This is fantastic, thank you so much. I am very interested in more articles like this one. And I find the hypothesis quite plausible. I have read bits and pieces in other places during my research.
Great article, I had never even HEARD of this before. Regarding the conclusion- I do not think it is fair to ascribe the motives of the involved researchers to "scientific hubris". We must remember that they were trying to cure Polio, a terrifyingly infectious virus. We are thankfully now well removed by time from the iron lungs and leg braces that so many children were consigned to, and it's easy to forget that there were quarantines, there were summers of death, and parents stood in line for hours for the CHANCE to vaccinate their child during the field trial stage. Perhaps the vaccine researchers weren't as careful as they should have been, but their motives were beyond reproach.
for the HIV infections in Congo a plausible explanation. But for AIDS in the US there was an experimental vaccine made of chimpanzee plasma tested in gay men from 1978-1980. https://zenodo.org/records/13249978
The theories of Duesberg about there not really being an HIV/AIDS link (from the mid 90s) are also quite interesting, especially in light of what we all learned about the public health community during COVID. When I fact checked his claims years ago, multiple problems he raised for the link were still problems today. For example a viral cause would yield equal numbers of men and women getting AIDS, and the original bias towards gay men was predicted to disappear as the virus spread. Yet there is still a strong bias towards men .... but only in the west, not in Africa, where the numbers are equal. This outcome isn't plausible for a virus, but is highly plausible given Duesberg's alternative theories (that cases in Africa are mostly fraud intended to tap into western financial aid tied to AIDS diagnoses and western cases are mostly mis-classifications of other problems that don't have a viral origin, driven by ideological biases in public health workers).
So perhaps it's a double fail: HIV (a not particularly harmful virus) jumped across to humans due to public health gone wrong, and its effects were then falsely linked to AIDS (a genuine condition with other causes) by the public health community again.
AIDS can be prevented indefinitely by chronic treatment with antiviral drugs specifically designed to suppress HIV replication to undetectable levels (titers). White cell counts also recover just using antivirals and doing nothing else.
AIDS is always associated with high HIV titers. AIDS does not occur in the absence of high viral titers. Duesberg is wrong.
Duesberg, if you read him, is not so easily dismissed even though he was writing 30 years ago.
One of the things he pointed out and that I was able to fact check as true is that early on men like Fauci made the definition of AIDS a circular one. Being diagnosed with AIDS required you to have high HIV levels. If you had symptoms identical to AIDS but without HIV, you got classified as having a different disease with a very obscure name that you never hear about and I thus keep forgetting. What I don't forget is that Duesberg specifically said the name was chosen to have this effect.
This is obviously a mis-use of logic. A disease is meant to be a collection of symptoms. Then you hypothesize about the cause. If you define the disease to require a specific cause, then it's circular reasoning and you become unable to consider any other hypothesis even if it's wrong.
Anyone who still holds to Duesberg must explain Prep, HAART, and the rapid decrease in AIDs cases in the west after their introduction despite an increase in his alleged causes — amyl nitrate use, rampant sex, etc.
The word game above is really irrelevant. If AIDs is precisely just untreated, late stage HIV-infection then the definition isn’t circular all. They are the same thing.
Now, the evidence is strong. We’ve conquered AIDs in the west with anti-retrovirals. We have imaged and studied the hell out of the drug. We even use drugs for prevention.
It’s just patently ridiculous and honestly distracts from the article in how bonkers it is.
He talks about all of that in the book. The definitional issues aren't a word game. If you make mistakes there, you can become 100% convinced of things that aren't true. This happened during COVID where they started claiming PCR tests had a 0% false positive rate, because they had defined COVID to mean the presence of a positive PCR test. In reality PCR tests do have false positives, but misusing logic the way they did simply defined them away. Similar logic errors made the vaccines seem more effective than they really were and other such issues.
Fundamentally, talk of evidence when it comes to public health is kinda meaningless because we know the public health community will happily lie and do so as a group. You say "we've" done all these things but no, "we" didn't. People like Fauci did. And people like Fauci turned out to be pathological liars - exactly the same accusation Duesberg made 30 years ago. The fact that we could catch Fauci and his friends pulling the same stunts makes everything Duesberg said a whole lot more plausible.
A viral cause would most definitely not be expected to yield equal numbers of men and women getting AIDS. AIDS is hard to get, it is not transmitted by casual contact. Homosexual sodomy is very effective at transmitting the virus. Why is sodomy more effective at transmitting the virus than intercourse? The vagina is designed (by natural selection) for insertion of a penis. The rectum is not. It is filled with blood vessels and it is easier for semen to come in contact with blood in the rectum.
Why does homosexual sodomy more effectively transmit the virus than heterosexual sodomy? Because only in homosexual activities can a person be in both roles, inserter and recipient. A woman can become infected with HIV, but, once infected, she cannot inject her semen into the rectum of an uninfected person. Only male homosexuals, who also tend to be promiscuous, (and not use condoms, because they do not risk pregnancy), do so.
It is an interesting observation, though, that in Africa there are equal numbers. The theory I have heard is that in Africa, where the economic standard of living is much lower, hypodermic needles are in short supply, thus they are more likely to be reused in medical settings, and often not sterilized.
Thanks for the terrific article, me and my dad co-wrote the first peer-reviewed paper arguing that this pandemic started in a lab, using a method called "serial passage" which is what also would've been used to make CHAT-OPV since it's how you make live-attenuated vaccines.
And then in April 2021 I wrote the article below, which lays out in great detail why as the end of your article alludes to: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic started when again a LAV reverted faster-than-expected:
i am surprised you do not discuss the possibility of dna contamination of current mrna based vaccines. another similar conflict in explaining the dangers of modern technology ?
Your Claim 1 is incorrect. Actual frozen samples of the specific CHAT Vaccine is question were tested. They did not find chimpanzee cells or HIV or even SIV.
I had always heard it was contracted by unhygienic practices as it pertained to burial rites. It was always said that because African's didn't use gloves, gowns, etc, and didn't wash correctly after the burial rites, they picked up aids. From there, it spread by sexual contact.
But that never explained how it hit the states and settled in the gay population in Los Angeles.
It also never explained how it remained in just that population, until it was spread by contaminated blood.
Iirc, the missing link is a very promiscous gay man, Gaëtan Dugas: fluid is a bad vessel for a virus, unless the host does cruise too much in the Roaring Seventies.
This is fantastic, thank you so much. I am very interested in more articles like this one. And I find the hypothesis quite plausible. I have read bits and pieces in other places during my research.
Great article, I had never even HEARD of this before. Regarding the conclusion- I do not think it is fair to ascribe the motives of the involved researchers to "scientific hubris". We must remember that they were trying to cure Polio, a terrifyingly infectious virus. We are thankfully now well removed by time from the iron lungs and leg braces that so many children were consigned to, and it's easy to forget that there were quarantines, there were summers of death, and parents stood in line for hours for the CHANCE to vaccinate their child during the field trial stage. Perhaps the vaccine researchers weren't as careful as they should have been, but their motives were beyond reproach.
for the HIV infections in Congo a plausible explanation. But for AIDS in the US there was an experimental vaccine made of chimpanzee plasma tested in gay men from 1978-1980. https://zenodo.org/records/13249978
The theories of Duesberg about there not really being an HIV/AIDS link (from the mid 90s) are also quite interesting, especially in light of what we all learned about the public health community during COVID. When I fact checked his claims years ago, multiple problems he raised for the link were still problems today. For example a viral cause would yield equal numbers of men and women getting AIDS, and the original bias towards gay men was predicted to disappear as the virus spread. Yet there is still a strong bias towards men .... but only in the west, not in Africa, where the numbers are equal. This outcome isn't plausible for a virus, but is highly plausible given Duesberg's alternative theories (that cases in Africa are mostly fraud intended to tap into western financial aid tied to AIDS diagnoses and western cases are mostly mis-classifications of other problems that don't have a viral origin, driven by ideological biases in public health workers).
So perhaps it's a double fail: HIV (a not particularly harmful virus) jumped across to humans due to public health gone wrong, and its effects were then falsely linked to AIDS (a genuine condition with other causes) by the public health community again.
AIDS can be prevented indefinitely by chronic treatment with antiviral drugs specifically designed to suppress HIV replication to undetectable levels (titers). White cell counts also recover just using antivirals and doing nothing else.
AIDS is always associated with high HIV titers. AIDS does not occur in the absence of high viral titers. Duesberg is wrong.
Duesberg, if you read him, is not so easily dismissed even though he was writing 30 years ago.
One of the things he pointed out and that I was able to fact check as true is that early on men like Fauci made the definition of AIDS a circular one. Being diagnosed with AIDS required you to have high HIV levels. If you had symptoms identical to AIDS but without HIV, you got classified as having a different disease with a very obscure name that you never hear about and I thus keep forgetting. What I don't forget is that Duesberg specifically said the name was chosen to have this effect.
This is obviously a mis-use of logic. A disease is meant to be a collection of symptoms. Then you hypothesize about the cause. If you define the disease to require a specific cause, then it's circular reasoning and you become unable to consider any other hypothesis even if it's wrong.
Anyone who still holds to Duesberg must explain Prep, HAART, and the rapid decrease in AIDs cases in the west after their introduction despite an increase in his alleged causes — amyl nitrate use, rampant sex, etc.
The word game above is really irrelevant. If AIDs is precisely just untreated, late stage HIV-infection then the definition isn’t circular all. They are the same thing.
Now, the evidence is strong. We’ve conquered AIDs in the west with anti-retrovirals. We have imaged and studied the hell out of the drug. We even use drugs for prevention.
It’s just patently ridiculous and honestly distracts from the article in how bonkers it is.
He talks about all of that in the book. The definitional issues aren't a word game. If you make mistakes there, you can become 100% convinced of things that aren't true. This happened during COVID where they started claiming PCR tests had a 0% false positive rate, because they had defined COVID to mean the presence of a positive PCR test. In reality PCR tests do have false positives, but misusing logic the way they did simply defined them away. Similar logic errors made the vaccines seem more effective than they really were and other such issues.
Fundamentally, talk of evidence when it comes to public health is kinda meaningless because we know the public health community will happily lie and do so as a group. You say "we've" done all these things but no, "we" didn't. People like Fauci did. And people like Fauci turned out to be pathological liars - exactly the same accusation Duesberg made 30 years ago. The fact that we could catch Fauci and his friends pulling the same stunts makes everything Duesberg said a whole lot more plausible.
This is garbage. Cancelling subscription.
You call it garbage, but yet you were unable to supply even one sentence you think is garbage.
Cry
A viral cause would most definitely not be expected to yield equal numbers of men and women getting AIDS. AIDS is hard to get, it is not transmitted by casual contact. Homosexual sodomy is very effective at transmitting the virus. Why is sodomy more effective at transmitting the virus than intercourse? The vagina is designed (by natural selection) for insertion of a penis. The rectum is not. It is filled with blood vessels and it is easier for semen to come in contact with blood in the rectum.
Why does homosexual sodomy more effectively transmit the virus than heterosexual sodomy? Because only in homosexual activities can a person be in both roles, inserter and recipient. A woman can become infected with HIV, but, once infected, she cannot inject her semen into the rectum of an uninfected person. Only male homosexuals, who also tend to be promiscuous, (and not use condoms, because they do not risk pregnancy), do so.
It is an interesting observation, though, that in Africa there are equal numbers. The theory I have heard is that in Africa, where the economic standard of living is much lower, hypodermic needles are in short supply, thus they are more likely to be reused in medical settings, and often not sterilized.
Thanks for the terrific article, me and my dad co-wrote the first peer-reviewed paper arguing that this pandemic started in a lab, using a method called "serial passage" which is what also would've been used to make CHAT-OPV since it's how you make live-attenuated vaccines.
And then in April 2021 I wrote the article below, which lays out in great detail why as the end of your article alludes to: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic started when again a LAV reverted faster-than-expected:
https://www.harvard2thebighouse.com/p/understanding-covid-19-and-seasonal
i am surprised you do not discuss the possibility of dna contamination of current mrna based vaccines. another similar conflict in explaining the dangers of modern technology ?
Your Claim 1 is incorrect. Actual frozen samples of the specific CHAT Vaccine is question were tested. They did not find chimpanzee cells or HIV or even SIV.
Thank you for writing this—it was well worth it!
Can I subscribe to your articles somehow? And is there a way to be notified when you publish your book?
I had always heard it was contracted by unhygienic practices as it pertained to burial rites. It was always said that because African's didn't use gloves, gowns, etc, and didn't wash correctly after the burial rites, they picked up aids. From there, it spread by sexual contact.
But that never explained how it hit the states and settled in the gay population in Los Angeles.
It also never explained how it remained in just that population, until it was spread by contaminated blood.
Iirc, the missing link is a very promiscous gay man, Gaëtan Dugas: fluid is a bad vessel for a virus, unless the host does cruise too much in the Roaring Seventies.