A Farewell To Virology – Part 3 (Dr Mark Bailey and Steve Falconer)

Part THREE of a three part series. “A Farewell to Virology” is a 29,000 word essay debunking virus theory and virology, written by Dr Mark Bailey, MBChB, PGDipMSM, MHealSc. It has yet to be contested and the purpose of this film is to explain why.

This film version walks the layperson through the paper and scientific evidence in an easy, simple and understandable way, so that they may better understand and be able to easily explain to others the great hoax of the last few centuries and certainly last three years, that fictional particles called “viruses” exist, cause illness and are reasons to lock down and destroy societies and economies and cause lifelong disease and misery through needless and useless vaccination programs. They don’t.

Watch A Farewell to Virology – Part TWO

Watch A Farewell to Virology – Part ONE

Attributions: https://drsambailey.substack.com/p/a-farewell-to-virology-part-3-dr

Experts discover earliest record of Jesus’ childhood after deciphering 2,000-year-old Egyptian manuscript: What does this means?

Well you know,,, correct!!! This is an amazing discovery!!! If this means to be true as there’s enough evidence and substance to the matter as far as I can read between and through the article then it only validates the word of Allah, Al-Quran’s ruling about Isa’s miracle which is as following:

Isa Al-Masih Raised the Dead:

The fifth miracle of Isa in the Quran is raising someone from the dead. “. . . I give life to the dead . . .” (Al Quran 3:49).

From Gospels Luke, John and Lazarus:

The Gospels record how Isa raised several people from the dead (Gospels, Luke 7:11-17; 8:40-56), including Lazarus (Gospels, John 11:1-46).

Whatever the case maybe the word of Allah remains and has to be true 24/7 in each and every case! And Allah knows best, He’s indeed best of the planners!!!

The earliest known copy of an incredible story about Jesus performing a miracle as a child has been discovered scrawled on an ancient Egyptian manuscript.

The 2,000-year-old papyrus – a material that predates paper – tells the lesser-known story of the ‘vivification of the sparrows,’ when the five-year-old Messiah is said to have turned clay pigeons into live birds, a tale also referred to as the ‘second miracle’.

The clumsiness of the handwriting led the researchers to believe it was likely written as part of a class exercise in a school or religious community in 4th or 5th Century Egypt, which was a Christian society in those times.

The original story of Jesus’ miracle is thought to have been written around the 2nd Century as part of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, a book detailing Jesus of Nazareth’s youth that was ultimately excluded from the Bible.

The 2,000-year-old papyrus (pictured) depicts the story of Jesus turning clay pigeons into live birds when he was just five

The 2,000-year-old papyrus (pictured) depicts the story of Jesus turning clay pigeons into live birds when he was just five

But until this discovery, the earliest written example of the gospel was from the 11th Century. 

Until now, the papyrus had lay unnoticed at the Hamburg State and University Library in Hamburg, Germany. 

Experts told DailyMail.com they stumbled upon the papyri while analyzing manuscripts and noticed Jesus’ name in the text.

‘It was thought to be part of an everyday document, such as a private letter or a shopping list, because the handwriting seems so clumsy,’ Dr Lajos Berkes, a co-researcher and lecturer at the Faculty of Theology at Humboldt-Universität said in a press release.

‘We first noticed the word “Jesus” in the text. Then, by comparing it with numerous other digitized papyri, we deciphered it letter by letter and quickly realized that it could not be an everyday document,’ he added.

The Infancy Gospel of Thomas (IGT) describes Jesus’ life from the ages of five to 12 and was written during the 2nd century as a way to fill in the blanks of his youth. 

But this gospel was omitted from the Bible because it was thought to be inauthentic.

The Bible was also intended to focus solely on Jesus’ ministry, miracles and what led up to his dying on the cross.

In the IGT story, Jesus is just five years old playing in a stream while molding 12 sparrows out of soft clay in the riverbed mud. 

When his father, Joseph, notices what he is doing, he scolds Jesus and asks why he would be molding clay on the Sabbath – a Holy day of rest and worship.

In response, ‘[Jesus] orders the clay figures to ‘take flight as living birds,’ which they do,’ Professor Dr Gabriel Nocchi Macedo, from the University of Liège, Belgium, told DailyMail.com.

There is very little information about Jesus’ childhood, but a newly discovered document recounts the earliest story of his life

The papyrus fragment measured four by two inches and contained a total of 13 lines of a popular religious story from the IGT.

Researchers said the story was likely written as part of a writing exercise in a school or monastery because of the clumsy handwriting, irregular lines and other signifiers. 

‘Apart from what can be deduced from the general history of the collection, there is no evidence of how or when the papyrus was discovered,’ the researchers wrote in their article.

Dr Macedo said although they aren’t sure when the papyrus became part of the library’s collection, it seemed to have been inventoried after 2001.

However, there are two probable scenarios for how it came to be in Hamburg: ‘It belonged to the original core of the collection, which was acquired through the German Papyruskartell between 1906 and 1913,’ he said.

‘[It} then augmented through individual purchases up until 1939 [or] it arrived … from Berlin in a box full of unconserved papyri in 1990.’

Prior to this discovery, an 11th-Century manuscript of the IGT was the oldest version known to be in existence. 

‘The Infancy Gospel of Thomas is an apocryphal gospel recounting episodes from Jesus’ childhood,’ Dr Macedo explained. 

‘These episodes are not told in the Bible or other well-known liturgical or theological works.

‘The work has been attributed to an author named Thomas (perhaps the apostle), but its authorship is unknown.’

Accounts of Jesus’ childhood are limited to the tale of his birth, the family’s escape to Egypt, their return to Nazareth and his visit to the Temple in Jerusalem.

Further information about his youth are included in apocryphal gospels, written after his death.

‘Specialists sometimes compare the IGT to fanfiction,’ Dr Macedo said. ‘It consists of a series of loosely connected scenes where the young Jesus performs miracles, causing amazement of those around him.’

It isn’t known why Jesus’ early years were excluded from the Bible, but Charles Dyer, a professor-at-large of Bible at Moody Bible Institute told Christianity.com it’s likely because it wanted to focus on why he came to earth, his ministry and what led to his time on the cross.

‘In fact, we have, even in his adulthood, we have very little of the life of Jesus, but the part we have is what God thought was sufficient for us to truly understand who he is and why he came to earth,’ Dyer said.

Dr Macedo said he and Berkes will produce a critical edition and commentary on the manuscript and will reassess the style and language of the IGT text. Their results will be published in the Journal of Papyrology and Epigraphy.

‘The fragment is of extraordinary interest for research,’ Berkes said in the statement.

‘On the one hand, because we were able to date it to the 4th to 5th century, making it the earliest known copy,’ he continued.

‘On the other hand, because we were able to gain new insights into the transmission of the text.’

Attributions: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-13517645/Jesus-childhood-revealed-2-000-year-old-manuscript.html

The OG no virus movement: The Perth group.


This article summarizes a small portion of the manuscript HIV – A virus like no other, compiled by the Perth Group in 2017, almost 3 years prior to the “COVID-19 pandemic”.

The portion of the manuscript summarized below demonstrates, on the one hand, just how phenomenal the work of Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos and the Perth Group was. Moreover, that long before Stefan Lanka and Thomas Cowan, there was a group of people who were pointing out the flawed science upon which virology rests, and because of which the lives of hundreds, if not thousands, of people had been destroyed.

On the other hand, the work summarised also illustrates just how incredibly important control experiments are. How one cannot and should not claim an experiment to be valid or “clear-cut evidence” of anything prior to seeing the control experiments that were carried out in parallel with it. How, in actuality, it is completely irresponsible to place any reliance on an experiment that had no controls.

Consider buying me a coffee.

Buy me a coffee

The “clear-cut evidence”

The existence of HIV is said to have been demonstrated by Luc Montagnier in 1983 after he and his team claimed to have “isolated” the “retrovirus” from a patient who was thought to be at risk of AIDS.  The following year Robert Gallo claimed to have “isolated” the exact same type of particles from 26 out 72 (36%) patients with AIDS and concluded, in 1986, that the data obtained from his experiments was “clear-cut evidence” that AIDS was caused by “HIV”.

In all instances where it has been claimed that “HIV” was “isolated” and “purified”, the process known as density gradient centrifugation was used to separate the “retrovirus” particles from everything else in a cell culture which had been “infected” with a biological sample taken from an AIDS patient.

The basic theory behind the purification process is that when a test-tube containing a sample of the infected cell culture plus a sucrose solution is spun at high speeds and centrifugal force acts on the contents, particles within the sample will group together according to their similar weights and sizes (buoyancy) and settle out into sperate layers along the test tube.

By way of an example, all particles in a sample with a buoyant density of 1 will group together in one layer and all particles with a buoyancy of 2 will group together and form another layer. The number of layers formed will depend on how many types of particles are present in the tube.

The adoption of this method by Montagnier and Gallo is based on the opportune fact that “retrovirus” particles are believed to have a buoyant density of 1.16 g/ml in a sucrose solution. Meaning, Montagnier and Gallo believed they knew exactly into which layer in the test tube the “retrovirus” particles would separate out into after a sample had undergone density gradient centrifugation.

Accordingly, all that needed to be done to obtain “purified HIV particles” was to get access to that 1.16 g/ml layer or band in the test-tube and they would have a solution purified of everything except HIV “retrovirus” particles.

It was with these solutions of “pure HIV particles” (1.16 g/ml bands) that Montagnier and Gallo claimed to be able to determine the shape, size, chemistry, and infectiousness of “HIV” particles.

There were, however, two main issues with the experiments carried out by Montagnier and Gallo. Issues which became very obvious when other scientists tried to replicate Gallo and Montagnier’s work and carry out their own experiments with these “purified” particles.

First, both Montagnier and Gallo neglected to publish the electron micrographs of the solutions of “pure HIV particles” (the 1.16 g/ml band) which they said had been used by them to identify and determine the characteristics (size and shape) of the “HIV particles”.

Moreover, they both failed to carry out control experiments alongside their “purification” procedure. Thereby making it impossible to verify, without redoing the experiment, whether the particles claimed to be “HIV particles” are in fact only found in the “infected” samples.

This meant that for a very long-time scientist were merely taking Montagnier and Gallo’s word that the solution they had obtained after carrying out density gradient centrifugation was indeed “pure HIV particles” and that the particles they had seen under the electron microscope were the shape and size claimed by them.

The second issue concerned the biochemistry makeup of the “purified HIV” particles. In this case, Montagnier and Gallo had also failed to carry out control experiments. Meaning, it was impossible to verify, without redoing the experiments, whether the makeup of the “HIV” particles as claimed by them was in fact unique to the “isolated” particles and not being conflated with any other particles that were part of the experiment.

The scientific community took 14 years to rectify these oversights and publish the required electron micrographs and results of the appropriate control experiments.

While the authors of these studies seemingly appeared not to realise the impact of their publications on Montagnier’s and Gallo’s findings, it was obvious to Eleni and the Perth Group that these experiments completely invalidated Montagnier and Gallo’s conclusions regarding HIV and AIDS.

Moreover, it did not escape the Perth Group that, over the 14-year period that Montagnier and Gallo’s experiments were consider valid, hundreds of people had been diagnosed with “HIV” and treated with toxic drugs on the basis of this flawed science.

The Gluschankof Control Experiment

In 1997 Pablo Gluschankof, the leader of a large European HIV research collaborative, after replicating Montagnier and Gallo’s “purification” process, published a paper which included electron micrographs taken of both the solution claimed to consist of pure “HIV” particles (the 1.16 g/ml band) and a valid control carried out alongside the process. Even a cursory inspection of these images makes it plain that whatever material is actually in those solutions, it is not pure.

(a) and (b) are purified solutions from an “infected” culture and (c) is a purified solution from an uninfected culture.

The electron micrographs published in the Gluschankof study make it clear that these solutions are in actual fact contaminated to a large degree by cellular debris (bits of the cell culture). Gluschankof et al also cannot avoid admitting this, and that this is the case for both the “infected” and uninfected samples. 

For these samples to be called purified retrovirus particle the solutions should contain nothing but virus particles and all particles in the sample should look to be almost exactly the same. This is clearly not the case with these samples.

