Duesberg and the right of reply according to Maddox-Nature

RETRACTED: Questioning the HIV-AIDS Hypothesis: 30 Years of Dissent

“…The complexity of the answers to these questions aside, it may help to bear in mind the notion that HIV-causes-AIDS emerged and developed within a very specific scientific-cultural-historic context. Although the scope of this article precludes dealing with this complex context, for our purposes it is important to recall at least one element: Funding for President Nixon’s War on Cancer campaign ended in 1981 with very little achieved in the quest for an infectious cancer agent (15, 85–87). The only exception was the discovery connecting select retroviruses to a few, rare cancers.…”

“…Although there have been, in fact, several attempts to engage the orthodox community in dialog, nearly all have been unsuccessful [for examples, see Ref. (14, 85, 88)]. Most likely, reasons for denying the calls to re-examine the orthodox stance lie in the complex, synergistic dynamics within the scientific, medical, economic, and political systems or ideologies worldwide.…”

“…Joseph Sonnabend – a prominent physician/researcher responsible for encouraging his gay patients to lead a healthy lifestyle to avoid developing AIDS, and one who “did not accept HIV = ADS theory for many years” – recently changed his views and “has come to think that HIV, together with other factors, may play a subsidiary causative role” [(73, 84), p. 120]. Even Montagnier and Gallo (leaders of the French and American teams, respectively, that discovered HIV), at various times since the epidemic began, have suggested HIV might be a co-factor in AIDS, not its exclusive causative agent (85). …”

The Psychology of AIDS Denialism

“…In this sense, they take on a creationist-like position to charge that man is ultimately to blame for his own destruction. Fifth, AIDS Denialists point to research conducted in the first days of AIDS to claim that HIV has not been shown to fulfill Koch’s Postulates for defining a disease (Duesberg, 1996). German bacteriologist Robert Koch delineated four criteria to consider a bacterium as a cause of disease, (1) the pathogen must be present in all cases of the disease, (2) the pathogen can be isolated from the diseased host and grown in pure culture, (3) the pathogen from the pure culture must cause the disease when inoculated into a healthy, susceptible laboratory animal, and (4) the pathogen must be re-isolated from the new host and shown to be the same as the originally inoculated pathogen (Croce, 1996).…”

How much longer can we afford the AIDS virus monopoly?

“…Claiming this priority, the virus-AIDS orthodoxy justifies intolerance, even censorship, of all those who question infectious AIDS (San Francisco Project Inform, 1992;Maddox, 1993aMaddox, , 1993bCohen, 1994a;Lang, 1994;Duesberg & Bialy, 1995). Epidemiologists from the CDC warn that to 'ignore this [HIV-AIDS] concept would result in an unconscionable tragedy'.…”