Is HIV Truly the Cause of AIDS?

In a thought provoking article by City On A Hill Press there has been an interview with world reknown scientist known for isolating the first cancer gene in 1970 – his name – Peter Duesberg.

Dr. Duesberg goes into some detail as to why the two are not necessarily linked and the mistakes the current medical practise is making. But as he mentions and I would like to highlight there is US$22.8 Billion (US$2.6 billion for research) from America alone slated for ongoing AIDS activities this year – that is a lot of money to give up if you suddenly start to go against current dogma.

In fact Dr. Duesberg had his funding cut for even raising the issues…

Dr. Duesberg is not some fly by night nutter in fact he won the award for 1971 California Scientist of the year, as a biologist he gained tenure at Berkeley, among other awards, he was the recipient of the seven-year National Institute of Health Outstanding Scientific Investigator grant. All on top of his earlly ground breaking cancer research.

Duesberg proposed the hypothesis that recreational drugs, antiviral chemotherapy, and malnutrition are the cause of AIDS. In his proposal he says that AIDS is not infectious, it is highly non-random, and that HIV cannot be found in AIDS patients.

In defense of his argument, he points to the fact that there was no reported case of a doctor or health care worker contracting AIDS, rather than just HIV, from 1981 to 2004.

The fact that AIDS is highly non-random in the U.S. and Europe, unlike every other viral epidemic, suggests that a virus does not cause it.

The article then goes into details on the correlation between HIV and AIDS and the normal viral infestion sequences and causes.

The best one of his best known opponents, Dr. Mary Zavanelli who teaches the UCSC course “Biology of AIDS”, can come up with is:

“The direct correlation of how fast someone gets ill to the amount of HIV is one good piece of evidence in favor of the HIV hypothesis,” Zavanelli said.

Yes but people in car accidents are covered in cuts and scratches – it does not mean that cuts and scratches caused the car accident – her rebuttal is ridiculous.

Anyway you can read the entire article here