What is also obvious is that there appears to be virus particles in both the “infected” (marked with arrows) and uninfected sample (marked with squares).

It is also worth noting, that these marked particles are bigger than what retrovirus particles are believed to be and are not the shape they are supposed to be – they lack the cone-shaped cores, lateral bodies and spikes/ nobs protruding from the membrane.

The Gluschankof control demonstrates that “HIV” was never isolated or purified according to the true meaning of the words.  It shows that what was claimed to be a solution of pure “retrovirus” particles is in actual fact a soup of particles. This fact in turn, brings into questions the accuracy and legitimacy of all experiments and tests Montagnier and Gallo carried out with these so called “pure” solutions.  

The Bess Control Experiment

In 1997, a group from the US National Cancer institute led by Julian Bess, also replicated Montagnier and Gallo’s “purification” procedure and published a paper in which the biochemistry of the “pure HIV particles” ( the 1.16 g/ml band) was analysed. Included in this paper were the results of a control carried out alongside this analysis.

The analysis of the chemistry of the “pure” particles basically amounts to nothing more than determining what the different proteins are which make up the “virus” particles, this is done using a method called electrophoresis.

Electrophoresis is a procedure that is used to separates a mixture of proteins into its individual proteins so that one can determine exactly what proteins make up the mixture. The procedure essentially consists of an electric current attracting the proteins from one side of a gel bath to the other, separating them according to their molecular weights – the lighter proteins moving faster and further along the gel bath, the heavier proteins lagging behind.

Once the proteins have completely separated out from one another the gel is removed and stained. The staining reveals the relative position of each of the separated proteins in the gel and appears as a series of dark, horizontal lines or bands – the protein profile. The thicker and darker the bands the greater the concentration of a particular protein at that position in the gel. One is then able to determine what the particular proteins involved are by comparing the stained results to the stained results of previous electrophoresis experiments carried out with known proteins.

According to Montagnier and Gallo’s work, a solution of “HIV particles” with some cellular contaminates, will show 15 additional proteins to those found in a purified solution of an uninfected cell culture put through the same process. These 15 additional proteins, not found in purified solutions of uninfected cell cultures, are said to be the proteins which constitute the “HIV” particles.

In other words, when comparing the electrophoresis results, one would expect to see 15 horizontal lines in the protein profile of the solution obtained from “infected” culture which do not appear in the protein profile of the solution obtained from uninfected cultures.

Note, A = uninfected B and C = HIV-infected. Actin and HLA DR = cellular proteins; kDa = molecular weight scale.

Bess carried out electrophoresis on “purified” solutions obtained from three separate cell cultures. “A” in the above image was an uninfected cell culture (the control) and “B” and “C” were cell cultures that had been “infected” with “HIV particles”. As is apparent from the results above, apart from the quantitative (concentration) differences in the results (labelled p6/7, p17 and p24), the protein profiles of B and C are identical to A.

This means that no extra proteins whatsoever, let alone the 15 “HIV proteins”, were found in the solutions obtained from the “infected” cell cultures. The only difference between the samples is that the “infected” samples seemed to have higher concentrations of proteins 6/7, 17 and 24.

Accordingly, the only thing that these results demonstrate is that “infected” cell cultures have greater concentrations of the proteins found in uninfected cultures – i.e more cellular proteins were added not virus proteins.

The Bess control experiment therefore demonstrates that all experiments which made use of the “unique” protein makeup of the “HIV” virus, such as all immunoassay experiments, were fundamentally flawed. The most important being, if there are no unique “HIV” proteins to be found there can be no “HIV antibodies” and thus no HIV antibody tests or HIV genome.


The fact that Montagnier and Gallo did not carry out these simple controls, is not nearly as shocking as the fact that the scientific community was prepared to accept Montagnier and Gallo’s experiments as valid without these controls. This is especially so when one considers the impact the results of these experiments had on the lives of so many people.

The Gluschankof and Bess control experiments demonstrate beyond any doubt how crucial control experiments are for verification of results and how without them virologists (or any scientist really) can claim complete garbage as irrefutable fact.

The fact that the Perth Group picked up on these controls and understood their impact on the accepted science, at a time when no one else in the scientific community seemed to be even the slightest bit sceptical, is a testament to their integrity and the quality of science that they carried out.

Eleni and the Perth Group were truly the OG’s of the no-virus movement and had their work received the attention it deserved at the time of its publication, we might have found the world today to be a totally different place.

Author’s notes:

  • The above is a simplification of the experiments carried out by the named scientist. For example, all samples obtained from the patients were “isolated” in cell cultures (of different types in some cases) prior to being “purified” by means of density gradient centrifugation but these “isolation” or culturing procedures are not discussed in an effort not to over burden the article. In addition, in some instances, samples underwent more than one round of “purification” and culturing before the ultimate analysis was carried out. All these details and more are set out and discussed at length by Eleni in her manuscript, HIV- A virus like no other, should you wish to review them. The full procedures relating to the control experiments are of course also set out in the Bess and Gluschankof papers linked below.
  • It’s interesting to note that Bess et al also published electron micrographs of the “pure HIV” particles “isolated” by means of density gradient centrifugation – see Bess paper for these micrographs. Further, that just as was the case with the Gluschankof electron micrograph, the Bess micrographs also demonstrated that the solution obtained from the 1.16 g/ml bands was anything but pure. However, whereas the Gluschankof micrographs depicted particles of 140 nanometres, the Bess micrographs depicted particles almost double the size measuring almost 240 nanometres. This is problematic as it would mean that Bess’ particles would have a mass 4.7 times greater than the Gluschankof particles, which is more than an unusual finding for one and the same virus. See pg 25-26 and footnote 164 in HIV- A virus like no other.


  • E Papadopulos-Eleopulos, 2017. HIV – A virus like no other
  • P Gluschankof, 1997. Cell Membrane Vesicles Are a Major Contaminant of Gradient-Enriched Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type-1 Preparations.
  • Julian W. Bess Jr, 1997. Microvesicles Are a Source of Contaminating Cellular Proteins Found in Purified HIV-1 Preparations.
  • Brent Leung, 2012. The Emperors New Virus? – An Analysis of the Evidence for the Existence of HIV (Documentary)

Attributions: https://dpl003.substack.com/p/the-og-no-virus-movement-the-perth

The Yin & Yang of HIV – A Great Future Behind It.

The Yin and Yang of HIV

By Valendar Turner & Andrew McIntyre

Published over three issue of NEXUS Magazine beginning January 1999


The notion that HIV/AIDS is infectious and sexually transmitted is based on a relationship between antibodies claimed specifically induced by a retrovirus HIV and particular diseases in certain risk groups. However, the HIV theory has been challenged for well over a decade in many scientific publications, principally by Peter Duesberg from the USA and Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos and her colleagues in Australia. Failure of HIV/AIDS to spread beyond the original risk groups, and particularly to Western heterosexuals, especially non-drug using prostitutes, signals that the HIV theory of AIDS is in need of urgent reappraisal. This has serious implications for both the way science has been conducted and public health policy and planning. The HIV theory has cost billions of dollars and locked in enormous amount of energy in research by thousands of scientists worldwide. So far, it has yet to save a single life. There is an urgent need to establish a truly independent, and distinguished international committee to review the current theories and those that challenge them. There needs to be a co-operative but urgent reassessment of AIDS.

A theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations.
-- Stephen Hawking


A Nobel Laureate stirs the waters

In 1988 Dr. Kary Mullis, the 1993 Nobel prize winner for Chemistry was employed by the US National Institutes for Health (NIH) to set up analyses for HIV testing. When preparing his report he asked a virologist colleague for a reference that HIV is “the probable cause of AIDS”. He was told he did not need one. Mullis was surprised.(1)

“I disagreed. It was totally remarkable to me that the individual who had discovered the cause of a deadly and as-yet-uncured disease would not be continually referenced in the scientific papers until that disease was cured and forgotten… There had to be a published paper, or perhaps several of them, which taken together indicated that HIV was the probable cause of AIDS”. Otherwise, as Mullis was forced to conclude, “The entire campaign against a disease increasingly regarded as the twentieth-century Black Death was based on a hypothesis whose origins no one could recall. That defied both scientific and common sense”.

A decade later Mullis was to write, “I finally understood why I was having so much trouble finding the references that linked HIV to AIDS. There weren’t any”.(2) Indeed, an interested non-specialist observer, armed with a few contacts and a good library, merely has to scratch the surface to realise that the HIV theory of AIDS begs many more questions than it answers.(1-63 *)

The beginnings of AIDS

The few years leading up to the AIDS era and the discovery of HIV are illuminating. It was a time when a promiscuous minority of young, “liberated”, gay men in a few large American cities were increasingly developing previously uncommon diseases such as fatal forms of the malignancy Kaposis’ sarcoma and a fungal pneumonia known as PCP. At the time, whilst it was reasonable to implicate an infectious microbe transmitted by rampant, indiscriminant sexual practices interspersed with needle sharing drug taking, the fact that immune suppression had multiple causes was also known in 1981. Some considered the diseases resulted from multiple assaults to bodily functions caused by the many and varied diseases, toxins and treatments that accompanied the gay and drug taking lifestyle that had evolved during the late 1970s.

Just how extensive these multiple assaults were was indicated by the English journalist Neville Hodgkinson documenting the range of infections of just one homosexual, the late Michael Callen in his book “AIDS The failure of contemporary science: How a virus that never was deceived the world”.(29) “Non-specific urethritis, hepatitis A, more NSU and gonorrhoea, amoebas [intestinal parasites]-and hepatitis B, more NSU and gonorrhoea, more amoebas, shigella, non-A, non-B hepatitis, giardia, anal fissures, syphilis, more gonorrhoea [penile, anal and oral], gonorrhoea, shigella twice, more amoebas, herpes simplex types I and II; venereal warts, salmonella; chlamydia; cytomegalovirus (CMV); Epstein-Barr virus (EBV); mononucleosis and cryptosporidiosis”, (“a disease of cattle!”). Indeed, an early US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) study confirmed that the first 100 men with AIDS had a median lifetime number of 1120 sex partners.(30) As Callen himself put it, “I got some combination of venereal diseases EACH AND EVERY TIME I had sex”. Not surprisingly, given the widespread belief of a causal relationship between immunity and the maintenance of health, in 1981 the “new” disease became known as Gay Related Immune Deficiency (GRID). In fact none of the diseases was new. Some were known to occur in drug addicts and haemophiliacs long before the AIDS era. What was “new” was their exponentially escalating prevalence in gay men.

Technology and Virology

Coincidental with the beginning of the AIDS era a technique was developed to classify and count the different types of lymphocyte white blood cells. It was noticed that some AIDS patients had diminished numbers of the so called T4 “helper” cell subtype and, despite lack of proof, the cells were assumed to be dying at the behest of an agent selectively targeting them. This became the “hallmark” of AIDS as well as forming a measure of the amount of immune deficiency. In turn, this “immune deficiency”, (the “AID” in AIDS) caused the diseases (the “S” in AIDS) that constitute the clinical syndrome. The perceptions that T4 cells were dying and AIDS was infectious led to the theory that AIDS is caused by a microbial organism.

Five years prior to the AIDS era a few laboratories around the world were drawing towards the end of a fruitless search to prove a viral cause for human cancers. During the 1970s, Dr. Robert Gallo, the central figure as “co-discoverer” of the AIDS virus, and his colleagues, claimed to have discovered three human retroviruses. (The name ‘retroviruses’ arises because of the copying of the RNA which forms the viral “genes” [the genome] “backwards” into DNA, a direction contrary to that long considered universal, that is, from DNA into RNA). In 1975 the first human retrovirus, HL23V, was proposed to cause human leukaemia but by 1980 was considered an embarrassing mistake, in fact not to have ever existed. Of the remaining two, one was postulated to cause a specific though rare form of adult leukaemia and the second is still without a disease. What is significant is that the latter two retroviruses are said to exhibit a liking for T4 lymphocytes. This led Donald Francis and Gallo and others to propose that an existing or closely related retrovirus was the agent responsible for killing the T4 cells in AIDS patients. When researchers actively sought and then discovered the same diseases in individuals who were not gay, retroviruses, as well as retrovirologists, received renewed interest and GRID became AIDS.

First proclamations

In May 1983 Professor Luc Montagnier and his colleagues at the Pasteur Institute of Paris published a paper in Science entitled, “Isolation of a T-Lymphotrophic Retrovirus from a patient at Risk for Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS).(64) It is important to note that the first word in this paper, ‘Isolation’, serves as a signal that the researcher is claiming proof for the existence of a new virus. In the interests of science, on several occasions, Montagnier sent samples of his tissue cultures to the Gallo laboratory in America with the express understanding these “could be used for biomedical, biological and molecular biological studies”.(65) However, Montagnier did not claim to have proven his virus was the cause of AIDS and the French discovery lay on the table until May 1984 when Gallo and Popovic and their colleagues (66-69) published four papers also in Science. On the 23rd of April 1984, at a Washington press conference held two weeks before the papers were published, Margaret Heckler, Secretary for Health and Human Services, announced that Gallo and his co-workers had discovered the “probable” cause of AIDS and had developed a sensitive blood test to detect the virus in the body. A curative vaccine was predicted within two years. Inexplicably, causation was proclaimed merely by association and despite “isolation” of HIV in only 26 of Gallo’s 72 (36%) AIDS patients, or barely a third. (The frequency of “isolation” is no better today.(70)).

In 1985 the Pasteur Institute alleged that Gallo had misappropriated their virus. The ensuing conflict, which eventually reached the American courts, was settled by a negotiated agreement signed in 1987 by Gallo and Montagnier as “co-discoverers”, and US President Reagan and French Premier Chirac. Nevertheless, the matter drew the attention of John Crewdson, an investigative journalist, and US Senator John Dingell. In November 1989, Crewdson published a lengthy article in the Chicago Tribune newspaper, which provoked an internal NIH enquiry into suspect data from Gallo’s laboratory. A draft report of the formal investigation written by NIH Office of Scientific Integrity (OSI), was published in September 1991, in which the principal author Mikulas Popovic was accused “of misconduct for misstatements and inaccuracies” that appeared in the first Science paper, and that Gallo, as laboratory chief, “created and fostered conditions that give rise to falsified/ fabricated data and falsified reports”. The final draft report of the OSI, completed in January 1992, was immediately criticised and was followed by a review of the OSI report by the Office of Research Integrity (ORI), which found Gallo guilty of scientific misconduct. However, despite the long and costly investigation, the OSI concluded that Gallo’s research “does not negate the central findings of the [1984] Science paper”. According to Eleopulos and her colleagues, regardless of the material uncovered by the OSI, Gallo’s data, which still remains the best of its kind, does not prove the existence of HIV and even if it did, nowhere in the papers is their proof that HIV causes AIDS.(16,21)

Peter Duesberg

In December 1987, three and a half years after the Washington press conference, Professor Peter Duesberg, virologist and molecular biologist at the University of Berkeley, California, published an invited paper entitled “Retroviruses as Pathogens: Expectations and Reality”.(3) Duesberg was a much fêted scientist, considered to be “the golden boy of virology” and “the greatest living retrovirologist”. He had developed many of the laboratory techniques for studying retroviruses and their genetic make up, had discovered cancer causing genes, and was recipient of a $US350,000 “outstanding investigator” award from the NIH. But Duesberg dropped a bombshell. He asserted that, apart from the relative few cancer causing retroviruses, the majority are virtually harmless. Duesberg argued that HIV is neutralised by antibodies shortly after infection and thus antibodies signal its containment. He also pointed to data proving that well, sick or dying from AIDS, HIV positive individuals contain insufficient amounts of HIV to do harm. Even if HIV were to kill all the T4 cells it had infected every 1-2 days, the amount of T4 cells needing replacing approximated the amount of blood shed by a man cutting himself shaving.

For the protagonists, the low “viral burden”, that is, the amount of “HIV DNA” in cells, was a fact that no one, not even Gallo, could satisfactorily reconcile with an immune destroying pathogen killing gay men within a year or two of diagnosis. However, rather than addressing this as a scientific problem warranting dialogue with someone known to have considerable knowledge of the subject, Duesberg’s questions antagonised Gallo to the point where he refused to discuss the matter. Meetings convened to deal with the uncomfortable implications of Duesberg’s paper were suddenly cancelled at the highest level.

In 1989 Duesberg presented further argument.(4) HIV does not fulfil the postulates nineteenth century bacteriologist Robert Koch had developed to prove a microbe causes a disease. These four postulates are one, that the organism must be present in all cases of the disease; two, that it must be grown and then isolated in pure culture from the cells of individuals with the disease; three, that it must reproduce the disease when introduced into a susceptible host or experimental animals and four, that from whence it must once again be recovered.

According to Duesberg “From every angle, HIV fails Koch’s first postulate”.(1) The second postulate was fulfilled but only by subjecting cells to drastic chemical manipulation that did not approach conditions in vivo. Eleopulos has argued how basic retrovirology has long shown that oxidation which prevails in HIV/AIDS patients and their cell cultures creates internal (endogenous) retroviruses in cells whose DNA was not previously infected from the outside (12,14,15,71,72) (One percent of human DNA, that is, an amount 3000 times larger than “HIV” DNA, is made up of endogenous retroviral DNA(73)). The third postulate failed because, “During the past decade, more than four hundred thousand AIDS patients have been treated and investigated by a system of five million medical workers and AIDS researchers, none of whom have been vaccinated against HIV… But ten years later there is not even one case in the scientific literature of a health worker who ever contracted presumably infectious AIDS from a patient… AIDS is not infectious”. Similarly, “nine years after the NIH first started infecting chimpanzees with HIV-over 150 so far at a cost of $40,000-50,000 apiece”, all “are still healthy”.(5 **)

In 1992, Duesberg shifted focus from HIV to argue that “AIDS [is] acquired by drug consumption and other noncontagious risk factors”.(5) Apart from illicit and recreational drugs, Duesberg’s list included the first “anti-retroviral” compound zidovudine (AZT). In other words, a specific treatment for HIV infection was a cause of AIDS. Duesberg continued to regard HIV bona fide but an inert, harmless “passenger” virus linked to AIDS only through the kinds of activity associated with drug taking (including prescribed drugs). Duesberg, like others before him, pointed to the epidemiological data revealing a 50 fold difference in the AIDS “attack rate” between various groups of HIV positive individuals, as well as the proclivity of certain AIDS diseases for particular risk groups. Thus 50% of HIV positive blood transfusion recipients develop AIDS within one year (but so do 50% of HIV negatives) compared to 1% of haemophiliacs. Kaposis’ sarcoma was to all intents and purposes, confined to gay men.(5,13,74)). Thus, even if HIV were necessary to cause AIDS, it could not be the only factor. However, accretion of “co-factors” to the HIV theory rendered the significance of any particular factor problematic. It was possible to argue that HIV may be only a minor factor or, at least in Eleopulos’ and Duesberg’s minds, not a factor. Apparently the role of HIV was also a problem for Montagnier. Although he wrote in Nature in December 1984, “all available data are consistent with the virus being the causative agent of AIDS”,(75) in 1985 he expressed an opinion impossible to reconcile with the HIV theory. “This syndrome occurs in a minority of infected persons, who generally have in common a past of antigenic stimulation and of immune depression before LAV [HIV] infection”,(76) that is, cause after effect (italics ours). One must surmise that within a year, the discoverer of HIV was already hedging his bets. His recent interview with the investigative journalist Djamel Tahi (61) (see below), fuels such speculation.

Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos and the Perth group

Eleopulos’ AIDS research began in 1981. In May 1986 she submitted for publication a paper which refuted every step in the HIV theory, including HIV itself. She also proposed an alternative, non-viral theory (of which “Duesberg’s” “Drugs/AIDS hypothesis” is a subset), and predicated non-toxic and relatively inexpensive treatments.

Her theory was based on a general theory of cellular functioning she had formulated in the 1970s as a basis for unraveling the genesis and improving the treatment of cancer, and to offer fresh insights into the pathogenesis of cardiovascular diseases and aging. Eleopulos postulates that normal cellular functioning is determined by the level and oscillations of cellular redox (23) (oxidation and its chemical opposite, reduction). In her view, when oxidation is prolonged or excessive, cells become abnormal, injured and susceptible to diseases. Eleopulos had noticed a link between the risk groups. Gay men, drug users and haemophiliacs are exposed to chemical stressors in the form of semen, nitrites, illicit drugs and factor VIII (the blood clotting protein missing from and administered to haemophiliacs). There is abundant evidence that these substances are potent cellular oxidants.(12) In Eleopulos’ view, oxidative stress produces low T4 cells and AIDS, as well as the phenomena inferred as proof for the existence of HIV.

The ready acceptance of the Montagnier/Gallo 1983/84 Science papers posed enormous difficulties for Eleopulos having her work published. Thus “Reappraisal of AIDS: Is the oxidation caused by the risk factors the primary cause?” was twice rejected by Nature eventually finding light of day in Medical Hypotheses twelve months after Duesberg.(12) However, the editor of this journal also rejected the paper, only recanting after Eleopulos worked for several months to convince him that equatorial Africa was not in the grip of an epidemic of sexually transmitted immunodeficiency and thus not in breach of her theory.(11,24,63,77)

To paraphrase the theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking, wrong predictions affirm bad theories, correct predictions make them powerful. The HIV theory requires that HIV causes all the AIDS defining diseases and predicts that HIV/AIDS will become a global epidemic via the oldest and most unstoppable of all human activities. However, Kaposis’ sarcoma, one of the two diseases for which the HIV theory was proposed, is no longer attributed either directly or indirectly (via AID), to HIV.(12,13,54,74,78 §) In the OECD countries the prediction of a sexual pandemic fails completely. For example, as of the beginning of 1998, 93% of the cumulative deaths from AIDS in Australia occurred in the original risk groups, that is, gay/bisexual men, drug addicts and haemophiliacs. This observation fits the classic demographic profile of non-infectious diseases such as pellagra, beriberi and scurvy which also remain confined to their risk groups. All are caused by vitamin deficiencies but in the past were regarded infectious and sufferers shunned and quarantined. The HIV protagonists also predicted a curative vaccine by the end of 1986 and an animal model to prove the HIV theory beyond all doubt. Neither prediction has been fulfilled. A vaccine is not envisaged before the turn of the century and animals given “HIV” do not develop AIDS.

On the other hand, the Eleopulos oxidative stress theory predicts the current demographic data, an apparent loss of T4 cells, the risk of passive anal intercourse in both sexes, HIV positive and AIDS patients being oxidised relative to normal individuals, the ameriolation of HIV/AIDS by the use of antioxidants and a non-infectious animal model. Everyone of these predictions has materialised. Oxidative stress is well established by hundreds of papers,(14,62,79-81) so much so that in the early 1990s the Pasteur Institute was advertising international scholarships to study the phenomenon. In fact this year Luc Montagnier is the principal editor of a 558 page book devoted to oxidative stress in cancer, aging and AIDS.(82)

The Eleopulos theory predicts that a decline in T4 cells can occur without cellular death. In fact, according to the Perth group, there is no evidence to support the notion that T4 cells are dead, or that “HIV” kills such cells. In T4 cell cultures, the same number T4 cells “disappear” regardless of whether one adds “HIV” or merely the chemical stimulants obligatory to “grow” the “HIV”.(83) Neither is there proof that low numbers of T4 cells are either necessary or sufficient to produce the clinical syndrome.(9,12,14) This is a view recently expressed by leading HIV/AIDS scientists such as Dr. Arthur Anderson from the US Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Disease (84) and Dr. Zvi Grossman at the University of Tel Aviv.85

In other words, the central tenet of the HIV theory, virus induced killing of immune cells leading to AIDS, is now being questioned by HIV/AIDS experts themselves. Nonetheless, and despite so much evidence to the contrary, the orthodox view remains entrenched. In fact, since 1993 the low numbers of T4 cells has been enshrined in the 1993 CDC AIDS definition whereby AIDS can be diagnosed without a disease. Just as “co-factors” were proposed to rescue the HIV theory in the mid 1980s, in July 1998 Chen and colleagues from the UCLA AIDS Institute, School of Medicine, Los Angeles reported evidence that “naturally noninfectious virus” or virus or “rendered defective” by “anti-HIV” drugs, could still contribute to the loss of T4 cells throughout the course of HIV disease.(86) In other words, “alive” or “dead”, HIV causes immune deficiency. Such a proposal does not auger well for the use or continued development of “anti-HIV” drugs.

Consistent also with the Eleopulos oxidatives stress theory is the direct relationship between high frequencies of passive anal intercourse and the development of AIDS, as well as the fact that the only animal model of AIDS is non-infectious. Mice repeatedly injected with foreign cellular proteins develop a dramatic depletion of T4 cells, Kaposi’s sarcoma-like tumors and “abundant” retroviral-like particles appear in their spleens.(87) Thus AIDS diseases are followed by the production of retroviral-like particles and not the other way around.

The demise of scientific democracy

The longevity of the HIV theory has been considerably boosted by the virtual refusal of editors of leading medical journals to publish any material which takes HIV to task. Without these data, and the stamp of approval engendered by such publication, it is almost impossible for the debate to reach the ears of those who matter the most, clinicians and their patients. Like generals directing wars, the remoteness of editors begets an objectivity which, while essential to clear thinking, militates against an appreciation of the profound responsibilities editors hold at the bedside. Ultimately, although the HIV theory is manifoldly problematic, physicians, patients, relatives, politicians, journalists and the tax paying public are systematically denied knowledge of its existence and substance. Not only is there is a total absence anywhere of a disinterested, adjudicated debate, individuals whose only motivation is to contribute to solving a disease claimed to afflict millions of people, find themselves censored. For example, the editor of the world’s most prestigious journal, Nature, denied Duesberg the right of reply on issues he raised because his views give “many infected people the belief that HIV infection is not in itself the calamity it is likely to prove”.(29) Yet, in a recent edition of the same journal, but in another context, there is a claim that “the voice of sceptics may grow tiresome, but the mainstream is in trouble if it cannot win a public debate with them”. Officials at the Berlin 10th International AIDS Conference confiscated Dutch AIDS analyst Robert Laarhoven’s press pass and threatened him with expulsion from Germany for “criminal trespass” because he placed copies of the dissident journal Rethinking AIDS on an “unauthorised” table. Nature has repeatedly rejected every paper and letter submitted by Eleopulos and her colleagues since 1986 without providing any scientific reasons and invariably citing space constraints in the journal. Professor John Kaldor, one of Australia’s foremost “established experts” on AIDS admits that dissidents “intersperse their cases with grains of fact”.(88) However, because of Kaldor and colleagues’ “strong instinct not to dignify the sceptics’ arguments by attempting to refute them”, arguments based on these “grains of fact” and many other data, remain unanswered and unresolved.

The rise and fall of the “anti-HIV” drugs

It would take a second article to discuss AZT and the many other “anti-HIV” drugs. Suffice it to say there is no scientific proof that such drugs kill “HIV” or cure AIDS but there is ample evidence they are harmful.(1,53,56) In 1994, a double-blind randomised comparison of two policies of AZT treatment (immediate and deferred) was reported (the Concorde trial). This involved 1749 symptom-free, HIV-infected individuals from centres in the UK, Ireland and France. The 347 clinical endpoints (AIDS and death) outnumbered the total of those in all other published trials in symptom-free and early symptomatic infection. The results showed “there was no statistically significant difference in clinical outcome between the two therapeutic policies”.(89) In 1995, extended results of Concorde showed a significant increased risk of death among the patients treated early. However, despite these data, disclaimers that patients treated with AZT may continue to develop the AIDS diseases, that the side effects of AZT may mimic AIDS, and AZT given to non-HIV-infected babies causes the AIDS defining pneumonia PCP,(90) AZT continues to be the most commonly prescribed anti-HIV drug. Dr. Donald Abrams, Professor of Medicine and Director of the AIDS program at San Francisco General Hospital, said “I have a large population of people who have chosen not to take any antiretrovirals… I’ve been following them since the very beginning…They’ve watched all of their friends go on the antiviral bandwagon and die”.(91) Indeed, even an elementary study of the relevant pharmacologicaL literature reveals that AZT cannot be an anti-HIV drug.(92)

In 1996, the latest drugs, the “protease inhibitors” (PI) were introduced. These are prescribed as one of up to 200 possible “cocktails” with AZT or similar drugs. Detailed data on these drugs of the kind usually reserved for medical practitioners, appear regularly in glossy, multi-page advertisements in gay mens’ magazines. At the July 1996 XIth International AIDS conference Time Magazine Man of the Year David Ho predicted that “scientists would find new drugs to wipe HIV out of the body within three years possibly within just one”.(93) At the July 1998 XIIth AIDS conference Ho stated it will take at least ten years of intense combination drug therapy to kill off all the HIV in an infected person’s body but a sizable percentage of HIV patients will never get close. Many patients cannot tolerate the untoward effects of these “cocktails” and measurements show that the DNA “viral” burden does not decrease.(94-97) In the May 1998 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Dr. William Paul, former Director of the National Institutes of Health’s Office of AIDS Research writes, “no matter how long a person is treated with anti-HIV drugs, there will always be new viruses… you will have to be treated forever… No one is getting cured… This bodes extremely poorly for combination therapy as something curative”.(85)

Given the toxicity of these drugs, it is unlikely anyone can tolerate taking them for more than a few years. If this outlook is gloomy for HIV/AIDS sufferers, it is even worse considering there is no substantial, alternative therapeutic strategy anywhere on the horizon. The futility of all “anti-HIV” drugs, past present and future is best highlighted in a June 1998 interview by Dr. Harold Varmus, Nobel Laureate retrovirologist and Director of the NIH. “Trying to rid the body of a virus whose genome is incorporated into the host genome may be impossible”.(98) Indeed, how can a drug rid a body of material so intimately bound to the host DNA genetic material?


The theory versus the definition

The central premise of the HIV theory of AIDS is that there exists a unique retrovirus, transmissible via blood and sexual secretions, which induces specific antibodies, kills T4 cells whose relative absence then causes the appearance of approximately 30 diseases which constitute the clinical syndrome. The theory however is rendered completely contradictory by the official AIDS definition used clinically. In Australia an individual is diagnosed AIDS if he or she fulfills the criteria set out in the latest (1993) revision of the US “CDC surveillance case definition for AIDS”.(99) (Other definitions in use around the world make scientific comparisons almost impossible. In Africa AIDS is diagnosed on symptoms and without blood tests (100)). Since from 1985 the CDC “accepts” HIV as the cause of AIDS, it should not be possible to diagnose AIDS by any means inconsistent with the HIV theory. However, even a cursory reading of the 1993 definition reveals AIDS can be diagnosed with the imprimatur of the CDC: with Kaposis’ sarcoma which even Gallo (54) accepts is not caused by HIV, in the absence of immune deficiency, “without laboratory evidence of HIV infection” and, extraordinarily, “in the presence of negative results for HIV infection”(101) (italics ours).

Sexual transmission

HIV/AIDS is claimed to be bidirectionally sexually transmitted. Data to support this claim is based not upon microbial isolation and contact tracing as is the orthodox practice for proving diseases are infectious and sexually transmitted (STD), but on mostly retrospective studies of highly selected groups of individuals including gay and bisexual men, heterosexual men and women including prostitutes, for antibodies in blood which react certain proteins deemed “HIV specific”. Included in these studies are estimations of risk factors for the specific sexual practices of penile insertive, vaginal, anal receptive and oral receptive intercourse.

Gay men

In 1984 Gallo and his colleagues showed that “Of eight different sexual acts, a positive HIV antibody test correlated only with receptive anal intercourse” (102). They also found the more often a gay man has insertive anal intercourse the less likely he was to become HIV positive. This is incompatible with an infectious cause. In 1986 Gallo and his colleagues reported they “found no evidence that other forms of sexual activity, contribute to the risk” of HIV seroconversion in gay men.(103) In an extensive review of 25 studies of gay men reported in 1994 by Caceres and van Griensven, the authors concluded that ” no or no consistent risk of the acquisition of HIV-1 infection has been reported regarding insertive intercourse”.(104) In the West, the largest and most judiciously conducted prospective epidemiological studies such as the Multicenter AIDS Cohort Study (MACS) of 4955 gay men (105) have proven beyond all reasonable doubt that in gay men the only significant sexual act related to becoming HIV antibody positive is receptive anal intercourse. Thus in gay men, AIDS may be likened to the non-infectious condition, pregnancy. It is acquired by the passive partner but is not transmitted to the active partner.

Significantly, the MACS also showed that once a gay man becomes HIV positive, progression to AIDS is further determined by the amount of passive anal intercourse sustained after “infection”. This is contrary to all that is known about infectious diseases. Infection, not repeated infections, causes disease. Indeed, although the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons considers HIV positive surgeons “to be infectious and should not perform invasive procedures or operations. However, “(t)hey may provide these services to patients who have the same infection”.(106)


The largest and best conducted studies in heterosexuals including the European Study Group (107) show that for women, the only sexual practice leading to an increased risk of becoming HIV antibody positive is anal intercourse. The unidirectional transmission of “HIV” observed in OECD countries is supported by Nancy Padian’s ten year study of heterosexual couples (1986-1996).(108) There were two parts to this study, one cross-sectional, the other prospective. In the former “The constant per-contact infectivity for male-to-female transmission was estimated to be 0.0009 [1/1111]”. The risk factors for the women were: (i) anal intercourse;. (ii) having partners who acquired this infection through drug use (Padian says that this means the women may also be IV drug users); (iii) the presence of STDs. (antibodies to their causative agents may react in an “HIV” antibody test (15,20) Of the HIV negative male partners of 82 positive female cases only 2 became HIV positive but under circumstances considered ambiguous by Padian. In the prospective study, starting in 1990, 175 HIV-discordant couples were followed for approximately 282 couple-years. At entry, one third used condoms consistently and in the six months prior their last follow up visit, 26% of couples consistently failed to use condoms. There were no seroconversions after entry including the 47 couples not using condoms consistently. Based on the 2/86 men who became HIV positive in the early study, the risk to a non-infected male from his HIV positive female partner was reported to be in the order of 1/9000 per contact. From this statistic one can calculate that on average, a male would need to have 6000 sexual contacts with an infected female to achieve a 50% chance of becoming HIV positive. At three contacts per week this would take 56 years, or a life time.


The notion that HIV is a virus which “does not discriminate” is also markedly inconsistent with the data obtained from studies of female prostitutes. Even if, as it is widely accepted, by some unknown means a sexually transmitted infectious agent found its way into the promiscuous portion of the gay male population in certain large cities in the United States in the late 1970s, given the facts that prostitutes are frequented by bisexual men and, at the very earliest, “safe” sexual practices date from 1985, one would have expected HIV/AIDS to have spread rapidly through prostitutes and thence to the general community. However, the prevalence of “HIV” antibodies amongst prostitutes is almost entirely confined to those who are drug users. Virtually all other prostitutes have not been, and are not becoming, HIV positive.

In September 1985, 56 non-intravenous drug using (IVDU) prostitutes were tested “In the rue Saint-Denis, the most notorious street in Paris for prostitution. More than a thousand prostitutes work in this area…These women, aged 18-60, have sexual intercourse 15-25 times daily and do not routinely use protection”. None were positive.(109)

In Copenhagen, 101 non-IVDU prostitutes, a quarter of whom “suspected that up to one fifth of their clients were homosexual or bisexual”, were tested during August/October 1985. The median numbers of sexual encounters per week was 20. None were positive.(110)

In 1985, 132 prostitutes (and 55 non-prostitutes) who attended a Sydney STD clinic were tested for HIV antibodies. The average numbers of sexual partners (clients and lovers) in the previous month was 24.5. When an estimate was made to separate clients and lovers, the median number of sexual contacts per year rose from 175 to 450. The partners of only 14 (11%) of prostitutes used condoms at all and 49% of their partners used condoms in fewer than 20% of encounters. No women were positive.(111)

The same Australian Clinic repeatedly tested an additional 491 prostitutes who attended between 1986 and 1988. Of 231 out of the 491 prostitutes surveyed, 19% “had bisexual non-paying partners and 21% had partners who injected drugs. Sixty-nine percent always used condoms for vaginal intercourse with paying clients, but they were rarely used with non-paying partners. Condoms were rarely used by those clients and/or partners for the 18% of prostitutes practising anal intercourse”. No women were positive.

At the time of this report, a decade into the AIDS era, the authors also commented, “there has been no documented case of a female prostitute in Australia becoming infected with HIV through sexual intercourse” (italics ours). Yet, these investigators from the Sydney Sexual Health Centre concluded “there are still many women working as prostitutes in Sydney who remain seriously at risk of HIV infection”.(112) In Spain, of 519 non-IVDU prostitutes tested between May 1989 and December 1990, only 12 (2.3 per cent) had positive test, which was “only slightly higher than that reported 5 years ago in similar surveys”. Some prostitutes had as many as 600 partners a month and the development of a positive antibody test was directly related to the practice of anal intercourse. The authors also noted, “a more striking and disappointing finding was the low proportion of prostitutes who used condoms at all times, despite the several mass-media AIDS prevention campaigns that have been carried out in Spain”.(113)

Similar data from two Scottish studies,(114) the 1993 “European working group on HIV infection in female prostitutes study”,(115) and a 1994 report of 53,903 Filipino prostitutes tested between 1985 to 1992, confirm that non-IVDU prostitutes remain virtually devoid of HIV infection. For example, in the latter study, only 72 (0.01%) women were found to be HIV positive.

In studies where there appear to be a high incidence of HIV amongst prostitutes there are uncertainties that defy explanation. For example, although “HIV has been present in the commercial sex work networks in the Philippines and Indonesia for almost as long as it has been in Thailand and Cambodia”, the prevalence of HIV in the former is 0.13% and 0.02% respectively and 18.8% and 40% in the latter.(116) If these are accurate data, the discrepancy defies epidemiological explanation and has indeed baffled the experts although the latter postulate “behavioural factors” such as one country’s prostitutes and clients being considerably more or less sexually active than another. However, one could also pose another question. What are the “HIV” antibody tests actually measuring? Be that as it may, since 5674 (44%) and 4360 (34%) of the 12785 Cambodian “HIV and AIDS Case Reports” till 31/12/97 are listed as “Unknown” gender and age respectively,(117) data collection, at least by the WHO in Cambodia, must be regarded as problematic.


Why should HIV avoid non-drug using prostitutes? If female prostitutes who do not use drugs do not become HIV infected despite being “seriously at risk of HIV infection”, what is the risk of infection to the majority of Australian women who are neither drug users nor prostitutes? According to data from the National Centre in HIV Epidemiology and Clinical Research, vanishingly little. A 1989 study testing 10, 217 blood samples of newborn babies (unambiguous evidence of heterosexual activity without condoms), found that no babies or mothers were HIV positive.(118) If such women remain non-infected, how do their non-drug using, male heterosexual partners become infected with HIV?

According to Simon Wain-Hobson, a leading HIV expert from the Pasteur Institute, “a virus’s job” is to spread. “If you don’t spread, you’re dead”. (Weiss, 1998 #1179) The “overwhelming” evidence from studies both in gay men and heterosexuals is that HIV/AIDS is not bidirectionally sexually transmitted. In the whole history of Medicine there has never been such a phenomenon. Since microbes rely on person to person spread for their survival, it is impossible to claim from epidemiological data that HIV/AIDS is an infectious, sexually transmitted disease. Indeed, Professor Stuart Brody, from the University of Tubingen, has argued that physicians ignore the actual heterosexual data and instead promote the politically correct idea that everyone is at risk. “Ideological knowledge about AIDS is far more likely to filter through society than scientific knowledge”.(37)


The HIV antibody tests

There are two “HIV” antibody tests in common use, the ELISA and Western blot (WB). The ELISA causes a colour change when a mixture of “HIV” proteins reacts with antibodies in serum from a patient. In the Western blot, “HIV” proteins are first separated along the length of a nitrocellulose strip. This enables individual reactions to the ten or so “HIV” proteins to be visualised as a series of darkened “bands”. The Western blot test is used to “confirm” repeatedly positive ELISAs because experts agree that the ELISA “overreacts”, that is, it is insufficiently specific.(¥) Prior to 1987, one “HIV specific” WB band was considered proof of HIV infection. However, since 15%-25% of healthy, no risk individuals have “HIV specific” WB bands,(119,120) it became necessary to redefine a positive WB by adding extra and selecting particular bands, otherwise at least one in every seven people would be diagnosed infected with HIV. (Notwithstanding, in the MACS, one band remained proof of HIV infection in gay men until 1990 (121)). On the other hand, although AIDS began to decline in 1987,(122,123) this trend was countered by the addition of more and more diseases and, most recently, mere laboratory abnormalities to each revision (1985, 1987 and 1993) of the first, 1982 CDC definition. The net effect of these changes was to maintain the correlation between “HIV” antibodies and “AIDS” amongst the “risk” groups while the risk of an HIV/AIDS diagnosis outside these groups remained slight. This was further accentuated by avoiding testing outside the risk groups. However, when such studies were performed, for example, (a) amongst 89,547 anonymously tested blood specimens from 26 US hospital patients at no risk of AIDS, between 0.7% to 21.7% of men and 0-7.8% of women aged 25-44 years were found to be HIV WB positive.(124) (It is estimated that approximately 1% of men are gay. Also, at the five hospitals with the highest rates of HIV antibodies, one third of positive tests were in women. Yet men vastly outnumber women as AIDS patients). (b) the US Consortium for Retrovirus Serology Standardization reported that 127/1306 (10%) of individuals at “low risk” for AIDS including “specimens from blood donor centers” had a positive HIV antibody test by the “most stringent” US WB criteria (119) (see below). Thus the correlation between “HIV” antibodies and AIDS, which experts accept as the only proof that HIV causes AIDS, could not be a statistic related to the natural, unbridled activity of a virus but is instead a contrivance of mankind. Not only does correlation never prove causation, the artificiality of this particular “correlation” disqualifies it from meaningful scientific analysis.

One of the most bizarre aspects of the HIV/AIDS theory is that different laboratories, institutions and countries define different sets of WB bands as a positive test (Figure 1). The global variation in interpretive criteria means for example, that in Australia a positive test requires particular sets of four bands. In the USA, different sets of two or three suffice, which may or may not include the bands required in Australia. In Africa only one designated set of two is required. Put simply, this means that the same person tested in three cities on the same day may or may not be HIV infected. If the diagnosis of HIV infection were a game of poker, a flush would require five cards the same suit in one country but only one or two elswhere. A virus cannot behave in this manner, but, according to the HIV test, which is claimed to have a specificity of 99.999%,(125) it does.

As incomprehensible as this appears, further difficulties remain. For example, an Australian tested in Australia with one or two “HIV specific” bands would not be reported HIV infected.(101). Clearly however, there must be a reason why an uninfected individual, such as a healthy blood donor or military recruit can possess any, even one, “HIV specific” band. According to the experts, these bands are caused by cross-reacting, that is, “false”, “non-HIV” antibodies which react with the “HIV” proteins. Thus it is axiomatic that an antibody which reacts with a particular protein is not necessarily an antibody the immune system has generated specifically in response to that protein. The Australian National HIV Reference Laboratory (NRL) concedes that “False reactivity may be to one or more protein bands and is common”(120) (20-25%). However Eleopulos argues, if “non-HIV” antibodies cause “one or more protein bands”, then why are they not able to cause four or five? Or all ten? On what basis do experts assert which antibodies are “false” and which are “true”? Or, how the same three bands, caused by “false” non-“HIV” antibodies, become “true” when accompanied by one extra? On what basis do experts assert there are any “true” HIV antibodies? If the Australian traveller were to be tested in the USA, where two or three bands are sufficient to diagnose HIV infection, are his antibodies “false” in Australia but “true” as his aeroplane touches down in Los Angeles?

In 1994, Dr. Elizabeth Dax, the head of the NRL was asked to justify both the Australian criteria for a positive Western blot and the global variability.(28) Her response (126) avoided answering either question and subsequent correspondence failed to pass the editorial staff at the Medical Journal of Australia. When the same questions were later put via the Offices of Senator Chris Ellison, Minister for Schools, Vocational Education and Training, the first question was again unanswered and the widely different criteria between Australia and Africa were justified on the basis that in Africa, “comparatively, false reactivity is far less common [than in Australia] so that interpretation criteria to define [true] positivity may be less strict”.(120)

However, no scientist can make such a claim without data. All antibody tests are subject to the vagaries of cross-reactions and the only way to calculate the incidences of “true” and “false” antibodies is to scrutinise reactions against what the test is purportedly meant to measure, that is, against HIV itself. HIV isolation is the only gold standard by which the specificity of the antibodies can be determined and this must be evaluated before the test is introduced into clinical practice. However, despite the WB being in widespread use and “a stalwart” (126) of HIV testing, these data have never been reported. This is an issue the NRL chronically and negligently fails to address. Even without such evidence since, (a) the NRL concedes that cross-reacting antibodies cause misleading reactions in the WB in one quarter of healthy Australians; (b) unlike Australians, Africans, (similar to the AIDS risk groups), are exposed to a multitude of infectious agents producing a myriad of antibodies each capable of cross-reactions; “false reactivity” will be much higher in Africa where the WB criteria should be the most stringent. Indeed, if it is true that “HIV” antibodies prove one third of heterosexual adults in certain central and east African countries are infected with HIV, “life in these countries must be one endless orgy”.(39)

If the proteins used in the HIV ELISA and WB are unique constituents of an exogenous retrovirus, and if such a virus induces specific antibodies, we would never expect to find “HIV” antibodies in the absence of HIV. Yet, in addition to the circumstances above, there are numerous others where antibodies to the “HIV specific” proteins arise where HIV/AIDS experts concede there is no HIV. These include healthy mice injected with lymphocytes of similar mice (127) or bacterial extracts;(V. Colizzi et al., personal communication), following transfusions of HIV free blood (128) or a person’s own irradiated blood,(129) and in 72/144 dogs tested at a Veterinary clinic in Davis USA.(130) In addition, antibodies to the microbes which cause the fungal and mycobacterial diseases affecting 90% of AIDS patients react with the “HIV specific” proteins.(20,131) This year it was reported that 35% of patients with primary biliary cirrhosis, 39% of patients with other biliary disorders, 29% of those with lupus, 60% of patients with hepatitis B, 35% of hepatitis C, all non-HIV, non-AIDS diseases, have antibodies to the “HIV” p24 “core” protein;(132)

Until 1990, an unknown number of the 4955 gay men in the MACS were diagnosed HIV infected on the basis of an antibody to the “HIV specific”, p24 protein, that is, with one WB band. Why do not all similar tests prove infection with HIV? Why are gay men with a single, p24 band infected with a deadly virus while biliary and liver disease patients with the same band are not? Why were the criteria for diagnosing HIV infection set less rigorous in gay men? Although all HIV experts accept cross-reactivity in HIV antibody testing, in 1993 the New South Wales Department of Health interpreted the discovery of “HIV” antibodies in four woman as “compelling evidence” for transmission of HIV from a gay man during the course of minor, office surgery in 1989.(133) However, there was no proof that the gay man was HIV infected at the time of surgery, or that any of the four women were operated on after the man. This report remains the only one of its kind in the world and immediately led to the establishment of a special committee of the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons which wrote to all College Fellows inviting submissions upon the matter. However, rather than seizing upon the rarity of the event and following advice urging a formal, scientific enquiry into whether “HIV” antibodies are caused by infection with a retrovirus,(134) the College accepted these data as proof of cross-infection but concluded “The mode of transmission is unknown”.(106 §§)

What proof is there for the existence of HIV?

Scientific evidence for the existence of a retrovirus must be consistent with the definition of a retrovirus as a particular kind of replicating, microscopic particle. Thus researchers must demonstrate the correct size, shape and construction of particles; that these particles have been purified and analysed and contain RNA as well as an enzyme that makes DNA from RNA (reverse transcription); and that the particles are infectious, that is, when pure particles are introduced into fresh cell cultures, identical progeny appear. The latter necessitates a second round of purification and analysis. Indeed, although this method is entirely logical and was deemed essential at a meeting held at the Pasteur Institute in 1973,(135,136) it has been ignored by all HIV researchers.

Although there are electron microscope (EM) pictures from unpurified cell cultures of particles purported to be “HIV”, it was not until March 1997 that EMs of “purified HIV” were published.(137,138) Yet such data is the first, most essential step in attempts to prove particles are a virus, and for subsequent extraction of constituents for analysis and use as diagnostic reagents. These long awaited pictures reveal “purified HIV” to be a tangle of cellular debris. Scattered amongst this are scant particles which, without evidence, the authors claim are the HIV particles which “copurify” (sic) with the cellular material. Close examination of these particles as well as other evidence in the papers show they are too large, wrongly shaped, have too high a mass and are devoid of knobs HIV experts unanimously assert are absolutely essential for the “HIV” particle to cause infection. It is from this material, HIV/AIDS experts and biotechnology companies obtain proteins and RNA to use in tests to pronounce humans infected with a unique, exogenous AIDS causing microbe.

On July 17th 1997, the French investigative television journalist Djamel Tahi interviewed Professor Luc Montagnier in camera at the Pasteur Institute in Paris. Montagnier was asked, “Why do the EM photographs published by you [in 1983] come from the culture and not the purification?”. His reply was, “There was so little production of virus it was impossible to see what might be in a concentrate of the virus from the gradient [“pure virus”]. There was not enough virus to do that. Of course one looked for it, one looked for it in the tissues at the start, likewise the biopsy. We saw some particles but they did not have the morphology typical of retroviruses. They were very different. Relatively different. So with the [unpurified] cultures it took many hours to find the first pictures. It was a Roman effort!… Charles Dauget [an EM expert] looked at the plasma, the concentrate, etc… he saw nothing major”(61) ( italics ours). Questioned about the Gallo group he replied, “Gallo? I don’t know if he really purified. I don’t believe so”. This should have been both the beginning and the end of HIV.

Retroviral-like particles are virtually ubiquitous in biological material (139,140) including for example cell cultures and “in the majority if not all, human placentas”.(141) (One should note that Montagnier’s “Roman effort” refers to EMs obtained from umilical cord blood lymphocytes). However, as Gallo confirms, because they do not replicate, the majority of retroviral-like particles are not retroviruses.(139,142) The “HIV” particle has been “classified” into two subfamilies and three genera of retroviruses. This is analogous to describing a new species of mammal as human, a gorilla and an orang-utan. Besides the “HIV” particle, cell cultures contain other particles of numerous morphologies whose origin and role are unknown.(18,143,144) A detailed study from Harvard (145) revealed the identical “HIV” particle in 18/20 (90%) of AIDS as well as in 13/15 (88%) of non-AIDS related lymph node enlargements.

HIV experts claim to detect and even “isolate” HIV merely by demonstrating “reverse transcription” in cultures. However, although present in retroviruses, reverse transcription is not, as many HIV/AIDS experts claim, unique to retroviruses or even viruses.(146,147) Well before the AIDS era Gallo himself showed that chemically stimulated (absolutely essential to “isolate HIV” from cultures) lymphocytes, possess this function.(148,149)

The “HIV” proteins and antibodies

Although both Montagnier and Gallo have never published EMs to prove the presence of retroviral-like particles in their “pure virus”, and Montagnier now concedes there were none, both groups and all others since claim such material is “pure HIV”. This claim is based on the fact that such material contains proteins which react with antibodies present in AIDS patients. However, this reasoning is untenable. Imagine a scientist who mixes two solutions together, obtains a precipitate and then proclaims the identity and source of several reactants. One does not need a degree in chemistry to realise this is an impossibility. Nonetheless, because cultures and antibodies derived from AIDS patients react together, the proteins are declared to belong to “HIV” and the antibodies the “HIV” specific antibodies. In fact, Gallo admits that for him, an antibody test is the quintessence of “HIV isolation”. During an interview at the Geneva AIDS conference he said, “Sometimes we had Western blot positive but we couldn’t isolate the virus. So we got worried and felt we were getting false positives sometimes so we added the Western blot. That’s all I can tell you. It was an experimental tool when we added it and for us it worked well, ‘cos we could isolate the virus when we did it”.(150) However, HIV isolation is not an antibody test and “HIV” proteins can only be defined by extracting them from particles purified and proven to be a retrovirus. Such material has never been shown to exist and such extraction never reported. Notwithstanding, since the mid 1980s, HIV researchers claim that the reaction between cell cultures and an antibody to merely one, the p24 protein, is “HIV isolation”. Since “to isolate a virus” is to obtain infectious particles separate from everything else, it is particularly difficult to see how scientists can refer to a chemical reaction in this manner.

The origin of the “HIV” proteins

According to Eleopulos and her colleagues, all data presented to date is consistent with the “HIV” proteins being cellular. Using “HIV” antibodies as probes, “HIV” proteins have been identified in the tissues of persistently HIV negative, healthy individuals including blood platelet and skin cells, thymus, tonsil and brain.(15) As a mark of the bewildering status of the HIV theory, while HIV proteins could not be found in the placentas of 75 HIV positive pregnant women,(151) they could be found in the placentas of 25 healthy, HIV negative women.(152) That the HIV proteins are cellular is further strengthened by a recent, two-part experiment. Human lymphocytes, cultured in the absence of material from AIDS patients, is “purified” as it would be to obtain the “HIV” proteins. This “uninfected” material serves as a “mock virus” in experiments involving both “HIV” and “SIV” (simian [monkey] immunodeficiency virus, claimed similar to “HIV”). Analysis of “mock virus” reveals qualitatively a series of proteins bearing the same molecular weights as the proteins of “real” virus, strongly suggesting that the “HIV” proteins are cellular because the existence of HIV proteins demands they appear exclusively in cultures derived from AIDS patients.(137) In the second experiment, monkeys are immunised on several occasions with “mock virus”, a procedure which subsequently protects them from a “challenge” with “real” SIV.(153,154) However, immunisation is specific. Immunisation with hepatitis vaccine does not protect against poliomyelitis. It relies on exposure of the animal to material specific to the organism against which protection is sought resulting in the production of specific antibodies by the immune system. Since proteins from the cells in which “SIV” is “grown” (“mock” virus), protects against “real” SIV, these must be exceedingly similar if not identical. That is, the “SIV”, and by inference the “HIV” proteins, are all cellular.

The “HIV genome”

As is the case with the “HIV” proteins, the RNA purported to be the HIV genome has not been obtained from particles purified and proven infectious but from the conglomerate material described above. Molecular biologists have produced possibly more information about the “HIV” genome than any other object in the universe. Nonetheless, there are no reports of even one individual possessing a complete, full-length “HIV” genome and there is no agreement as to how many genes HIV possesses. Opinions have varied from four through to eight, nine or ten. Man and chimpanzee DNA differ by less than 2% but variation in the composition of the “HIV genome” (derived from analysis of “pieces” measuring 2% to 30% of the presumed total) measures between 3-40%. By comparison, two RNA containing viruses (polio and influenza, the latter after 27 years of dormancy,) vary by less than 1% as do RNA molecules self-assembled in test tubes denied the organising influence of living cells.(155,156)

Given that the DNA sequence determines the composition of a virus’s proteins, and the latter the physical, biochemical and biological properties of a virus, how is it possible for such variation to represent one and the same agent? For example, how is it possible that HIV can induce the same antibodies and which can be recognised in a universal antibody test containing the identical proteins? Since, as the molecular biologist Duesberg reminds us, “there is a range, a small range, in which you can mutate around without too much penalty, but as soon as you exceed it you are gone, and you are not HIV any longer, or a human any longer…then you are either dead or you are a monkey, or what have you”,(8) it is evident that whatever the “HIV DNA genome” represents, it cannot be a virus.

Lessons from the past?

The evidence for the existence of Gallo’s “first human” retrovirus (HL23V) was much stronger than that for HIV.(20,25,157) However, in 1980 the antibodies to the HL23V proteins were shown to occur following a large variety of common non-infectious factors and in far more humans than could have ever developed leukaemia.(158,159) Thus, from signifying that an “infectious mode of transmission [of leukaemia] remains a real possibility in humans” and “infection with an oncovirus [retrovirus] may be extremely widespread”,(160) the “first” human retrovirus abruptly disappeared from the annals of science. At present no one, not even Gallo, believes it existed. In the AIDS era experts recognise that antibodies to the “HIV specific” proteins occur where there is no HIV and in many more individuals than will ever develop AIDS. On what basis then does HIV still exist?


The failures of the past fifteen years are fairly and squarely affixed to the five Montagnier and Gallo 1983/84 Science papers. That the titles of three of these papers contain the word “isolation” and yet no such evidence was presented, must stand as a memorial to the demise of editorial integrity. The dissident cases, that HIV does not exist (Eleopulos), or if it does exist does not cause AIDS (Eleopulos and Duesberg), ultimately implies there will be devastating outcomes in terms of scientific credibility including the failure of peer review, the reputations of many experts and non-experts, a challenge to the trust the citizen places in the hands of government, scientific and medical leaders as well as an uncertain period of ignominy for the medical profession as a whole. Weaving a just resolution through this maze of socio-medico-legal bedlam will require the utmost perspicacity and tenacity from political leaders.

Perhaps there are already signs of quiet beginnings with the 1994 return of the discovery of HIV to the French by the Americans followed by the most recent admissions of Montagnier in his 1997 interview. Perhaps it is also written in the faces of the Nobel Committee and the stubborn absence of a Nobel prize awarded for any of the 100,000 scientific papers representing HIV/AIDS research.


Over and above all the uncertainties surrounding the HIV/AIDS debate, AIDS science and medicine must stand as the most remarkable case of “exceptionalism” in history. The funding it attracts far outstrips that justified by its prevalence and economic impact.(161) For example, over the past 17 years Australia has a cumulative total of 7,766 cases of AIDS including 5575 deaths.(162 ¥§) The big spenders are (in order) the United States, France, the United Kingdom, Germany and Italy. Their combined annual HIV/AIDS research budget amounts to US$1.8 billion for a cumulative total of 761,572 AIDS patients (many of whom are dead). Of an additional $US20 million spent by the European Union in 1994-98, most “money goes to support travel and meeting costs rather than laboratory research”.(163) While thousands of dollars per patient are spent on HIV/AIDS research, only a few dollars are spent on heart disease, cancer, mental illness, suicide prevention or road trauma. The funding paradox reaches epidemic, almost farcical proportions in developing countries where Western AIDS workers spend their days dispensing advice and condoms to a population dying for want of potable water, adequate sanitation and nutrition, antibacterial, antitubercular and antimalarial medicines. In a word, dying of poverty.

Currently, the annual cost of anti-HIV drugs for one person costs about $US15,000 (which is greater than the entire health budget for many a third world village). With 650,000 to 900,000 HIV positive patients in the US as of July 1996, it would take $10 billion to pay for drugs alone. This must be viewed against the World Health Organisation’s estimate that by the year 2000 there will be 30-40 million HIV infected people. Without HIV, AIDS patients, specialist AIDS units and their employees can rationally be absorbed into existing infrastructure of clinics and hospitals. The pursuit of expensive drugs designed to kill HIV will be irrelevant as will be the travail of the legions of HIV researchers. The same applies to AIDS councils, the armies of AIDS educators, AIDS fund raisers, volunteers and AIDS organisations. In the US alone there are 93,000 of the latter, one for every four persons ever diagnosed with AIDS.(34)

Clear thinking

Homo sapiens (thinking man), was not named in vain. An honourable society provides unfettered information and encourages its members to make rational choices. Epidemiology shows that the development of a positive “HIV” antibody test and AIDS is not so much related to a given sexual practice but rather to the frequency of passive anal intercourse in both men and women. It follows that AIDS is not a disease of sexual orientation. As far as women are concerned, it is prudent to note that in absolute terms, innumerably more women than men engage in anal intercourse. Thus AIDS is not unlike the case of the recently appended AIDS defining disease cervical cancer which, long before the AIDS era, was known to be related to the frequency of vaginal intercourse. Even so, it is not the act itself but the very high frequencies of the act which is pathogenic.

As serious as public reaction to an ill conceived retrovirus may prove, it will not be anywhere as serious as the legal backlash. There are countless individuals alive who believe they are infected with a deadly microbe, many of whom are currently treated with potentially toxic drugs with no proven benefit. They avoid intimacy, avoid having children and sometimes even casual contact with others. It would take a flotilla of poet laureates to voice the collective pain and suffering engendered by such a mistake. It would take an army of mathematically gifted lawyers to quantify, and the nation’s coffers to compensate, those who lives have been ruined by what Neville Hodgkinson has called “the greatest scientific blunder of the 20th century”.(29) This is not to mention patients and relatives who have died at their own hands. In 1987 former US Senator Lawton Chiles of Florida told an AIDS conference of a tragic case where twenty two blood donors were informed they were HIV infected on the basis of an ELISA test. Seven then committed suicide.(164)

In June this year the Swiss AIDS analyst Michael Baumgartner persuaded United Nations officials to include a dissident session at the XIIth International AIDS Conference held in Geneva. Speakers included Huw Christie, the editor of Continuum magazine, AIDS analyst and documentary film maker Joan Shenton, epidemiologist Professor Gordon Stewart, retrovirologist and electron microscopist Professor Etienne de Harven, virologist Dr. Stefan Lanka and, by satellite from Perth, Eleni Eleopulos and her group from the Royal Perth Hospital. In the audience were observers from the Pasteur Institute and the US National Institutes for Health. The topic of the session was a scientific critique of the HIV antibody tests and the evidence for the existence of HIV. At the official press conference held after the meeting, Professor Bernhard Hirschel, chairman of the Organising Committee, accused the speakers of “using outdated and untrustworthy scientific data”. However, the “outdated” data is that of Montagnier and Gallo which led to the 1984 proclamation that HIV is the cause of AIDS. That considered “untrustworthy” is the HIV experts’ own data.

Notwithstanding these and many other challenges to the current dogma, HIV/AIDS experts are not in the least disquieted by sceptical patients, relatives or scientists and inveigh heavily against inquisitive journalists alleging great harm to public health. Thus it appears the only hope for an immediate resolution of this troubled issue is lawyers appearing for plaintiffs desiring judgements that they are or are not infected with an AIDS causing virus. However, even if an examination of “HIV science” is destined to be scrutinised by courts of law, at present one must be realistic that in the short term the status quo is extremely unlikely to change.

A real debate?

Nonetheless, it is inexorably drawing nearer to the time when world governments will convene an international, adjudicated debate on this subject. In contrast to the 13,775 participants from 177 countries who attended the June Geneva AIDS Conference, this should be a small gathering where a dozen or so experts from each side put their respective cases to a disinterested group of scientists of the utmost stature, for example, another dozen made up largely of Nobel laureates. There is a precedent for such a ‘consensus conference’ or ‘conference de citoyens’ in common sense and “along the lines of a model invented in Scandinavia and since applied in the United Kingdom and elsewhere”. A “jury” of 14 people “screened for independence from interested parties” have issues “debated in front of them by scientists, non-governmental organizations, industrialists and other bodies…The power of public research bodies is probably the best guarantee of independence with respect to private sector research and the influence of multinationals”.(165) By AIDS standards, funding for such a meeting would be trivial. Indeed, such would be its significance it would make money for the organisers.

Perhaps a disinterested observer could be forgiven for concluding that, although we are approaching the eighteenth year of the AIDS era, and have spent many billions of dollars on treatments and research, the words of Duesberg continue to taunt us: “By any measure, the war on AIDS has been a colossal failure…our leading scientists and policymakers cannot demonstrate that their efforts have saved a single life”.(1) Perhaps those of Eleopulos group are of even greater portent: “The single most important obstacle in finding the explanation for AIDS is the belief in HIV.(19,26) In his recent book, “Dancing Naked in the Mind Field”, Dr. Kary Mullis writes, “Years from now, people will find our acceptance of the HIV theory of AIDS as silly as we find those who excommunicated Galileo”.(2) Indeed, it was Galileo who counseled, “In Science the authority embodied in the opinion of thousands is not worth a spark of reason on one man”. Perhaps, seventeen years in, we should all pause, look around, and then take a long look back.

Dr. Valendar F. Turner, Department of Emergency Medicine, Royal Perth Hospital, Perth, West Australia. Andrew McIntyre, Freelance Journalist, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Voice 08 92242662
Fax 08 92247045
Email vturner@westnet.com.au

Website http://www.theperthgroup.com


The authors gratfully acknowledge the assistance of Mr. Peter Bloch of General Media International and Penthouse Magazine New York City for making available excerpts of Dr. Mullis’ forthcoming book.


*US journalist Christine Johnson’s interview (now available in six languages) with the leader of the Perth group, was reviewed by scholar and international gay media personality Professor Camille Paglia, in her column in the US Salon magazine October 28th 1997: “For a superb critique of the scandalously overpoliticized scientific research on AIDS, see Christine Johnson’s long interview with Australian biophysicist Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos in the new issue of the British AIDS magazine Continuum. The American major media have effectively suppressed long-standing questions about whether the AIDS test is reliable or whether an HIV virus in fact exists at all”.

**On May 5th 1998, two US Republicans said they were exploring ways to give a comfortable retirement to 1,500 chimpanzees that were bred for AIDS research. Accompanied by primate expert Jane Goodall, House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Rep. Jim Greenwood, R-Penn. said they were working on a bill to set up sanctuaries for the chimps. The chimps, bred in the United States specifically for AIDS research, did not turn out to be the effective models that scientists had anticipated. With no research use, the primates that are man’s closest cousins are languishing in cages at an annual cost of $US7.3 million.

§ In 1988, Eleopulos’ paper that HIV does not cause Kaposis’ sarcoma was thrice rejected by the Medical Journal of Australia on the advice of an “established expert”. The reviewer stated, “The author tries to argue that Kaposis’ sarcoma cannot be caused by HIV infection, and that therefore AIDS is not due to HIV infection. The arguments put forward by the author are quite unsatisfactory, and are not supported by even a desultory reading of the literature quoted. In addition, the author fails to examine the body of epidemiological, immunological and cellular literature concerning the pathology, pathogenesis and clinical associations of this fascinating manifestation of HIV infection”. Yet this is the very “epidemiological, immunological and cellular literature” which eventually led the “established experts” to accept that “this fascinating manifestation of HIV infection”, is not caused by HIV infection.

¥ Asked to comment at the Geneva conference on the fact that England and Wales have dropped the use of the WB to “confirm” positive HIV ELISAs, Gallo commented, “Well, the bulk of the world uses it. If some technology comes across better I’d be the first to say do it. I mean obviously. The Western blot’s a valuable test as defining the proteins that you have antibodies to. Everybody uses it experimentally and most people use it around the world. Not in Eng…,Britain doesn’t use it, maybe there are two countries that have found a better way. God bless them. OK?”

§§ In 1997 the Perth group attempted a second time to engage the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons in debating the HIV/AIDS controversy by submitting a paper entitled “A critical analysis of the evidence for the isolation of HIV” (www.virusmyth.com/aids/data/epappraisal.htm). It is editorial policy to “welcome personal views of surgeons on a variety of topics”, and to publish papers on “current and controversial issues”. Although both reviewers accepted the bulk of the scientific arguments and found the paper “interesting reading”, they advised against publication because, in their view, an analysis of evidence for the isolation of HIV was of “no real relevance…to a surgical audience” or “would be of little interest or use to the majority of readers of the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Surgery”.

¥§ Of the 7766 Australian AIDS cases, 387 (5%) are reported in the “heterosexual contact” exposure category. However, 22 of these qualify on the basis of “Sex with injecting drug user”, 35 “Sex with bisexual male”, 56 “From high prevalence country” (where heterosexual spread is deemed dominant), 47 “Sex with HIV-infected person, exposure not specified”, 170 “Not further specified”. Thus injecting drug use, anal intercourse in women, the presumption of any form of sexual intercourse and lack of sufficient data question the mode of acquiring HIV infection in at least 330 (85%) of individuals listed in this exposure category.

Are Rothschilds Jesuit?

The Jewish Encyclopedia (Vol. 2, p. 497) admits that: “It is a somewhat curious sequel to the attempt to set up a Catholic competitor to the Rothschilds that at the present time (1905) the latter are the guardians of the papal treasure.”

If this latter statement is true the Rothschilds control in addition to their own fortune the immense liquid resource of the Catholic Church, which is second only to the Rothschilds’ in wealth and power.

The Two Babylons – Part VII

Original source for “Guardians of the Papal Treasure”:

“If you are not an American you will understand why your country is on its present course, as it too is controlled by the Jesuit General through his select Jesuits, Knights of Malta, Shriner Freemasons, the Knights of Columbus, and the Illuminati’s Masonic, Cabalistic, Labor Zionist, Sabbatian Frankist (named after the Black Pope’s baptized Jacob Frank), Jewish House of Rothschild. For the Order controlled the infamous House of Rothschild since no later than the French Revolution and Napoleonic Wars, after which Jesuit-led Crusade the Rothschild family was surnamed the “Guardians of the Vatican Treasury.”

  • Eric Jon Phelps, “Vatican Assassins”, 3rd Ed., p.90

The real power structure

“The Treaty of Paris of 1763 designated King George III “Arch-Treasurer and Prince Elector of the Holy Roman Empire.” And “according to the Encyclopedia Judaica [sic] the Rothschilds bear the title “Guardians of the Vatican Treasury.”
The Vatican Treasury, of course, holds the imperial wealth of Rome. Imperial wealth grows in proportion to its victories in war — as the Jesuit empowerment Regimini militantis ecclesiae implies, the Church-at-War is more necessary than the Church-at-Peace.
According to H. Russell Robinson’s illustrated Armour of Imperial Rome, Caesarean soldiers protect themselves in battle with shields painted red. Since the soldiery is the State’s most valuable resource (the Council of Trent admitted this in preferring the Jesuits to all other religious orders), it is easy to understand why the red shield was identified with the very life of the Church. Hence, the appropriateness of the name Rothschild, German for “red shield.”
The appointment of Rothschild gave the black papacy absolute financial privacy and secrecy. Who would ever search a family of orthodox Jews for the key to the wealth of the Roman Catholic Church? I believe this appointment explains why the House of Rothschild is famous for helping nations go to war.
It is fascinating that, as Meyer Rothschild’s sons grew into the family business, the firm took on the title Meyer Amschel Rothschild und Sohne, which gives us the notariqon MARS. Isn’t Mars the Roman God of War, whose heavenly manifestation is “the red planet”? There is powerful cabalah here, and there’s hardly an acre of inhabitable earth that hasn’t been affected by it in some way.”

  • Tupper Saussy: “Rulers of Evil”, p. 160-161

“International finance and banking are NOT primarily ‘Jewish’. Many of the most powerful banking interests in the world are run by ‘Gentiles’. One of the most powerful forces in international banking is the Knights of Malta, a Roman Catholic military order controlled by the Jesuit Superior General. Sadly, even a certain segment of the ‘alternative media’ helps to propagate the LIE that ‘the Jews’ run international banking.
Interestingly, one of the titles of the Rothschild banking dynasty is ‘Guardians of the Vatican Treasury’. ‘The Jews’, as a people, have been used for centuries as a ‘scapegoat’ by these international banksters and their secret societies, such as the Jesuit-controlled Knights of Malta. To label ‘the Jews’ as running banking, Hollywood, etc, is to throw out the proverbial ‘red herring’ designed to throw us off the scent of the ‘real controllers’.”

“The Jesuit General has been the most powerful man in the world since Pius VII restored the Order or “Company” in 1814. Because of the Order’s suppression by the Pope in 1773, the Jesuits began the Bavarian Illuminati with one of their soldiers, Adam Weishaupt.
The Illuminati absorbed the Jewish House of Rothschild creating a colossus of wealth around the world, subject to the Jesuit General. With this financial arm in place the Jesuits then made war on the Vatican including the Pope, the Roman Catholic Monarchs of Europe and the Order of the Dominicans.
This Inquisition and Crusade was called “the French Revolution and Napoleonic Wars”. For twenty-five years, the Jesuit General’s Masonic agents, particularly in the person of Napoleon Bonaparte, conducted war. Bonaparte also punished the Knights of Malta, driving them from their island home to Russia.”

  • Eric Jon Phelps: “Vatican Assassins”, 2nd Ed., p. 582

“The Jesuits, now formally suppressed by the Pope, were allied with Frederick the Great of Prussia and Catherine II of Russia. The Jesuit General was in control of Scottish Rite Freemasonry and now sought an alliance with the Masonic Baron of the House of Rothschild. To accomplish this he chose a Jesuit who was a German Gentile (not a Jew) by race and a Freemason by association — Adam Weishaupt.

  • Eric Jon Phelps: “Vatican Assassins”, 3rd Ed., p. 401

“The Rothschilds were Jesuits who used their Jewish background as a faûze to cover their sinister activities. The Jesuits, working through Rothschild and [financier Nicholas] Biddle, sought to gain control of the banking system of the United States.”
[…] “The Jesuits used Biddle and Rothschild to gain the upper hand in American banking because they knew they could then control the people and effectively re-write the Constitution according to papal law. Jackson was trying to stop them. ”
[…] “We have already seen that the Rothschilds were the banking agents for the papacy’s Church.”
[…] “These three financial families, the Rothschilds, Morgans, and Rockefellers all do the bidding of the Jesuit Order because of Jesuit infiltration in their organizations. They do whatever is necessary to destroy constitutional liberty in America and to bring the pope to world domination.
As we look back over the 20th century, we see how successful the Jesuits have been. They have continued to squander the wealth of America and continually attack its great constitution and civil liberties. Daily, the power of the pope in Vatican City increases. One day they will achieve total power again.”

  • Bill Hughes: “The Secret Terrorists”, p. 16+17

“Seldom is it mentioned: that the Rothschilds, along with other western bankers and industrialists, financed the rise of Hitler as a bulwark against the Soviets.
The ultra-right wing falsely describes the Rothschilds as “Jewish bankers” when, in fact, the Rothschilds are interwoven with the Catholic Church, and, jointly with the traditional mafia and the American CIA, interlocked with the Vatican Bank, which was pro-Nazi.”– Sherman H. Skolnick: “The Rockefellers and the Rothschilds” (article)[link to www.beyondweird.com]

“… the Jesuits were driven to co-operate with the other two international brotherhoods, the Freemasons and the Jews [Rothschild’s Illuminati], in the destruction of the Spanish Empire.”

  • Salvador de Madariaga, Spanish Statesman: “The Jesuits”, 1820

“During the Order’s Suppression from 1773 to 1814 by Pope Clement XIV, General Ricci [Eighteenth Superior General of the Society of Jesus, 1758 – 1775] created the Order of the Illuminati with his soldier, Adam Weishaupt, uniting the House of Rothschild with the Society of Jesus.”

  • G. B. Nicolini: “History of the Jesuits: Their Origin, Progress, Doctrines, and Designs”, (London: Henry G. Bohn, 1889) pp. 356, 357.

“Jesuit Adam Weishaupt, 1748 – 1811
Founder of the Illuminati, 1776
Born at Ingolstadt, Germany, in the heart of Roman Catholic Bavaria from which originated the Order’s Thirty Years’ War (1618-1648), Adam Weishaupt, a White German Gentile, was educated by the Jesuits; in 1775 he became a notorious professor of the Vatican’s murderous Canon Law, including the evil, Counter-Reformation Council of Trent.
Since Pope Clement XIV’s Bull of Extinction was not enforced in Lutheran Germany, the Order flourished at its University of Ingolstadt, out of which Weishaupt established the Illuminati in 1776 and joined the Grand Orient Masonic Lodge in 1777. He united the magnificent financial empire of the Cabalistic, Masonic, Jewish House of Rothschild, the “Guardians of the Vatican’s Treasury,” with the opulence of the international and secret, anti-Jewish Race, primarily White Gentile Society of Jesus.”

  • Nesta H. Webster: “Secret Societies and Subversive Movements”, (South Pasadena, California: Emissary Publications, 1988; originally published in 1924).

“Weishaupt and his fellow Jesuits cut off the income to the Vatican by launching and leading the French Revolution; by directing Napoleon’s conquest of Catholic Europe [as the Order would do with Hitler]; by the revolt against the Church, led by such priests as Father Hidalgo, in Mexico and Latin America; by eventually having Napoleon throw Pope Pius VII in jail at Avignon until he agreed, as the price for his release, to reestablish the Jesuit Order.
This Jesuit war on the Vatican was terminated by the Congress of Vienna and by the secret, 1822, Treaty of Verona. . . . Ever since, the Rothschilds have been the fiscal agents of the Vatican.”

  • Emanuel M. Josephson, Jewish American Physician & Historian: “The “Federal” Reserve Conspiracy & Rockefellers”, 1968

“You’ll also find ex British Intelligence officier Dr John Coleman expose how the Rothschilds and even the Rockefellers wealth simply doesn’t come close to some of the members of the Committee of 300 which is controlled by the Order of the Garter, Pilgrim Society, all inner cores of the SMOM!
[…] The Jews were bought into positions of power within Banking back in 1066 by the Norman Anglo-Saxon Monarchs. For this they accepted being controlled. Remember that the Law of Banking is known as International Maritime Admiralty Law. This Maritime Law was based on VATICAN Canon Law.
All the “War Banks” known as Central banks get controlled from SMOM controlled Switzerland. The Federal Reserve pays the Bank of England which finally ends up in the Swiss Bank of International Settlements. All you need to do is study the SMOM and its members then look who’s who in Banking.”

Suspicious decorations and obedience

“Early in the 19th century the Pope approached the Rothschilds to borrow money. The Rothschilds were very friendly with the Pope, causing one journalist to sarcastically say “Rothschild has kissed the hand of the Pope. . . Order has at last been re-established.”

“Carl Mayer (Kalman) Rothschild (*1788-†1855, Oesterreich)
He even granted Pope Gregory XVI cash injections and was received on January the 10th 1832 in audience, the kiss on the hand allowed and the Order of Saint George awarded.”
[link to www.lemura.de] [translated]

Amschel Mayer Rothschild Wears a Maltese cross. After all Amschel Mayer was the first son of the old Rothschild, Mayer Amschel, and took over the head office in Frankfurt.
Mayer Carl of Rothschild Only the decoration to the left could be Jewish – the others rather not.

The Sovereign Military Order of Malta SMOM

“The Jesuit controlled SMOM has a permanent observer status at the UN. Who created the CFR which created the UN?
The Jesuits control the CFR.
The Rothschilds are simply Court Jews for the Papacy and always will be unless they play up, then the Papacy will simply annihilate them by any means necessary. If you look at whats going on in this world properly you can see the Roman Catholic control quite clearly.
The Rothschilds have been under the Black Pope’s thumb since the 18th Century. Be careful of the many diversionists out there playing with your mind. The Jesuit ALWAYS control both sides.
When you put money in the bank does the bank own that money or can you remove it and place it in another bank or under your mattress? Yes if there’s a crash you can loose your money but the Jesuit will never loose his money.
Remember the whole banking system is fully controlled by the SOVEREIGN MILITARY ORDER OF MALTA and has been for eons. Switzerland is their Banking HQ closely followed by ‘The City’, NYNY and Dubai. Rothschild is subordinate to the JESUITS and the SMOM commanders period.
You need to understand how the Jews were granted the positions of power within the SMOM Banking. Look to 1066 and the agreement with them being ruled by the Norman Anglo-Saxon monarchs. These Jews have their uses to the Jesuit, the Jesuit isn’t stupid, he will utilise what he can to make his power cemented and stronger. The 4th vow Jesuits are the most organised of any order known and the most powerful.
What do you hear daily?
ROTHSCHILD, ROTHSCHILD. What didn’t you hear about much at all until recently? THE JESUITS and THE SUPERIOR GENERAL. For that matter the SMOM still are kept pretty much quiet in the infowars.
The Council on Foreign Relations was created by the Sovereign Military Order of Malta back in 1921 after their creation of the Royal Institute of International Affairs in 1919. Both of these control the 1868 corporation known as the United States. Both are arms of the SMOM via their inner cores within ‘The City’ known as Pilgrim Society, Order of the Garter and Committee of 300. The CFR created the United Nations. Now notice how the SMOM have PERMANENT OBSERVER STATUS within the United Nations.
Look to the likes of New York Jesuit Joseph O Hare who’s a CFR! It is correct theres many Labor Masonic Zionists within the CFR but remember also they are MASONIC which itself means subordinate to the Jesuit Superior General who controls all of Freemasonry, again thanks to Adam Weishaupt.
If you look at ‘The George Town Law Journal, Vol 71: pages 1179-1200’ you will see its stated the Norman and Anglo-Saxon Kings own the Jews. It states that Jews are controlled by Gt Britain. It also states the Talmud is now law of the land as of 1066 and its enforced by the Popes and Kings. This is what you would call the Uniform Commercial Code.” – golddragnet – member of ATS Forum


It is accurate to posit that Australia, New Zealand and Canada are not independent, sovereign countries. However, these nations are not owned and run by the UK; they are owned and run by the House of Windsor Crown Temple syndicate within the City of London Corporation. The head signatory of the Crown Temple syndicate is Elizabeth Windsor (Queen Elizabeth II of England).
It should not be forgotten that the most powerful financial syndicate in the Western World is that of the European Rothschilds. The Rothschilds, because of their power base inside the City of London Corporation, have a controlling membership of the London Crown Temple syndicate, and they also have executive control of the Vatican and the Mafia though the P2 Masonic Lodge in Italy.
The financial affairs of the new UK coalition government in London are also Rothschild-controlled. The line management here is understood to be Jacob Rothschild > Nathaniel Rothschild (N.M.Rothschild & Sons Limited, New Court, St Swithin’s Lane, London EC4P 4DU) > Oliver Letwin > George Osborne (British Chancellor of the Exchequer).
Queen Elizabeth II fronts for the Rothschilds. She is the largest landowner on Earth. She is Head of State of the United Kingdom and of thirty one other states and territories, and is the legal owner of 6,600 million acres of land, one sixth of the Earth’s land surface. A conservative estimate of the value of the Crown Temple syndicate’s land holding, under the Queen’s signature, is £17.6 trillion.”

  • See more at: http://www.henrymakow.com/by_alcuin_bramertonfor_henryma.html#sthash.Acswu9OP.dpuf

You be the Judge!!!

Side note on Eric Jon Phelps: I do not borrow any of his stance on Islam and our Holy Prophet Muhammad May Allah’s peace and blessings be upon him Ameen

Who Are the Quacks? Inquiring minds already know.

What is a “quack”? Medically speaking a quack is everyone but us, the regular school of medicine. No one not a graduate of a modern school of medicine is free from odium of quackery, from the regular classical, orthodox standpoint. Isn’t this true?

Let us put the definition of “quacks” a little more broadly, not limiting it to outlaw cults. From the broader viewpoint a quack is someone who pretends to be something which he is not, or one who is not able to do what he claims to do, especially if he takes money for this pretense.

From this broader view how many of us are there who can escape the suspicion of quackery?

If we should tell the absolute truth how often would we be compelled to say to a patient, “I do not know what is the matter with you, and not knowing this, I am in no position to treat you intelligently?”

If we were honest how many patients would we have? They would all leave us for the quacks, and we would be left holding the bag, as it were. We know this, and all unconsciously we are compelled to assume an air of wisdom and pronounce judgment on maladies for which we are consulted, well knowing that if the case escapes us and goes to someone else our opinion is in danger, for it is well a known fact that if a case is not perfectly plain (and most cases are NOT plain), should such a case go to a hundred different regular, well-informed physicians he would get nearly as many different diagnoses, and still more different plans of treatment.

We know this, I say, and we unconsciously protect ourselves by assuring the patient positively that we understand his condition very well, in order to make sure of this unfailing confidence in our enlightened judgment.

Are we quacks for this deception? How can we escape the imputation? Who is to blame for this position in which we find ourselves? Is it our fault or that of human nature as expressed in the patient? No doubt both, for while we are to blame for allowing ourselves to be placed in this position of arbiters of disease, about which we do not know very much, yet so also is the public to blame for being so silly as to think that the mysterious thing we call disease can be reduced to exact formulae.