HIV is just another harmless passenger virus. Why dedicate a Nobel prize for its discovery? Everything that is to be said about HIV and other retroviruses, was said by Peter already in 1987.
Time has confirmed every detail of this work of honest science. That is true with respect to what he has said about the AID Syndrome as well as the missing connection between retroviruses and cancer.
It is often overlooked that there were 3 Nobel laureates in 2008, Luc Montagnier and Françoise Barré-Sinoussi, who shared one half of the Nobel prize for the discovery of HIV, and Harald zur Hausen who received the other half for the discovery of a putative link between human papilloma viruses (HPV) and cervix cancer.
For both HPV and HIV the (unproven) slow virus hypothesis is essential. It does not work without this assumption, that is, there are 20+ years between an infection and the assumed outbreak of a disease. There is not one proof for the slow virus hypothesis, not for HIV, not for HPV, not for any other virus or particle. HPV is not a retrovirus, but a DNA virus, but the result is the same, there is nothing like a slow virus.
90% of all men and women will become infected with HPV in their life time. Some women will develop cervix cancer at the age of 55 to 65 in the menopause. But there is no relation between an infection with HPV, at young age, and cervix cancer 35 - 50 years later. You can read this on the webpage of the CDC,
“There is no way to know who will develop cancer or other health problems from HPV.”
So, you are HPV positive, but the positive test is no indication for the possible development of a cancer. There is a putative cause but no guaranteed effect. The test has no meaning. This is a blatant violation of the cause and effect principle as well as Koch’s postulates for HPV and cervix cancer.
COVID-19 was the same trick. 90% of all people become infected with coronaviruses during their lifetime. Some of them die with an average age of 80+. That is higher than the average life expectancy.
For COVID-19 it was clear from the start that the age dependent mortality curve matches 1:1 the natural mortality. But with the help of the media another virus hype was created.
HPV is big business due to a putative vaccination against HPV. And at least half of the population (all women) are potential customers. In the meantime there are also HPV vaccinations for men. That is the license to print money.
And like in the case of the COVID-19 vaccines serious adverse effects caused by HPV vaccines are highly underreported and denied by the so called science. There is no net benefit of a HPV vaccination because there is nothing like a slow virus as Harald zur Hausen had claimed. Zur Hausen, who died end of May 2023, like Montagnier and Barré-Sinoussi, received the Nobel prize for HPV and HIV because their assumptions created a billion dollar market. But a Nobel prize neither makes the assumptions true nor creates a Nobel prize science. It makes things look like science, but it does not make it science.
Peter should receive the Nobel price, but not for HIV (there is not much to say about HIV), instead he should receive it for his break through insight into the development of cancer. Most people do not know that Peter Duesberg, Member of the National Academy of Science of the USA, is highly respected in cancer research for his speciation theory of cancer (change of the karyotype), cf.
“The emergence of cancerous cells can be seen as a speciation event, in which a new parasitic species emerges, initiates a clade and consumes resources from the host, impairing the host's health and decreasing its fitness (Capp & Thomas, 2020; Duesberg et al., 2011).”
After he had shown in his article from 1987, that retroviruses do not cause cancer, Peter worked on an alternative hypothesis of the formation of cancer. Until today the speciation theory of cancer is consistent with all observations.
However, this theory rules out cancer as a transmittable disease and thus does not create immediately a big market. The virus hypothesis of cervix cancer makes cervix cancer a transmittable disease and thus creates a big market. But most people develop cancer at old age. This requires as a condicio sine qua non, that is, as an indispensable and essential prerequisite, the “slow virus” hypothesis Harald zur Hausen co-created. Again, there is not one proof for this hypothesis.
The speciation theory explains the long latencies of cancers and does not need the unproven “slow virus” hypothesis, that Harald zur Hausen needed.
• Hirpara, Bloomfield, Duesberg, “Speciation Theory of Carcinogenesis Explains Karyotypic Individuality and Long Latencies of Cancers”, Genes (Basel). 2018 Aug; 9(8): 402, published online 2018 Aug 9, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6115917/
Peter does science as science should be done. Not for fame, reputation, titles or money but for the sake of knowledge and wisdom. The Nobel prize for physiology and medicine was taken over by big pharma long ago. The question is, if this prize is not spoiled beyond repair.
Peter should have his own prize, the Peter Duesberg prize, which is awarded to scientists who devout there lives to the understanding of nature, who follow scientific principles, where ever they lead them and who look for insight into the laws of nature, irrespective if the new insight creates a big market.
Thank you for all of this important information! And yes, Peter Duesberg does deserve a special and unique prize that recognizes his lifetime of fidelity to the true pursuit of knowledge. He should be a role model for all who would call themselves scientists.
Johannes how is Peter Duesberg theory proven if we have study case in a form of people with out Aids since infection let's say 30 years later on without intervention of treatment,
1. Duesberg does deserve a Nobel - but for the aneuploidy theory of cancer (shared with Rasnick) for his 1999 paper.
2. Luc Montagnier used his prize for good - he chaired the advisory committee for Children's Health Defense, endorsed RFK Jr's Fauci book, and was an outspoken critic of HPV shots and 'covid' restrictions. In his Nobel lecture, he showed slides of particles that were clearly not HIV, and if you read that lecture between the lines, he was admitting he didn't deserve the prize.
But then again, when they award the Nobel peace prize to Kissinger and Obama, is it really that prestigious?
Is Duesberg theory not disproven as much as there is poverty and malnutrition or drug life style in most part of the world so much has improved, people have access to most basic needs yet the number of new infections continue to rise over the years which then shows this as a sexual behavior more than anything,
Maybe some one else like not Duesberg as for Luc Montgnier de died with the truth
But if the test is haux, why would it be random not consistent with one particular set of result like 90 - 100% positive or negative, why people sero convert
The number of infections has remained relatively stable for forty years. In america the estimated number of hiv infected has only risen from one million to 1.2 million in forty years. Stop testing with a faulty non-verifiable test and people will stop testing positive. Stop treating with carefully balanced toxic drugs and people will stop dying of drug induced immune failure.
HIV is just another harmless passenger virus. Why dedicate a Nobel prize for its discovery? Everything that is to be said about HIV and other retroviruses, was said by Peter already in 1987.
• Duesberg, „Retroviruses as carcinogens and pathogens: expectations and reality.”, Cancer Res. 1987 Mar 1;47(5):1199-220, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3028606, available via https://www.researchgate.net/publication/20126887_Retroviruses_as_carcinogens_and_pathogens_Expectations_and_reality
Time has confirmed every detail of this work of honest science. That is true with respect to what he has said about the AID Syndrome as well as the missing connection between retroviruses and cancer.
It is often overlooked that there were 3 Nobel laureates in 2008, Luc Montagnier and Françoise Barré-Sinoussi, who shared one half of the Nobel prize for the discovery of HIV, and Harald zur Hausen who received the other half for the discovery of a putative link between human papilloma viruses (HPV) and cervix cancer.
• “The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 2008”, https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/medicine/2008/summary/
For both HPV and HIV the (unproven) slow virus hypothesis is essential. It does not work without this assumption, that is, there are 20+ years between an infection and the assumed outbreak of a disease. There is not one proof for the slow virus hypothesis, not for HIV, not for HPV, not for any other virus or particle. HPV is not a retrovirus, but a DNA virus, but the result is the same, there is nothing like a slow virus.
90% of all men and women will become infected with HPV in their life time. Some women will develop cervix cancer at the age of 55 to 65 in the menopause. But there is no relation between an infection with HPV, at young age, and cervix cancer 35 - 50 years later. You can read this on the webpage of the CDC,
• “Genital HPV Infection – Basic Fact Sheet”, https://www.cdc.gov/std/hpv/stdfact-hpv.htm
“There is no way to know who will develop cancer or other health problems from HPV.”
So, you are HPV positive, but the positive test is no indication for the possible development of a cancer. There is a putative cause but no guaranteed effect. The test has no meaning. This is a blatant violation of the cause and effect principle as well as Koch’s postulates for HPV and cervix cancer.
COVID-19 was the same trick. 90% of all people become infected with coronaviruses during their lifetime. Some of them die with an average age of 80+. That is higher than the average life expectancy.
• Connor Boyd, “Revealed: Average age of Covid-19 victims is OLDER than life expectancy in Scotland as stark figures show 'it is predominantly a disease that strikes the elderly'”, Daily Mail, 21 July 2020, https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8470843/The-average-Covid-19-victim-OLDER-age-people-usually-die-Scotland.html
For COVID-19 it was clear from the start that the age dependent mortality curve matches 1:1 the natural mortality. But with the help of the media another virus hype was created.
HPV is big business due to a putative vaccination against HPV. And at least half of the population (all women) are potential customers. In the meantime there are also HPV vaccinations for men. That is the license to print money.
And like in the case of the COVID-19 vaccines serious adverse effects caused by HPV vaccines are highly underreported and denied by the so called science. There is no net benefit of a HPV vaccination because there is nothing like a slow virus as Harald zur Hausen had claimed. Zur Hausen, who died end of May 2023, like Montagnier and Barré-Sinoussi, received the Nobel prize for HPV and HIV because their assumptions created a billion dollar market. But a Nobel prize neither makes the assumptions true nor creates a Nobel prize science. It makes things look like science, but it does not make it science.
