Customer Reviews

Inventing the AIDS Virus

5 star:		(71)
4 star:		(6)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(26)

 

 

First: Don't be put off by the shrill reactions of other "reviewers" here who don't show any evidence that they have actually read the book. It is not clear to me what could be proven by Duesberg or anyone else injecting themselves with the virus, other than they believe that what they say is true. I don't suppose anyone in the scientific community has sacrificed more to maintain his challenge than has Duesberg. Even a cursory comparison of his career history before and after he became a "heretic" will demonstrate this. I don't think injecting himself with HIV would enhance the already clear and overwhelming evidence of his integrity. (Incidentally, while comparing credentials, check out Robert Gallo's. He started all this, after all. He holds the patent on the stuff their testing our blood with. Evaluate HIS integrity.)

Second: Don't be scared by the size of the book. It is well written, accessible, and engaging. The science is patiently explained for the general reader without being patronizing or condescending. This is coming from someone who has a paralyzing fear of scientific writing. I read the first hundred pages the day I got it. Plus, the last 300 pages are appendices which ought, in any case, to add credibility to the argument, since they present the actual evidence upon which the argument is based.

Third: Keep an open mind. Duesberg is no quack. He is a member of the elite National Academy of Sciences, and before he became a heretic, was on the Nobel prize fast-track for his discovery of the first cancer gene. Moreover, long before AIDS appeared, Duesberg was an eminently respected retro-virologist. Since the reputed source of "AIDS" is supposed to be precisely one of these strange and rare critters (actually not a critter, since viruses are not living things), who better than someone who has devoted his career to studying them to explain what they do, and what they cannot do? Maybe he's obsessed; maybe that doesn't really matter. This book makes a case that should be answered, not vilified by his peers (if they can; I've searched and searched and found nothing more enlightening by way of counter-argument than the reviewer who immediately precedes me here).

Fourth: This book is especially important if you are a person who has tested positive with HIV. The story told here will answer many of your questions, and may lead to some degree of independence. If Duesberg is right (and I think, at least as far as HIV is concerned, he is), then this is very GOOD news for thousands of people who have been infected with what would appear to be a very old and not terribly interesting passenger virus. This is especially true for HIV positive people who have never been sick (except from side effects of the toxic medicines that are currently the protocol of choice among mainstream physicians).

Finally: No great scientific innovation in history has resulted from those who were at the mainstream. From Aristotle to Copernicus, Galileo, Darwin, Einstein, and forward: all were rejected by their peers, vilified, called quacks and condemned as heretics. Admittedly, that doesn't prove anything about the current debate, but it ought to give one pause before raising the argument that usually goes: "How could so many eminent scientists be wrong?" How indeed. This book probably sheds more light on that mystery than it does on AIDS itself.

I gave the book 4 instead of 5 stars because I don't think everything argued here is of equal value. Duesberg's alternative theory what DOES cause AIDS is not as well proven as his case as to what does NOT cause AIDS. Which is not to say that he's not right. But interested readers should also look at the work of Dr. Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopolus and her colleagues of the Perth Group in Australia. Search her name on any search engine and you'll get more than enough. These scientists go farther than Duesberg, suggesting that HIV may not even exist.

I respectfully encourage anyone who has come to visit this page to read the first few chapters of this book, starting with the forward by 1993 Nobel Prize winner (chemistry; developer of the polyemerase chain reaction [PCR] protocol, currently the "gold standard" in virus hunting) Kary Mullis. See if you can put it down.

I picked up this book shortly after it hit the shelves in 1997. I wasn't on the lookout for anything like this; I just happened to be strolling through a bookstore when I ran across it and skimmed through the foreword by Kary Mullis. I devoured the book in a few days. The conclusions--that AIDS is not infectious, that HIV is harmless, and that AIDS drugs do more harm than good--were certainly shocking, but not all that shocking to anyone with even a cursory knowledge of science, in particular medical science. Mistakes get made all the time in medicine. But could a mistake of this scale have been made and then perpetuated by thousands of well-meaning scientists? That's really the question one must answer when considering this book, and one that I set out to answer myself.

It's interesting that many of the negative reviews below argue that anyone who spends time hunting down Duesberg's references will see through his charade. It's interesting because when I first encountered this book, I was in graduate school pursuing my philosophy PhD, and upon reading the book, I did exactly what these reviewers suggest everyone should do (it's what any good graduate student does): I buried myself in the stacks at the basement of the UCSD medical school library. For three weeks. And I read. And read. And I found something quite interesting: With a few minor exceptions for misinterpreted evidence, Duesberg was right. The caliber of logic used to establish HIV's connection to AIDS was abysmal. I read countless papers in internationally-respected journals that, had they been submitted to me by one of my undergraduate philosophy students, would have been returned bathed in red ink. The reasoning really was that sloppy. With potentially millions of lives at stake, logic and skepticism had been thrown out the window.

But it wasn't the numerous journal articles I soaked in that ultimately convinced me that Duesberg was correct. Rather, it was an old PDR (Physician's Desk Reference--the drug bible for doctors) that I had on my shelf. I looked up the listing for Retrovir, also known as AZT, the antiretroviral drug implicated by Duesberg as a major cause of the health problems associated with AIDS. Right there in my PDR was the warning, from the drug's manufacturer, that the effects of AZT are "indistinguishable" from the symptoms of AIDS. "Indistinguishable". If you have an old PDR, go look it up. This admission was of monumental importance, because it was the drug's own maker confirming what Duesberg has been vilified for arguing in his book: AZT causes the symptoms of AIDS.

My only beef with Inventing the Aids Virus is that Duesberg obviously has such a huge chip on his shoulder, but upon reading that listing in the PDR, I wrote him a note. In response, he called me at home to chat, and was remarkably self-effacing, articulate, and accommodating. Who knows--maybe the guy is a bulldog in scientific conferences and other settings, but in my extended interaction with him, he couldn't have been nicer, even in the face of some of my challenges to his work.

My subsequent investigations have only confirmed what was first suggested to me by Duesberg's book. And so, it's worth clarifying some points made in some of the 1-star reviews below. First, several reviewers mention the multitude of studies showing the health benefits of AIDS drugs. No such studies exist. If you don't believe me, go find the ads for these drugs in any magazine sold here on Amazon (large-format magazines like Rolling Stone are usually the best). Behind the pages of tanned, muscular, athletic people living life to the fullest, you'll inevitably find admissions similar to this one found in Merck's ad for Crixivan: "It is not yet known whether taking Crixivan will extend your life or reduce your chances of getting other illnesses associated with HIV". I doubt the reviewers here know something the drug companies don't. Sure, lots of studies have been undertaken, but no completed, properly-controlled studies show any health benefits for any drug combinations. Hence Merck's admission that even they don't know if the drugs work.

And although there are many further arguments to add to this discussion, Amazon's review page is not the place to debate the countless flaws in the HIV hypothesis. So, I'll just address one more theme in all those 1-star reviews below, the notion that if Duesberg really believed in the harmlessness of HIV, he'd inject himself with it. First, this response is totally unscientific. With a sample size of one and absolutely no control population, such an experiment would be meaningless, and would prove nothing. Duesberg knows this, as do the reviewers. Second, this suggestion is patently dishonest. If these reviewers really believed that the harmlessness of a suspected agent could be tested by consumption, then to prove their point, they would all agree to go on life-long regimens of AIDS chemotherapy, the documented effects of which include bone marrow depletion, muscle wasting, lymphoma, immune dysfunction, pancreatitis, and other debilitating conditions too numerous to mention. Needless to say, no reviewer here has offered to do this.

So read this book. I'd like to say you'll be glad you did, but you'll probably find your initial reaction is one of anger. And once you've read this, read Christing Maggiore's book. And Robert Root-Bernstein's. And Steven Epstein's. And Elinor Burkitt's. And Duesberg's other books. And when you read about healthy children being taken from their parents and force-fed chemotherapy in the name of the HIV hypothesis, you'll be even more angry--hopefully angry enough to do something about it.

Silence=Death. That's what the Act Up movement has been screaming for years. Then why the effort to silence Duesberg, who is only asking for scientific review of the "evidence" that HIV causes AIDS? It is the effort to silence Duesberg that actually adds to his credibility, the massive effort to keep his thoughts, questions and ideas from the mass of individuals who might start asking their own questions. Aren't we taught to ask questions of our doctors? Aren't we taught that we have to take responsibility for our own well being? Why is it that Duesberg is considered such a threat to the medical establishment? Who benefits by his silence? Who loses if the truth comes out?

From the first chapter: "our leading scientists and policymakers cannot demonstrate that their efforts have saved a single life." Who benefits from testing and "treating" the "high risk" communities who are, more likely, dying from the "treatment" that is *not* saving their lives? "AIDS itself has not yet affected larger numbers of women nor has it entered the heterosexual population outside of drug addicts: nine out of ten AIDS patients is still male, and more than 95 percent still fall into the same risk categories: homosexual (men), heroin addicts, or, in a few cases, hemophiliacs. All other sexually transmitted diseases are equally distributed between the sexes. AIDS has not exploded into the heterosexual population, as do all other sexually transmitted diseases. Yet, the cry rings out for all pregnant women (especially women of color) to be tested, to receive treatment *even if they are not sick*, to transmit AZT to their unborn children, *to save their lives." This, while expectant mothers will be arrested if they take cocaine or drink alcohol, and will be lectured if they take so much as an aspirin. What is wrong with this picture?

David Ho, director of the Aaron Diamond AIDS Research Center of New York, recently gave the key to long-term survival with HIV: "None had received antiretroviral therapy." The chilling news is that instead of preventing AIDS, the drugs help to bring it on. The mortality of AZT recipients is 25 percent higher than that of those in untreated control groups. The drug, originally developed for cancer chemotherapy, efficiently destroys the immune system and causes symptoms largely indistinguishable from "AIDS" itself. Even the AIDS establishment is admitting the problems with AZT today.

The anger pointed at Duesberg is easily understood as he uncovers much of the dirty politics behind the American scientific establishment: something that can only ring very familiar bells as the beginning of the epidemic and the confusion around "who discovered the virus," come to mind, and the press conference that *announced* the cause of the "epidemic" as Secretary of Health and Human Services Margaret Heckler was ushered, quickly and quietly, out of the country. Freedom of speech and scientific inquiry have gone the way of the wind as patients are expected to "trust their doctors" and maintain their drug regimen regardless of the horrendous side effects.

We have lost our power of choice. Duesberg insists that "AIDS," if it exists at all, is not contagious and that it is not spread by sexual contact. In whose benefit is it to control the sexual behavior and the reproductive capacity of others through terror?

Duesberg *has* offered to inject himself with the virus. His stand has cost him a great deal that he could have maintained by marching to the tune of the AIDS establishment. Whistle blowers do not fare well in this society, but they are very important and very necessary.

How quickly we forget the important questions: why is it that the partner of AIDS patient Rock Hudson, the wife and 8 year old daughter of Arthur Ashe, as well as the husband of the late AIDS patient Elizabeth Glasser are HIV and AIDS-free? Why is it that Magic Johnson seems to be doing so well? He won't talk about it, but while Arthur Ashe was on the medical regimen, Magic Johnson dropped it...and seems to be doing just fine.

Duesberg makes a clear and meticulous case for the correlation of recreational drug use with the breakdown of the immune system that leads to the opportunistic infections associated with AIDS. He also is very clear that whatever is going on in Africa is another story entirely, and quite explainable by sloppy science and big money interests. The current debate in Africa (that is not making the news) threatens to expose the racist rationale behind the push of "anti-AIDS" drugs in South Africa. I can only admire a national leader that would question the agenda of the multi-national pharmaceutical corporations.

It's a big book, and too thorough to reproduce in a review. I can only suggest a careful reading.

One more point, though, that will open your eyes as it did mine: Much money is being funneled to community agencies and medical treatment centers in the name of Ryan White, the young Indiana teenager who became a national poster boy for the symbol of heroic battling against AIDS after his school expelled him as a threat to the other students. Although the news media portrayed the death as the tragic end to White's long fight with AIDS, the doctor never publicly confirmed that the death certificate actually attributed the cause of death to AIDS.

"A phone call to the Indiana Hemophilia Foundation to check the details generated a very different story. A foundation representative directly familiar with White's case was asked of what specific AIDS diseases Ryan White had died. Only internal bleeding and hemorrhaging, liver failure, and collapse of other physiological systems were listed. These conditions interestingly happen to match the classical description of hemophilia, none being listed as peculiar to the AIDS condition, but the representative did not seem to know that. It was then acknowledged that White's hemophilia condition was more severe than the average, requiring him to take clotting factor every day near the end (extremely high risk, according to Duesberg, for immune suppression). On top of all that, White had taken AZT, the former toxic cancer chemotherapy now prescribed as AIDS treatment. Hemophiliacs, needless to say, are particularly vulnerable to the internal ulcerations induced by such chemotherapy. Thus, only media hype transformed White's death from a severe case of hemophilia, exacerbated by AZT, into AIDS."

