NIH’s coordinated coverup of HIV scandal

Eliyahu Tulshinski

May 9, 2022

As the lead dissenter warning HIV positive people to avoid expensive, unnecessary and deadly “medicine,” Professor Peter Duesberg not only had his laboratory research defunded, but was excluded “from the rest of academia, social events, and a normal life.”

Unable to obtain Duesberg’s agreement to change his position on HIV as the cause of AIDS through this isolation and withholding of funds, and unable to contain a growing dissension among the top names in research, including the discoverer of HIV himself, public health officials set out to change or make unavailable, the facts being presented to the public.

Gone!

Thus AIDS cases that didn’t fit the HIV theory were disappeared, as described in Inventing the AIDS Virus:

In 1993 two health care workers, one working at the Public Health office in San Francisco, the other at Stanford University, told Duesberg, under the condition of anonymity, that they were directed not to report HIV-free AIDS cases as AIDS.

Even though the respective patients were from AIDS risk groups and were clinically just like HIV-positive AIDS patients, their diseases were recorded by their old names, i.e., pneumonia, Kaposi's sarcoma, tuberculosis-rather than as AIDS. [p. 274].

Research only how to destroy HIV, not whether to destroy it

At the same time, research that might challenge the HIV theory had no chance of funding no matter who would lead it:

[No] federal institute was sponsoring even one study on the long-term effects of recreational drug use. Given that we are more than ten years into an epidemic that can't be dissociated from drug use ---- even with more than $35 billion spent - this is a remarkable situation. [p. 404].

The ban on research that might challenge the establishment narrative was so pervasive that even an NIH director couldn’t get such research approved:

The most spectacular example is the fate of a grant proposal for testing the health hazards of nitrite inhalants, or poppers, in mice. Duesberg had applied with an internationally respected inhalation toxicologist, Professor Otto Raabe from the University of California at Davis.

The proposal had actually been inspired by Harry Haverkos, director of the Office on AIDS at the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), during a visit to Duesberg's lab in 1993. Haverkos had long favored nitrites as a cause of AIDS, particularly of Kaposi's sarcoma.

To advance the nitrite-AIDS hypothesis Haverkos had organized a conference on the subject and then edited the conference's proceedings for the NIDA monograph Health Hazards of Nitrite Inhalants. [Emphases added; p. 402].

Despite this strong support from NIH director Haverkos, the grant application was denied and the research was not done. Merely suppressing the evidence was not deemed sufficient, though, in the fight to protect the HIV-AIDS theory.

Fake Research

A flurry of studies claiming to discredit Duesberg’s findings were coincidentally published in Nature just as Duesberg won the right to a second review of the denial of his research funding.

At the time, Nature issued press releases advertising the papers, and the news media excitedly buzzed with the news that Duesberg's AIDS viewpoint had finally been disproved. [p. 400].

Change the data

In the first study, funded by the NIH’s Anthony Fauci, Michael Ascher and a team of epidemiologists studied the correlation between HIV with AIDS, asserting that “among a group of a thousand San Francisco men, only those with HIV developed AIDS, regardless of drug abuse.”

The problem with this assertion was that a subsequent study published in Genetica revealed that all of the participants were drug users. Thus there was actually an automatic 100% correlation between AIDS in that group and drug use.

What's more, the correlation between AIDS and HIV was far less than 100%.

. . . in order to make the HIV correlation 100 percent, Ascher's data had to be "adjusted" … Ascher and colleagues left out forty-five patients with AIDS-defining diseases but without HIV [claiming that AIDS related diseases are only AIDS if HIV is present]. This adjusted the HIV antibody-AIDS correlation to 100 percent. [pp. 400-401].

And just like that, a study which included patients with a 100% correlation between drug abuse and AIDS was written up as a study of a 100% correlation of HIV and AIDS!

I found it! Lots of it!

In a second Nature paper just two weeks later, Fauci himself boasted of finding large amounts of HIV hiding in the lymph nodes of infected people.

Well, I found something

It later turned out that the entire study,

analyzed just three patients who showed only tiny amounts of dormant HIV genes, even in the lymph nodes and no infectious virus at all. [Emphasis added; pp. 401-402].

In fact, from all 3 patients only 2,100 total T-cells contained HIV and all of that HIV was dormant, not causing any harm to the cells that hosted them.

When that something is nothing

Even if the HIV had in fact been active, and had in fact caused the death of every one of the 700 T-cells, on average, that HIV entered in each of the three patients, it would have had zero effect on the health of those patients.

Each person has up to a billion different T-cells. It is simply not possible to notice a difference between having 100% of one's T-cells and being reduced to “just” 99.9999% of them.

Nevertheless, Nature editor Sir John Maddox immediately wrote an editorial claiming an end to the mystery of where the AIDS virus hides.

Quite an overstatement for an editor of a prestigious journal to make, so much so that he was challenged by even his allies on the issue.

Ironically, even Ascher and his colleagues later turned on Fauci, criticizing his paper in a letter published in Nature for its skimpy data on virus in AIDS patients. [p. 402].

Of course, the corrections to Fauci's research were too little and too late. The damage had been done as the false study conclusions of the Nature articles were used to dampen support for Duesberg while also justifying the end of research into the cause of AIDS.

Fauci wasn't the only one celebrating. The executives at Burroughs Wellcome and Co. (later merged into pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline), were as well. Several years earlier they had filed a patent for a shelved, lethal, cancer drug, bringing it back to life as an inhibitor of HIV replication.

Could this level of corruption take place today?

Starting to see a parallel between HIV and today's public health policies? Please visit for the continuation of our AIDS series as we 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: