (rapid plasma reagent) test for syphilis (17, 48, 33, 10, 49)

·         Rheumatoid arthritis (36)

·         Hepatitis B vaccination (28, 21, 40, 43)

·         Tetanus vaccination (40)

·         Organ transplantation (1, 36)

·         Renal transplantation (35, 9, 48, 13, 56)

·         Anti-lymphocyte antibodies (56, 31)

·         Anti-collagen antibodies (found in gay men, haemophiliacs, Africans of both sexes and people with leprosy)(31)

·         Serum-positive for rheumatoid factor, antinuclear antibody (both found in rheumatoid arthritis and other autoantibodies)(14, 62, 53)

·         Autoimmune diseases (44, 29, 10, 40, 49, 43): Systemic lupus erythematosus, scleroderma, connective tissue disease, dermatomyositis

·         Acute viral infections, DNA viral infections (59, 48, 43, 53, 40, 13)

·         Malignant neoplasms (cancers)(40)

·         Alcoholic hepatitis/alcoholic liver disease (32, 48, 40,10,13, 49, 43, 53)

·         Primary sclerosing cholangitis (48, 53)

·         Hepatitis (54)

·         "Sticky" blood (in Africans) (38, 34, 40)

·         Antibodies with a high affinity for polystyrene (used in the test kits)(62, 40, 3)

·         Blood transfusions, multiple blood transfusions (63, 36,13, 49, 43, 41)

·         Multiple myeloma (10, 43, 53)

·         HLA antibodies (to Class I and II leukocyte antigens)(7, 46, 63, 48, 10, 13, 49, 43, 53)

·         Anti-smooth muscle antibody (48)

·         Anti-parietal cell antibody (48)

·         Anti-hepatitis A IgM (antibody)(48)

·         Anti-Hbc IgM (48)

·         Administration of human immunoglobulin preparations pooled before 1985 (10)

·         Haemophilia (10, 49)

·         Haematologic malignant disorders/lymphoma (43, 53, 9, 48, 13)

·         Primary biliary cirrhosis (43, 53, 13, 48)

·         Stevens-Johnson syndrome9, (48, 13)

·         Q-fever with associated hepatitis (61)




The view of The Perth Group is that the HIV/AIDS experts have not proven:



The existence of a unique, exogenously acquired retrovirus, HIV.


The "HIV" antibody tests are specific for "HIV" infection.


The HIV theory of AIDS, that is, that HIV causes acquired immune deficiency (destruction of T4 lymphocytes=AID) or that AID leads to the development of the clinical syndrome AIDS.


The "HIV genome", (RNA or DNA) originates in a unique, exogenously acquired infectious retroviral particle.


HIV/AIDS is infectious, either by blood, blood products or sexual intercourse.


Mother to child transmission of a retrovirus HIV or its inhibition with AZT or nevirapine.

The Perth Group has argued:


The impossibility of haemophiliacs acquiring HIV following factor VIII infusions.


That AIDS and all the phenomena inferred as "HIV" are induced by changes in cellular redox brought about by the oxidative nature of substances and exposures common to all the AIDS risk groups and to the cells used in the "culture" and "isolation" of "HIV".


That AIDS will not spread outside the original risk groups.


That the cessation of exposure to oxidants and/or use of anti-oxidants will improve the outcome of AIDS patients.


That the pharmacological data prove AZT cannot kill "HIV" and AZT is toxic to all cells and may cause some cases of AIDS.




The Risk-AIDS Hypothesis
Talk on risk- AIDS hypothesis
By John Lauritsen

Alternative AIDS Symposium, Buenos Aires, 8 April 1995


For a decade and a half we have been subjected to AIDS propaganda. We have been indoctrinated into ever-changing and ever-more-elaborate AIDS mythologies. Over 100,000 papers have been written on "AIDS." The jargon, the technobabble must run to hundreds of words by now. It all seems hopelessly complicated -far beyond the comprehension of a mere layman, a non-specialist.


And yet, at bottom, "AIDS" is really rather simple. My goal in this talk is to cut through the trappings and mystifications of "AIDS," to lay bare and articulate its fundamental assumptions and contradictions. I want to bring us back to the Reality Principle: to see things as they really are.


My entire message can be expressed in three brief points:


1. There is no such thing as "AIDS."

2. HIV is not harmful.

3. People with "AIDS" diagnoses became sick in the ways that they did because of health risks in their lives - especially drugs.


1. There is no such thing as "AIDS."

The so-called Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome or "AIDS" is not a coherent, single disease entity. It has neither symptoms nor diagnostic criteria of its own. Other diseases, such as mumps, measles, polio, chicken pox, rabies, gonorrhea, malaria, salmonella, the common cold, or bubonic plague, can readily be described and diagnosed. Not "AIDS," which is defined entirely in terms of other, old diseases, in conjunction with dubious test results and even more dubious assumptions. Although people are undeniably sick, "AIDS" itself does not really exist; it is a phoney construct.


The AIDS surveillance definition of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has changed several times, and it contains its own contradiction. Nevertheless, the core definition of "AIDS" can be expressed by the following formula (for which I am indebted to Peter Duesberg):




In conjunction with HIV, an "AIDS-indicator disease" becomes "AIDS." In the absence of HIV, the "AIDS-indicator disease" is called by its old name.




Let's try a couple of examples:










At last count there are 29 "AIDS-indicator diseases," not one of which is new. All of them have causes other than HIV.


1. Bacterial infections, multiple or recurrent (applies only to children)

2. Candidiasis of bronchi, trachea, or lungs

3. Candidiasis of esophagus (either a "definitive diagnosis" or a "presumptive diagnosis")

4. Coccidioidomycosis, disseminated or extrapulmonary

5. Cryptococcosis, extrapulmonary

6. Cryptococcosis, chronic intestinal

7. Cytomegalovirus disease other than retinitis

8. Cytomegalovirus retinitis (either a "definitive diagnosis" or a "presumptive diagnosis")

9. HIV encephalopathy (dementia)

10. Herpes simplex, with esophagitis, pneumonia, or chronic mucocutaneous ulcers

11. Histoplasmosis, disseminated or extrapulmonary

12. Isosporiasis, chronic intestinal

13. Kaposi's sarcoma (either a "definitive diagnosis" or a "presumptive diagnosis")

14. Lymphoid interstitial pneumonia and/or pulmonary lymphoid hyperplasia (either a "definitive diagnosis" or a "presumptive diagnosis")

15. Lymphoma, Burkitt's (or equivalent term)

16. Lymphoma, immunoblastic (or equivalent term)

17. Lymphoma, primary in brain

18. Mycobacterium avium or M. kansasii, disseminated or extrapulmonary (either a "definitive diagnosis" or a "presumptive diagnosis")

19. M. tuberculosis, disseminated or extrapulmonary (either a "definitive diagnosis" or a "presumptive diagnosis")

20. Mycobacterial diseases, other disseminated or extrapulmonary (either a "definitive diagnosis" or a "presumptive diagnosis")

21. Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia (either a "definitive diagnosis" or a "presumptive diagnosis")

22. Progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy

23. Salmonella septicemia, recurrent

24. Toxoplasmosis of brain (either a "definitive diagnosis" or a "presumptive diagnosis")

25. HIV wasting syndrome

On 8 December 1992 a letter was mailed by the CDC to State Health Officers, informing them: "On January 1, 1993, an expanded surveillance definition for AIDS will be effective." The following AIDS-indicator conditions were added to the list:

26. A CD4+ T-lymphocyte count <200 cells/microliter (or a CD4+ percent <14)

27. Pulmonary tuberculosis

28. Recurrent pneumonia (within a 12-month period)

29. Invasive cervical cancer


The AIDS-indicator diseases are extremely heterogeneous.

Many of the diseases are caused by funguses, for example, candidiasis, coccidioidomycosis, cryptto-coccosis, histoplasmosis, and pneumocystis carinii. Others are caused by bacteria, like salmonella. Others, by mycobacteria, like tuberculosis. Still others, by viruses, like cytomegalovirus or herpes. And still others, like the various cancers and neoplasms, including lymphoma and Kaposi's sarcoma, have no established etiology. And still others, like dementia or wasting, are poorly defined and can have many different causes.


Both components of the AIDS-defining formula are absurd.


The AIDS-indicator disease part is absurd because the diseases have nothing in common. Although the central idea of "AIDS" is immune deficiency, some of the AIDS-indicator diseases-like the cancers, wasting, and dementia-have nothing whatever to do with immune deficiency.


The HIV part of the formula is also absurd, because it is almost always based on invalidated and unreliable antibody tests; because it is sometimes based on "presumptive" diagnoses (in other words, on guesses); and above all, because HIV is not pathogenic.


Since the very definition of "AIDS" is absurd, it necessarily follows: "There is no such thing as 'AIDS.'"


2. HIV is not harmful.


Molecular biologist Peter Duesberg has argued that it is not in the nature of retroviruses to cause serious illness, and HIV is a completely typical retrovirus.


HIV's consistent lack of biochemical activity is a salient reason for rejecting the HIV-AIDS hypothesis. There are different ways of evaluating the activity of a microbe, just as there are different ways of evaluating the activity of a human being (such things as motion, heartbeat, breathing, body temperature, etc.). Right now I'm giving a talk. If I were running the 100 meter race, I would be much more active; if I were asleep, I would be much less active; and so on. HIV is consistently inactive, even in patients who are dying from so-called "AIDS." It therefore cannot cause disease, any more than a human being could rob a bank at the same time he was lying in a coma.


Unrelated, but also see Moving-World DECEPTION!!  created by Bernie: of the family: Brauer  - HERE