Fauci at the amfAR forum.

Fauci and others played dirty with Duesberg, who they accused of using outdated research, even though is was up to current standards. When Duesberg asked Fauci and the others for actual references to support their statements he was rudely rebuffed, and, according to Lauritsen, a journalist, they tried to shore up their viewpoint with unpublished data or their own private facts. Said Gotleb: “Unfortunately, their own private facts about AIDS were also connected to each other by a private scientific logic. That’s a sure sign that AIDS was a manifestation of the opposite world of abnormal, totalitarian and sociopathic science.”

The 800-pound gorilla at the amfAR forum was the fact that evidence of HIV could not be found in all AIDS patients, which should have been strong–damning even—evidence that HIV couldn’t possibly be the cause of AIDS, that is, if normal Kuhnian science was being practiced (Kuhnian refers to Thomas Kuhn, who wrote “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions,” which means that a new paradigm will emerge if the scientific revolution is pervasive enough. For example, there was a change in paradigm when Einstein replaced Newton. Back to the forum. Scientist Marcel Beluda pointed out that “sometimes even a single exception is sufficient to disprove a theory…this is the crux of the matter…the virus cannot be found in all cases of AIDS.” Delusion and denial were running the show. Fauci insisted that ‘good labs’ were able to isolate the virus 90% or 100% of the time, ‘no question about it.’ But he didn’t provide a reference to published data, nor did he indicate what “good” labs were and how they differed from not so good labs.

Duesberg, based on his years as one of the celebrated deans of retroviral research, presented arguments for why HIV could not possibly be the cause of AIDS. Lauritsen wrote later that Fauci’s presentation was an attempt to rebut each of Duesberg’s arguments, but it was just a series of disjointed, disconnected assertions, and he didn’t seem to understand any of Duesberg’s arguments. The author characterizes the resulting epidemiology as political and heterosexist. A slide was brought to the forum with a graph on it that had no units on the vertical axis. Dr. Redfield, who brought the slide to the meeting, admitted that the graph had been prepared to illustrate a theoretical possibility, and the vertical axis had no unit for the simple reason that it was not based on any data at all! “In other words, the slide was a fake” (Ortleb). This ideology-based data was used to support the HIV theory of AIDS, which changed the course of millions of lives and fostered the HHV-6 catastrophe.

Ortleb says the most disturbing talk at the forum was given by Warren Winklestein, a Professor of Biomedical and Environmental Health Sciences at Berkley, who suggested that AIDS would require a “new kind of science.” And there should be a new standard for establishing the causal relationship between microbes and diseases, based upon ‘epidemiology’ or correlations of different kinds. Sounds reasonable, right? Not to Ortleb. He says: “If this crowd had superseded traditional science any more than they did, we all would probably be dead. (But wait. There is still time.)” The author calls political epidemiology—“homo-demiology—and from there we are a shot step to “homo-demon-ology.” The mood of the forum was “petulant indignation.” Fauci’s personality dominated the air waves. There were 16 journalists brought in by Lauritsen and there was a cozy relationship between them and the abnormal, totalitarian, and sociopathic scientists of Holocaust II. The author describes most media those three decades as inattentive, intellectually slothful and self-satisfied. Lauritsen wrote an eyewitness report for the “Native,” Ortleb’s newspaper, which Ortleb said was an important contribution to the history of the beginnings of the science and totalitarian politics of AIDS. Lauritsen said in the article: “I do not accept the proposition that Kock’s postulates should be abandoned in favor of epidemiological correlations.” Epidemiological correlations means that epidemiological evidence can only show that a risk factor is associated (correlated) with a higher incidence of disease in the population exposed to that risk factor, but it cannot prove causation. This means in so many words that the gay lifestyle is correlated with AIDS, but it can’t be proven as the cause of AIDS. This science is very mushy compared to finding the cause in a lab. If they champion this position, like Fauci did, they’ll never find a cure. (Kock’s postulates say that the bacteria must be present in EVERY case of the disease). HIV was not present in every case of AIDS so the totalitarian scientists went off the reservation and refused to find a real cause of AIDS. It was a big step backward and an abandonment of millions of lives. Lauritsen, at the end of his article, said: If the HIV advocates were sure of their hypothesis, they would want to enlighten Duesberg and the rest of us; they would want to publish their arguments in a proper scientific journal, complete with references. They would not need to resort to stonewalling, deception and personal abuse.” “Science had been supplanted by totalitarian petulance.”