Don't take my word for it. Read this book. I read it twice. And I'm sure I'll read it again.

Most people tend to forget that HIV causation of AIDS is just a theory.. A good theory should have the ability to explain current and historical data and predict future events. Well, is the official HIV theory of AIDS a good one?.

The answer is NO according to Dr. Peter Duesberg. Systemically, he exposed the major flaws within the HIV theory of AIDS. His major arguments were:

1. Infectious diseases are not gender specific and they tend to spread exponentially in unprotected populations. Neither has applied to the AIDS epidemic to date. The incidence of AIDS in the Western world has not increased since it peaked in the late 80's . The disease seemed confined to the original risk groups(male homosexuals, long term drug abusers and some hemophiliacs) and have up to this point, affected mostly males. The explosion of heterosexual AIDS predicted by the HIV theory never materialized.
2. According to Dr. Duesberg , an eminent retrovirologist in his own rite, the class of virus that HIV belongs to has never been shown to cause disease processes in humans. HIV has NEVER been shown in vivo or in vitro to destroy T-cells. Dr. Duesberg claims that HIV is essentially one of the many types passenger viruses that normally exist in humans without any harmful effects and has been with us a long long time.
3. Koch's postulates have been the gold standard for proving causation of a disease by a potential infectious agent. Duesberg tested the evidence behind HIV against these postulates and proved how HIV failed them miserably.

The book can be loosely divided into four parts.
In the early chapters, Duesberg presented the historical background leading up to the so-called discovery of HIV. Duesberg provided evidence that overzealous virologists, after failing miserably to prove a viral link to cancer, were desperately looking for an epidemic to bolster their collective dwindling fortune and reputations. AIDS filled the bill nicely and Gallo was able to pin a virus (at that called the HLTVIII or AIDS virus) to the disease. The section on Gallo was especially illuminating as it questioned the scientific integrity of Gallo, who was the first one to lay claim to the discovery of the virus that caused AIDS.
In the second part, Duesberg gave the definition of AIDS and showed how CDC has tried to manipulate the statistics of AIDS by continually amending the criteria. He also presented his major arguments and supporting evidence against the HIV theory.
The third part dealt with the drugs used to treat AIDS. The only drugs available up to the point of writing of this book were the DNA chain terminators which included AZT, ddI and ddC. Unbeknownst to most people who thought AZT was a new miracle drug at the time of its approval, this drug in fact was a failed chemotherapeutic agent abandoned in the early 60's due to its excessive toxicity. One has to remember that a chemotherapeutic agent is only meant for short term use, while AIDS drugs are supposed to taken for the rest of the patient's life. If AZT was too toxic for short term use, the consequence of long term application should have been plenty obvious. Duesberg documented how AZT was onto the market with predictable disastrous results. In fact, many patients under AZT died of drug toxicity. Many of the casualties of AZT were wrongly diagnosed as having died of AIDS. The extensive Concorde studies dealt a severe blow to AZT by proving that it was useless against the disease. Duesberg went on to argue that AZT might in fact cause AIDS-defining diseases by killing white blood cells in patients.
The last part of the book dealt with other dissenters and their theories. Duesberg documented evidence of suppression of dissenting views by what he called the "AIDS establishment". He himself was in fact a victim of such suppression since he publicized his case against HIV/AIDS theory in the late 80's.
He has been starved of research funding, ostracized in the scientific circle and refused publications on all the renowned mainstream scientific journals. Such scientific neutering has also been experienced by other HIV dissidents. In this part, Duesberg also presented his own theories about the causation of AIDS. He believes that the disease is a complex one and the etiology is probably multifactorial. He theorized that the prevalence of AIDS in the North American homosexual population was most likely due to prolonged and extensive recreational drug abuse. Lastly, he discussed about potential opportunities the whole debate might be brought to the open and how the suppressed truth about AIDS would finally come to light,
Alas, five years have passed and his dream has yet to be realized.

Overall, this was a very well researched book. Despite dealing with a potentially dry subject, Duesberg's flowing prose made this book very readable. I, for one, could not put it down once I started. The book was thoroughly footnoted and referenced and the reader could easily refer to the sources and pursue further study on the various subjects. In fact, I encourage other readers to do so. Science is about unbiased open discourse, not about deliberate evasion and oppression. A legitimate theory is not "afraid" of being tested by dissenting views, because if the theory is valid, new experiments could be designed to refute those challenges. If the challenges prove irrefutable, then either the theory has to be modified or discarded. Suppression of dissenting views usually leads to disastrous results with Lysenko's episode in Soviet scientific history being an excellent case in point. AIDS has often been called the epidemic of the century and literally tens of billions of dollars have been spent fighting it. Are we even close to a cure or a vaccine? Have the treatments thus far been effective? Can the war against AIDS be called a success? The answer is a big no! Why? You will find most of the answers in this well-written book. READ IT!!!

No matter what you might think, believe or have heard, this book is must reading. After reading Micheal Fumento's article in Reason Magazine, I found this book able to fill in the missing pieces of the AIDS puzzle.

The whole thing in a tragedy. I knew a man that tested HIV positive, and reacted by swallowing a .38 slug, thinking that preferable to dying a long hard wasting death. I wish he had read this book. He was at very low risk for AIDS and probably would never have contracted the disease. The AIDS industry drove him to suicide by pronouncing HIV to be a death sentence.

The thing I found the most interesting about the "pro-HIV" side of the debate and the centerpiece of the HIV=AIDS theory is that the so-called evidence is all by definition. The "proven" cases of AIDS are HIV caused merely by the definition of AIDS. AIDS is defined as such and such disease (30 or so at last count) in the presence of HIV. In other words, cancer in an HIV positive patient is AIDS, the same cancer in an HIV negative patient is just plain old cancer.

That is the extent of the "evidence". Thats it, thats all, nothing else.

How about all the HIV negative AIDS patients. NO problem, change the name of the disease to ARC (aids related complex) and your "evidence" is once again solid. Read this book. Read this book. Read this book.

Update*****

I first read and reviewed this book 5 years ago, and have lost track of my copy so I just ordered another. I feel compelled to update this review after reading some of the more recents ones.

The burning question I had was in the face of all the evidence against the HIV=AIDS hypothesis, why are people still assuming HIV causes AIDS? The answer was revealed to me in two subsequent reviews.

The first is from a lady who "reviews" the book without the advantage of ever having read it. The reason the books message is wrong is because the publisher is "right wing". Since the publisher had been so labeled we are to believe that any questions raised are invalid for that reason. Never mond that Dr Duesburg is a professor at Berkely arguably one of the most liberal universities in the country if not the world.

This reviewer does a far better job than I ever could of illustrating the dangers of mixing politics and science.

Back when I was in school - back when schools actually taught academic subjects - we used to ridicule the Soviet Union for their vetting of science with politics. Hitler did the same rejecting "Jewish physics" and driving scientists like Albert Einstein into exile.

The AIDS "debate" is so hopelessly polluted with politics that it is unlikely the truth will ever come out in this country. Science is dead - politically correct thought is the only thought that will be accepted.

The other review was also startling. It was written by a pharmacist who claims to know several heterosexual males infected with HIV and dying of AIDS.

Here is another obvious case of a reviewer with the advantage of not being overly burdened by reading the book they are reviewing. How would this pharmacist know about the HIV infection? Could it be the AZT prescriptions? Lets see now, we are force feeding someone one of the most toxic chemicals known to man. AZT makes dioxin look like orange juice in comparison. Yet is must be the HIV making the person sick. Hey, don't bother me with the evidence I have a government brochure that says it is is HIV killing him and the AZT saving his life so it must be so.

There are a few scattered negative reviews none really worthy of note but they do seem to have the common thread of either attacking Duesburg personally or the folks who get their scientific information from Tom Hanks, Oprah or Barbra Streisand.

The point is that these negative Amazon reviews are very important and I thank the reviewers for taking their time to review a book they have never read. It underscores the importance of the book and helps the reader understand why the message is so hard to get out and why the message is suppressed in the mainstream media.

How anyone with an open mind can come away from this book still believing the HIV hypothesis of AIDS is beyond me. Although Duesberg doesn't continue much into the politcs of AIDS, it's clear that many groups benefit from the HIV hypothesis including NIH sponsored researchers, drug companies and now most of all the governments/dictators of third world countries looking for funds. African AIDS is just a redefinition of all the maladies caused by malnutrition, poor public sewer and water infrastructure along with the many germ caused diseases that have all been lumped together and called AIDS. This was one of the most important books of the late 20th century and will be seen as such within a decade. By the way, those who accuse Duesberg of being some sort of right-wing fanatic due to the fact that Regnery published this are way off base. Drug companies are one of the obvious villians in this story and as far as I can tell, left wingers everywhere love to hate the drug companies so they should be applauding this book. This is not a conservative vs liberal issue. It's a search for truth.

I thought I'd counter the critics out here who ponder why he doesn't infect himself. This is what he says (by the way, I have no idea how right he is in de-linking HIV from AIDs, but it is certainly interesting).

Q: The best way I know to prove the HIV hypothesis wrong is to infect otherwise perfectly healthy people with HIV, don't give them any treatment, and see what happens. I know this type of research has been done with animals. Since you can't experiment on other people, why don't you infect yourself? Maybe you can recruit some followers and have a "population" for a real experiment.

A: I have considered, even offered, this directly. Here are the problems:

1) In the US, it is not possible to work with HIV without the approval of the National Institutes of Health and the university. Thus I would need an NIH peer-approved grant to do this. Without such a contract I would risk my lab and job.

2) In addition, if 10 years after injecting myself I would still be without symptoms, the HIV-AIDS orthodoxy would call me a bluff unless I had had a grant that allowed for appropriate controls. I have submitted 9 grant applications to study AIDS, including doing the study you mention, but none was approved.

3) In the US there are 1 million HIV-positive persons without any symptoms, and in the world there are an estimated 34 million. Monitoring a few hundred of these for AIDS and non-viral AIDS risks would be a statistically much more relevant experiment than if one person injected himself. But surprisingly such studies are not done. Why not? Guess!

The world needs Duesbergs ! Unfortunately ,when they come along, they get ridiculed , censored and ostracized for saying what we don't want to hear - but what we need to hear. The world wants answers to its questions, but prefers the convenient ones which mesh with existing thought. When Duesbergs ideas were convenient he was highly prized and science advanced. When they weren't his funding was axed.
He valued integrity above popularity and chose to pursue truth at the cost of career. Answers will only ever yield to a truthful agenda. Science cannot make concessions to politics and expect to remain science.
Duesberg is the real thing. We should be making the most of him . Instead, the world looks on while he is shunned and slandered by a defensively hostile scientific community desperate not to lose face -and funding - while they continue to get nowhere fast.
Luckily for us , Duesberg continues his work , funded by private donations, and presents his profound and formidable findings in this book. It teaches us about AIDS, medicine, history, politics, society, human nature and psychology , and the plight of true science in a profit driven world..
But don't take my word for it - please read this book and do your own research. Look up his website - Robert Galllo's introduction to Duesberg , given in 1984, illustrates how readily - and how radically - values can give way to self-interest , and drastically alter a course of events .
Examine for yourself the scientific papers by Duesberg and his colleagues. Lectures and interviews he has given are made available by Virusmyth and Reclaimthebrain , along with the award winning television documentaries no longer reaching our screens .
"Inventing the AIDS Virus" provides a much needed overview of the conflicting scientific, social, political and commercial interests at work behind HIV-AIDS thinking , hitherto largely concealed from public view. This book is essential reading - and vitally relevant in 2002 : concerning an ongoing tragedy as long as HIV is thought to cause AIDS. Thoroughly accesible, compellingly readable , astounding and horrifying , illuminating and inspiring.
READ THIS BOOK ASAP!

...while I was reading it because it made me absolutely furious! A massive fraud is being perpetrated on the world by money-grubbing, glory-seeking scientists while millions die from other diseases that could be cured with a fraction of the money being thrown at the "AIDS problem."

Duesberg clearly presents his argument in terms most people can understand. What I found especially enlightening were his stories of past epidemics and how the medical establishments of those times and places refused to give credence to scientific evidence if it went against their deeply held beliefs ("Believing is seeing"). The same thing is happening with AIDS. At what price?

Why does no one in the scientific community speak out in Duesberg's defense? My friend with a Ph.D. in Genetics had the obvious answer: "They don't want to lose their jobs. A lot of money is at stake."

When the truth comes out, I believe Duesberg will be vindicated and we will see class action lawsuits on a massive scale (maybe you should sell your pharmaceutical stocks now).

Duesberg's book is liberating, because it succeeds in clarifying what is happening and why in the dreary war on "AIDS." Reading this book never left me feeling bewildered by bioresearch or epidemiological jargon, as is so common in any newspaper article on the latest drug cocktail tests on AIDS patients or the relentless third world statistics and projections. In fact, the book helps by providing a context within which the popular literature can be understood for what it most likely is: public relations propaganda for virus hunters and the pharmaceutical industry, among other things. If you accept the axioms of this book, you may become angry reading just about anything else.