Please report broken hyperlinks using the Reply option at the bottom of each page.

[I]n the early 1980s [Anthony] Fauci became the government’s point man on AIDS [at the National Institutes of Health, NIH]… [despite the fact that his academic résumé] show[s] no advanced degrees in molecular biology or biochemistry, vital for the study of virology… [He] claimed [at the time — and still does — that] the cause [of AIDS] was a retrovirus known as HIV…  [despite the facts that] HIV was ‘a conventional retrovirus with a very simple genetic organization,’ and had not been [clinically] shown to damage the immune system…  UC Berkeley molecular biologist Peter Duesberg, an expert on retroviruses, found no evidence for that cause.  Neither did Nobel laureates Walter Gilbert [with advanced degrees in chemistry, physics, and mathematics] and Kary Mullis [Ph.D., Biochemistry], inventor of the polymerase chain reaction.  Neither did Charlie Thomas [Ph.D., Biomedical Sciences], a successful entrepreneur who founded several biotech companies.  Free from dependency on government funds, Thomas launched the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV-AIDS Hypothesis, with Mullis, Duesberg, Robert Root-Bernstein [Prof., Physiology, MSU] and many other medical scientists signing on…  Nobel laureate Kary Mullis, inventor of the polymerase chain reaction… who earned his PhD in biochemistry at UC Berkeley, went on record that Fauci ‘doesn’t understand electron microscopy and he doesn’t understand medicine.  He shouldn’t be in a position like he’s in.’…  In other words, Dr. Fauci had no clue what he was talking about… [because he] lacks the [microbiological and biochemical] qualifications and experience of distinguished biological scientists [who have rightly criticized him for decades]…  Dr. Fauci’s prediction that AIDS would ravage the general population was hopelessly wrong, yet Fauci remained at the helm of [NIH’s] NIAID.”


HIV [is] a harmless retro-virus…  AIDS [is] not an infectious condition and… even if it were, it [is] not HIV which [breaks] down a body’s immune system but rather the toxic assault from drug abuse, drug ‘treatments‘ for AIDS and, in hemophiliacs, impurities from repeated clotting factor transfusions…  HIV has never [even] been isolated and… the HIV test is simply picking up proteins said to be specific to the virus, but which reside in all of us and happen to become raised when the body’s immune system is compromised for other reasons…  [T]he tyranny of orthodoxy imposed by some scientists and the pharmaceutical industry… has distorted and derailed the process of scientific inquiry, cost billions of misspent dollars for ‘treatment’ and misdirected research funding [which is a clear case of] collusion between science and commerce.



It is often stated that there is a large body of research that shows AIDS is caused by ‘HIV‘.  But constant repetition doesn’t make a falsehood true.  Ask any AIDS expert or virologist to provide the scientific references that demonstrate proof, and you will find that they can’t…  [W]henever doctors, scientists, or journalists have  pointed out  the inaccuracy of HIV tests, the ineffectiveness and danger of AIDS medicines, and the lack of scientific evidence that the particles that are labeled as HIV cause AIDS, they have been viciously attacked and ostracized…  The truth is that thousands of people have tested HIV positive and chosen treatment based on their symptoms, and to not take the AIDS drugs.  They are doing fine 10, 15 and more than 20 years later [many well-known examples of these people can be cited, with perhaps the most famous of all being Earvin ‘Magic’ Johnson].  Billions of dollars on research have given us no vaccine and no cure.  Thousands of medical doctors, scientists, journalists, legal experts and educators now believe that the theory that HIV causes AIDS needs re-examination.

… &

AIDS experts at Johns Hopkins say they have compelling evidence that some people with HIV who for years and even decades show extremely low levels of the virus in their blood never progress to full-blown AIDS and remain symptom free even without treatment…


No one has been more persistent in calling attention to the failings of AIDS research than Peter Duesberg, a virologist and cancer specialist [formerly] at the University of California at Berkeley…  In 1987, Duesberg published a paper in the journal Cancer Research entitled ‘Retroviruses as Carcinogens and Pathogens: Expectations and Reality.’  He was, at the time, at the top of the field of retrovirology, having mapped the genetic structure of retroviruses and defined the first cancer gene in the 1970s.  He was the youngest member, at age fifty, ever elected into the National Academy of Sciences… [and] There has been considerable international interest in Duesberg’s [more recent cancer] research….  In [his groundbreaking 1987] paper… Duesberg argued that… the retrovirus HIV cannot cause AIDS…  [Duesberg] simply pointed out that no one had yet proven that HIV is capable of causing a single disease, much less the twenty-five diseases that are now part of the clinical definition of AIDS.  He pointed to a number of paradoxes regarding HIV and argued that far from being evidence that HIV is ‘mysterious’ or ‘enigmatic,’ these paradoxes were evidence that HIV is a passenger virus… [and that] when it comes to AIDS, basic scientific standards seem no longer to apply…  Duesberg thinks that up to 75 percent of AIDS cases in the West can be attributed to drug [including heavy-use recreational drug] toxicity.  If toxic AIDS therapies [and heavy-use recreational drug abuse, mostly among  homosexual men ] were discontinued, he says, thousands of lives could be saved virtually overnight.  And when it comes to Africa, he agrees with those who argue that AIDS in Africa is best understood as an umbrella term for a number of old diseases, formerly known by other names, that currently do not command high rates of international aid.  The money spent on antiretroviral drugs would be better spent on sanitation and improving access to safe drinking water (the absence of which kills 1.4 million children a year).

[Not surprisingly, that medical citation-saturated article — published by Harpers Magazine in 2006 — was heavily criticized at the time by members of the AIDS “research” establishment.  Very few of those criticisms, however, were actually evidence-based or data-driven (they were, instead, mostly political and philosophical).  Detailed, evidence-based and data-driven responses to those non-scientific criticisms are available  here .]


[Also unsurprisingly, this peer-reviewed paper, published in 2014…]

Questioning the HIV-AIDS hypothesis: 30 years of dissent

[…, was also criticized by the HIV-AIDS establishment but, as usual, not with actual data, only with fallacious arguments to “authority”.]


[There are also many published, peer-reviewed research papers that came to similar conclusions but, because those conclusions were not part of the papers’ titles (i.e. the conclusions were buried in the minutia of the papers where most mainstream media members never bother to read), these papers were rarely, if ever, criticized by the AIDS establishmet.]

The top ten published, peer-reviewed research papers that compellingly illustrate why the HIV=AIDS theory needs to be rethought.


Welcome Rethinkers to the AIDS Wiki


Credentialed Dissidents Challenge the Establishment Dogmatists


AIDS in Africa: What the mainstream, left wing media have never reported.


Hillary Clinton’s ‘Major Address’ on Fighting Global HIV/AIDS Doesn’t Mention High-Risk Homosexual Sex Practices


[Taxpayer-Funded] National Institutes of Health Research Money Budgeted Per Death



Want to Leave a Reply?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s