Peter should receive the Nobel price, but not for HIV (there is not much to say about HIV), instead he should receive it for his break through insight into the development of cancer. Most people do not know that Peter Duesberg, Member of the National Academy of Science of the USA, is highly respected in cancer research for his speciation theory of cancer (change of the karyotype), cf.
• Duesberg, „Chromosomal Chaos and Cancer”, Scientific American, May 2007, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/6332530_Chromosomal_Chaos_and_Cancer
• Dujon et al, “Identifying key questions in the ecology and evolution of cancer”, Evol Appl. 2021 Apr; 14(4): 877–892, published online 2021 Feb 8, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8061275/
“The emergence of cancerous cells can be seen as a speciation event, in which a new parasitic species emerges, initiates a clade and consumes resources from the host, impairing the host's health and decreasing its fitness (Capp & Thomas, 2020; Duesberg et al., 2011).”
After he had shown in his article from 1987, that retroviruses do not cause cancer, Peter worked on an alternative hypothesis of the formation of cancer. Until today the speciation theory of cancer is consistent with all observations.
However, this theory rules out cancer as a transmittable disease and thus does not create immediately a big market. The virus hypothesis of cervix cancer makes cervix cancer a transmittable disease and thus creates a big market. But most people develop cancer at old age. This requires as a condicio sine qua non, that is, as an indispensable and essential prerequisite, the “slow virus” hypothesis Harald zur Hausen co-created. Again, there is not one proof for this hypothesis.
The speciation theory explains the long latencies of cancers and does not need the unproven “slow virus” hypothesis, that Harald zur Hausen needed.
• Hirpara, Bloomfield, Duesberg, “Speciation Theory of Carcinogenesis Explains Karyotypic Individuality and Long Latencies of Cancers”, Genes (Basel). 2018 Aug; 9(8): 402, published online 2018 Aug 9, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6115917/
Peter does science as science should be done. Not for fame, reputation, titles or money but for the sake of knowledge and wisdom. The Nobel prize for physiology and medicine was taken over by big pharma long ago. The question is, if this prize is not spoiled beyond repair.
Peter should have his own prize, the Peter Duesberg prize, which is awarded to scientists who devout there lives to the understanding of nature, who follow scientific principles, where ever they lead them and who look for insight into the laws of nature, irrespective if the new insight creates a big market.
Thank you for all of this important information! And yes, Peter Duesberg does deserve a special and unique prize that recognizes his lifetime of fidelity to the true pursuit of knowledge. He should be a role model for all who would call themselves scientists.
Johannes how is Peter Duesberg theory proven if we have study case in a form of people with out Aids since infection let's say 30 years later on without intervention of treatment,
I meant we don't have a study
1. Duesberg does deserve a Nobel - but for the aneuploidy theory of cancer (shared with Rasnick) for his 1999 paper.
2. Luc Montagnier used his prize for good - he chaired the advisory committee for Children's Health Defense, endorsed RFK Jr's Fauci book, and was an outspoken critic of HPV shots and 'covid' restrictions. In his Nobel lecture, he showed slides of particles that were clearly not HIV, and if you read that lecture between the lines, he was admitting he didn't deserve the prize.
But then again, when they award the Nobel peace prize to Kissinger and Obama, is it really that prestigious?
#1 👍
Montagnier already debunked himself on this one.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1990/06/22/researcher-sees-second-possible-cause-of-aids/ccb3874c-2b06-4e18-8323-179b09dcbff1/
If he had kept up with this work, he might have actually earned the Nobel.
For me Nobel prize is now synonymous to scientific fraud.
If a scientist discovers anything ever a gain, better apply for a prize that is not tarnished with fraud and blood money.
Is Duesberg theory not disproven as much as there is poverty and malnutrition or drug life style in most part of the world so much has improved, people have access to most basic needs yet the number of new infections continue to rise over the years which then shows this as a sexual behavior more than anything,
Maybe some one else like not Duesberg as for Luc Montgnier de died with the truth
Not infections, more like the ‘cases’ with Covid. It’s a faux test. Like you say with Deusberg AIDS is a lifestyle disease.
I propose Gary Null for the Nobel.
Why Garry Null
But if the test is haux, why would it be random not consistent with one particular set of result like 90 - 100% positive or negative, why people sero convert
Because it is reacting to any number of known and/or unknown other biological markers.
The number of infections has remained relatively stable for forty years. In america the estimated number of hiv infected has only risen from one million to 1.2 million in forty years. Stop testing with a faulty non-verifiable test and people will stop testing positive. Stop treating with carefully balanced toxic drugs and people will stop dying of drug induced immune failure.