The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Available Books
Peter H. Duesberg
Inventing the AIDS Virus
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Images
List of Tables
List of Bookmarks
Hide 11 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Mr. Anon says:

    This is very interesting. Thanks for posting, Mr. Unz. And Happy New Year.

  2. Liza says:

    Hi. Very good. But try a previous book by Duesberg & Ellison as well: Why We Will Never Win the War on AIDS.

    This book was mentioned here:

    Tk. you.

  3. The chapters I’ve read so far are fascinating and very persuasive.

    They not only describe repeatedly the glaring weaknesses in the HIV/AIDS dogma, they also just show how corrupt and bloated and ill-driven the medical establishment has become and how reluctant medicine has been historically to admit that it’s gone down the wrong path, with obvious strong echoes to today with Covid/vaccines.

  4. The ghostwriter of this book most certainly had to be conservative journalist Tom Bethell. The style is unmistakable, and he addressed the topic separately under his own name. Check out these two examples with their clear metaphors. Pure Bethell.

    Chapter Six, Inventing the AIDS Virus:, 1996:

    Gallo and Montagnier probably assumed HIV is new because it was newly discovered by them. But since the technology used to detect HIV is just as new as the discovery of HIV, there is another interpretation: Gallo and Montagnier discovered a previously unknown but old virus with a new technique. Their claim that HIV is new is just as naive as the claim of an astronomer that a previously unknown star is new because it became detectable with a new telescope.

    Rethinking HIV, an essay appearing in The American Spectator, June 1993:

    The evidence that HIV causes AIDS is simply this: HIV is well correlated with AIDS. But as Root-Bernstein points out, there are other viruses that are at least as well correlated as HIV. Viruses are like fingerprints in the living room. You can find a lot of them if you bring in a suspicious detective to conduct a search. What relevance they have is another matter. But there’s a more important point about the “correlation” between HIV and AIDS. That correlation is itself largely an artifact of the definition of AIDS.

    (Unz link here–

    It’s a shame that he passed on early last year, before the book gained new attention and relevance.

  5. The Biologist Prof. Jakob Segal was convinced that the AIDS virus was a hybrid of a disease of sheep and a human blood cancer. He maintained that it was the result of research carried out by the US military iin the mid- to late ’70s which they tried out on volunteers that they recruited from death-row with the promise of a pardon if they did not die as a result of the experiment.* In evidence he cited the congressional record of a Dr MacArthur asking congress** for a grant of $10.000.000 for research, which sounds, in MacArthur’s description, extremely like AIDS. His claim hinges on the claim that the AIDS virus (HIV) is virtually identical to two other viruses: Visna, which causes a fatal disease in sheep but does not infect humans, and HTLV-I (Human T-Cell Leukemia
    Virus), which infects humans but is seldom fatal.

    He wrote this up in three papers in German which I used to be able to find on the internet but which have now disappeared, (like so much else.) The only trace I can find of this work is an article called “Was There an AIDS Contract? [Morrissey]” by someone who tried to investigate whether Segal was correct or not and came up against stone walls all over.

    Segal has been widely smeared and derided for this work but I knew him personally and I do not believe he was making it up. He was a serious scientist and the fact that no one was prepared to argue the case with him in public, OR to publish his work and the way his work has been suppressed, rather than refuted, strikes me as significant.

    *Segal believed that the escape of AIDS into the population was an accident, caused by the fact that the incubation period of the disease was much longer than the scientists who bred it, expected and so they released their guineapigs before the symptoms appeared, believing that the virus had had no effect.

    **It would be “interesting” to know what the result of the $10M ‘s worth of research was, if it was NOT the AIDS virus. Segal quoted from a document presented by a Pentagon official named Dr Donald MacArthur on June 9, 1969, to a Congressional committee, in which $10 million was requested to develop, over the next 5 to 10 years, a new, contagious micro-organism which would destroy the human immune system. (This, I have read, is in the congressional record.)

  6. @Quai Smyrna III

    Your conclusion has no basis in fact and virtually none even in coincidence. Whether in style or content, there is nothing whatsoever in the excerpt from Bethell’s article that makes it ipso facto probative of his ghosted authorship of Inventing the AIDS Virus.

    Yes, Bethell had been in correspondence with Duesberg. That is well known. It was precisely because Bethell was an avid amateur student of the natural sciences that he took a close interest in the HIV/AIDS hoax. He was not, however, the only man who was suspicious of the Gallo-Montagnier-Fauci line from the outset. As it happens, I was, too, several years before I ever heard of Duesberg, as also were many other people who at that time, like me, worked in the New York performing arts community, where a distressingly large fraction of our colleagues were promiscuous, drug-using homosexuals.

    In the late nineties, I had several lengthy conversations with Bethell in Washington, DC, about Duesberg and AIDS. (He and I had friends and colleagues in common.) Both of us were enthusiastic about Duesberg’s book and scientific essays. When I asked him whether he was planning to write more about AIDS in the immediate future, he said that he was busy completing work on an unrelated major work of his own. That turned out to be The Noblest Triumph.

    In or around 1999, I had my own brief correspondence with Duesberg. As I discovered, he had not been in touch with Bethell for more than a year then and thanked me for telling him about the publication of The Noblest Triumph. Should I have assumed that he was lying to prevent me from divining that Bethell had ghosted Inventing the AIDS Virus?

    • Replies: @Quai Smyrna II
  7. @Pierre de Craon

    As you say, comparative excerpts of writing do not provide definitive proof of common authorship. Familiarity with Bethell’s larger corpus of writing might be what it takes to convince a skeptic. I encourage anyone to make use of this website’s PDF archives and read through many of his old articles. Very distinctive style with a droll wit constantly on display. Must have been a pleasure to meet the man in person. Can you at least admit to seeing a strong similarity?

    Bethell worked on Noblest Triumph for years before it came out in 1998. Maybe he took a break to ghostwrite another book with more immediate societal implications, who knows. If Inventing the AIDS Virus came out in 1996, and if Duesberg hadn’t talked to Bethell in “more than a year” in 1999, the timeline would seem to work just fine.

    Not knowing your trust-level with either individual, I cannot gauge the likelihood of you being left out of the loop. Sometimes people have their reasons for hiding authorship. Better not to associate a controversial book with an already controversial pundit, perhaps.

    One last example.

    The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science, 2005, Chapter 7:

    Africans could be forgiven or thinking that condoms are America’s principal export. They may even be under the impression that our educated classes think that there are too many sub-Saharan Africans. Let’s hope they don’t see the recent newspaper column by CBS commentator Andy Rooney, who blurted out what may indeed be on the minds of some of our more hard-hearted compatriots.

    Rooney said he would like to see more American aid spent on “reducing the number of Africans we’re trying to feed. Their biggest problem is not a shortage of food, but a proliferation of people. … The birthrate in Africa is a disgrace and birth control information and condoms should be handed out before the food.”

    Someone should tell Mr. Rooney about the U.S.-funded AIDS program. It is, above all, a condom distribution program. Perhaps Rooney did hear, however, that all the dire predictions about the AIDS-caused population collapse in Africa turned out to be false.

  8. Liza says:

    where a distressingly large fraction of our colleagues were promiscuous, drug-using homosexuals.

    I have the 1988 version of the book AIDS Inc. by Jon Rappoport, which is what opened my eyes way back then to the behavior of promiscuous heaumeaux. It was all news to me!

    Yet to this day the official view is that an evil virus is lurking everywhere, entering anyone’s body regardless of their way of life, and killing them dead! Everything is caused by a virus to the virus hunters.

  9. Olorin says:

    Good to see this well-spoken member of the 1980s/1990s “biomedical underground” here. Thank you, Mr. Unz. The role of homosexual men’s behaviors in producing destroyed immune systems is something Prof. Duesberg bravely never stopped discussing publicly.

    May I also recommend to the Unzitariat this book, an institutional analysis of the revolving door between government and Pharma:

    Good Intentions: How Big Business And the Medical Establishment
    Are Corrupting the Fight Against AIDS

    Good Intentions is a tale of vaulting ambition, greed, and hubris set against the tragic backdrop of the world’s number-one health crisis: AIDS.

    Bruce Nussbaum takes us behind the scenes to reveal how America’s top scientists are at the center of a triangle of power. He shows how the National Institute of Health allied with the drug company Burroughs Wellcome, secretly helped by the FDA, to steamroll a thirty-year-old drug, AZT, into becoming the only approved treatment for AIDS.

    At the heart of the story is a small group of scientists that hold the lives of tens of thousands in their hands. There’s the puppet master, the brilliant Dr. David Barry, Burroughs Wellcome’s chief strategist; Dr. Tony Fauci, who grabbed control of the government’s AIDS research program only to squander $1 billion without developing a single new drug; and Michael Callen, who fought for his life by battling the research labyrinth with a new biomedical underground.

    An old-boy network of powerful medical researchers dominates in every disease field, from AIDS to Alzheimer’s, Nussbaum reports. They control the major committees, they run the most important trials. They are accountable to no one. Despite the billions of taxpayers’ dollars that go to them every year, there is no public oversight. Medical scientists have convinced society that only they can police themselves.

    Business Week senior writer Bruce Nussbaum follows the money trial from the billions appropriated by Congress through a network of government laboratories and into the profit statements of Burroughs Wellcome. This is an inside look at how politics, science, and big business are bungling the fight against AIDS.

    A solid review of the book appeared in Christopher Street magazine at the time of its publication. If you have a borrower card at, page 13 here:

    If not, here:

    Or here, with blogger’s inserted .jpgs:

  10. @Quai Smyrna III

    The ghostwriter of this book most certainly had to be conservative journalist Tom Bethell. The style is unmistakable

    That is actually true. Tom Bethell was a friend of Duesberg’s co-author and graduate student Bryan Ellison. The two together gave seminars at the Hoover Institution, and given Bethell’s connections to the CIA, the “advice” may have been a way to spy on Duesberg. I personally own a copy of the manuscript – Regnery is famously a CIA publisher that takes in manuscripts and edits out the stuff the intel agencies don’t want out there. What was left on the cutting room floor is — interesting. Bethell supported Duesberg in his 2004 “Politically Incorrect Guide to Science” also published by Regnery.

    Bethell’s input makes it a strong book. The general strategy seems to be to label Duesberg as a Right Winger when really the book’s interest should engage progressives.

  11. More than a few members of our representative government have been infected by the insidious “Coxsackie” virus that Duesberg mentions in the text.

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone
Cancel Commenting

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to All Peter H. Duesberg Comments via RSS