Brazen bribery offer by NIH officials?

Eliyahu Tulshinski

May 11, 2022

At a time when leading scientists were being convinced of the harmless nature of the HIV virus, despite defunding dissident laboratories, and covering up and even altering the data, NIH officials turned to another tactic for damage control.

Concede!

First came a pressure campaign against leading HIV dissident Professor Peter Duesberg by Sir John Maddox, the long-time editor of Nature, one of the three journals with “far and away the most overall influence on science.”

Maddox was a strong proponent of the HIV-AIDS theory who did not cower from publicly demanding an end to dissidence on the issue, using the prestigious journal to publish editorials calling on dissidents to raise the white flag.

When [Duesberg] offers a text for publication that can be authenticated, it will if possible be published - not least in the hope and expectation that his next offering will be an admission of recent error…

The danger for the Duesbergs of this world is that they will be left high and dry, championing a cause that will have ever fewer adherents as time passes. Now may be the time for them to recant …

Those that have made the running in the long controversy over HIV in AIDS, Dr. Peter Duesberg of Berkeley, California, in particular, have a heavy responsibility that can only be discharged by a public acknowledgment of error, honest or otherwise. And the sooner the better." [Emphases added; p. 405].

Come back

In the midst of the publication of the above editorials imploring Duesberg to admit his “mistake”, a senior NIH official complemented the efforts with a sudden invitation, and offer, to Duesberg to an opera to sign a paper discrediting his own research.

. . . in September 1994 . . . Duesberg got a call from an old friend, who is now a high-ranking geneticist at the NIH, for an urgent personal meeting on a professional matter. An excited Duesberg asked what professional matter could be so private that it required a personal meeting.

Was it about AIDS? About cancer? The voice at the other end of the phone said the subject was simply too hot to be discussed over the phone, but he could be in San Francisco in twenty-four hours.

Not suspecting that his old friend was acting as agent of the NIH establishment, Duesberg agreed and the NIH official flew in from his NIH laboratory in Bethesda the very next day.

the two met at the opera in San Francisco. After some small talk about the old days, the topic quickly shifted to AIDS and suddenly a paper was on the table at the opera café:

"HIV Causes AIDS: Koch's Postulates Fulfilled."

The paper was [prepared for signatures] by three authors: Duesberg's friend, another NIH researcher specializing in epidemiology, and, surprisingly, by Duesberg as well. [Emphases added; p. 405].

Who commissioned this new paper, ready for Duesberg’s signature? None other than Nature's editor himself Sir John Maddox.

Just sign

The NIH geneticist argued that by now Duesberg could safely sign on because the evidence for HIV had grown so overwhelming that nobody would listen to arguments against it, no matter how reasonable these arguments were.

Stick

The NIH official warned Duesberg against carrying his fight for AIDS truth any further, explaining, while still in the opera café, that any continued opposition to the HIV-AIDs theory

would even risk his credentials for having discovered cancer genes. [Emphasis added; p. 406].

Carrot

This same official went on to let Duesberg know that he's carrying this message to him as a friend:

In his touching appeal, the geneticist deplored that the scientific community had ostracized Duesberg without a fair trial and that the proposed paper would open the doors for Duesberg's reentry into the establishment. [Emphases added; p. 406].

If only he would sign,

The paper would be in press the next Tuesday, when the NIH geneticist would have dinner with Maddox in London. [p. 406].

Who was that man at the opera?

In a letter to Peter Duesberg regarding bribery, an independent journalist probed the professor for the name of the senior NIH geneticist that took him to the opera and for more details on their conversation and the offer to restore Duesberg to good standing.

The request remained unanswered for some time though, until a recent report by former Harper’s journalist Celia Farber. She not only identifies the NIH official who “pulled a manuscript from the inside pocket of his tuxedo,” but provides the name of the third author of the paper (besides the official himself and Duesberg).

That third author was none other than Robert Gallo, the NIH official who filed a patent application for an HIV test the day he claimed to discover HIV, only to have that discovery claim proven false.

Cave to the pressure?

How did Duesberg respond to the carrot of reentry into the scientific elite and the stick of continued isolation? Please visit for the continuation of our AIDS series as we report on Duesberg’s response and explore:

What do coronavirus and HIV have in common?
What do the COVID vaccines and the HIV treatment have in common?
How many times have public health officials mistakenly blamed a virus or bacteria for a disease?
Who’s censoring Kennedy’s expose The Real Anthony Fauci?
Was AIDS a trial run for COVID?

Previous articles from our AIDS series: