Despite all assurances to the contrary, the AIDS establishment continues to fund only research on HIV. Peter Duesberg inadvertently proved this blackout on all alternative research when he recently submitted a grant proposal to the National Institute on Drug Abuse. The Institute’s clinical director of AIDS research had personally invited the proposal, which outlined a plan to test the long-term effects of nitrite inhalants, or “poppers,” on the immune systems of mice. The answer came back in December: The anonymous referees had not only turned it down, but had refused even to review the proposal.
Where is the evidence that refusing his grant proposal has anything to do with some conspiracy? This is so lacking in details as to be meaningless. Grant requests are rejected for many reasons. And how does he know his request was not reviewed? Maybe it was reviewed and it just sucked?
In contrast to the predicted spread of AIDS in the United States, the epidemic has remained strictly confined to risk groups; nine of every ten AIDS cases have been male, and ninety percent of all AIDS victims have been linked to heavy drug use, whether intravenously or as “fast track” homosexuals.
Not terribly surprising. The easiest way to get infected with HIV is through anal sex between men and sharing needles. Is anyone surprised that gay needle-sharers are going to be an incredibly high-risk group?
And some thirty-nine percent of AIDS diseases in America have nothing at all to do with immune deficiency — witness Kaposi’s sarcoma, various lymphomas, wasting disease, and dementia, for example.
This is misleading. At base, virtually every disease is a result of a failure of the immune system (other than genetic disorders).
The report then identified one of the major targets of change — Judaeo-Christian moral values.
Um, what? If anything, AIDS shows why being a straight, married, monogomous non drug-user is a good idea.
Most chillingly of all, Francis saw the possibilities in harnessing other epidemics to advance similar agendas. As he put it, “if we establish new mechanisms to handle the HIV epidemic, [these] can serve as models for other diseases.”
Why is this chilling? Learning from AIDS and applying to that to future outbreaks of infectious diseases is bad why, exactly?
Signs of imminent change are appearing. The CDC’s public health measures — condoms, sterile needles, contact tracing, and the like — have failed to prevent the steady growth of AIDS. As this bad advice is recognized for what it is, more voices are joining the chorus of dissent against the HIV-AIDS hypothesis. The CDC may soon have to hold HIV research meetings all by itself.
Note that this article is from 1994. Over the past 14 years, we have gotten the AIDS epidemic more or less under control in this country. This article is so outdated as to be laughable.
==Grant requests are rejected for many reasons. And how does he know his request was not reviewed? Maybe it was reviewed and it just sucked?
Apparently, you missed the point. The main point is that the “AIDS establishment continues to fund ONLY research on HIV.” All research grants into other potential causes of AIDS have been banned by the AIDS establishment right from the beginning. If you doubt this, I challenge you to find one research grant that was approved to challenge HIV-AIDS or otherwise investigate non-viral causes of AIDS from the time of Gallo’s 1984 science-by-press-conference until now.
For more on the political machinations behind the denial of Duesberg’s amyl nitrite/poppers grant proposal, read the following:
http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/slfund.htm
==Where is the evidence that refusing his grant proposal has anything to do with some conspiracy?
The AIDS establishment was intent on silencing Duesberg the moment his first paper challenging HIV “inexplicably” appeared in the journal Cancer Research. For their first official response, see the following links:
(For instance, what on earth could the Dept. of HHS mean when they say Duesberg’s paper should have been “flagged” by NIH during the prepublication process?...then look at the concluding paragraph...it’s obvious these guys were behaving like politicians with something to hide, rather than scientists interested in a dispassionate pursuit of the truth):
Link #1:
http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/hhsalert.htm
Link #2:
http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/hhsmemo.htm
More later—GGG