An interesting 1993 column. Any research in the past twenty years to show that Duesberg really was onto something, or must now be considered a kook like Strecker?
Much worse than just a kook. From the Wiki on Peter Duesberg:
AIDS isn’t man-made, but it sure is human-transmitted. I’d like to know what percent of AIDS cases are acquired by ignoring warnings against things like needle sharing and unprotected sex versus accidental transmission like a health care worker’s accidental contact with someone’s bodily fluids.
Medical Hypotheses allows pretty much anyone to publish anything in it. It’s notorious for AIDS denialism, as well as being the premier journal for anti-vaccine “science,” including the completely-discredited idea that autism is mercury poisoning from thimerosal in childhood vaccines. It has (or at least, had) no peer-review process and is widely considered a junk journal.
The fact that anything published in it was retracted is astonishing, since they really need to retract the whole damn journal.
Duesberg’s as wackadoodle as Andrew Wakefield.
It’s now believed that HIV crossed into the human population, most likely via a hunter butchering an infected monkey, prior to 1920, and was just another wasting disease that affected people in southern Cameroon until the Kinshasa Highway and other modes of travel allowed it to spread outside this area.
OK, thanks, everyone. Good to know.
Nearwildheaven is right. In 1959 a sailor returned to Liverpool and died of a strange disease. The hospital had the foresight to take and keep tissue samples.
Thirty-odd years later they were retrieved and analysed. Lo and behold-he died of AIDS.
The Wikipedia article on the History of HIV/AIDS says of this guy (David Carr) that his tissue was re-tested a couple years later and found to be free of HIV. Fascinating and weird …
That sounds like a lab mistake. Hardly remarkable.
I know we had a thread that brought this up several years ago (it wasn’t about this, but it came up). I asked in it if HIV would even make an effective bioweapon. It seems like if it was intended to be one it didn’t even make it out of beta, or if it did the conspirators were playing a very long-term game. I think somebody agreed that it didn’t even seem to fit either the US or USSR’s bioweapon paradigms. Which doesn’t rule it out, necessarily, but one has to wonder what the point of making a bioweapon with such a difficulty of infection and long time to kill is (“hard to contract” and “slow to kill” is all relative, of course, it’s obviously a bad disease. I’m just saying on a weaponization level it doesn’t seem very practical).
More HIV/AIDs=More HIV/AIDs Treatment=More Profit? :dubious: 
Maybe…maybe not…
Thank ghod you’re here to…just ask questions.:dubious:
Yeah, but couldn’t it be lab error either way – on the first test or the retest? The reason they retested it at all is because the virus they found looked a lot more like contamination by a recent virus than something 30+ years old. This article goes into a lot of detail.
Definitely not, actually.
“AIDS bears little resemblance to bovine visna virus”
Absolute nonsense. It’s used to model AIDS in vivo and in vitro. Not only was Visna used to figure out what HIV was - Visna is related to HIV.
So it bears more than a “little resemblance” since it is so similar that the two Retroviruses are related.
He was onto something. Keep in mind that AIDS was a relatively new disease and no one wanted to take chances with it, not knowing if it could change it’s method of infection… or worse yet become airborne. So there was a lot of panic in that community at the time…
So much panic in fact that things that had been known for decades… like how drugs, mal-nutrition, unsafe sexual practices and the like could lead to immune system deficiencies was completely forgotten.
AIDS is not the sole cause of immune system collapse or immuno deficiency.
Duesberg was just reminding people of that.
Regarding the Wikipedia article on the History of HIV/AIDS, they mention a Norwegian sailor who was diagnosed as HIV-1 positive in 1969, and passed the disease to both his wife and 9-year-old daughter. Is there any evidence to show the girl was born with the virus, or is incest a more likely explanation?
HIV is transmitted both in-utero and postnatally through breastmilk.