Minutus

http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/cfmullis.htm
INTERVIEW KARY MULLIS
AIDS; Words from the Front

By Celia Farber
Kary Mullis, winner of the 1993 Nobel Prize in chemistry, has rocked the world of science with his party-boy surfer demeanor. Now he's ready to take on the AIDS establishment. Celia Farber talks to the rebel genius. Mullis's invention of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) won him the Nobel Prize in chemistry in 1993

"
Mullis then went on to echo one of Duesberg's most controversial claims. "Human beings are full of retroviruses," he said, "We don't know if it is hundreds or thousands or hundreds of thousands. We've only recently started to look for them. But they've never killed anybody before. People have always survived retroviruses."

Mullis challenged the popular wisdom that the disease-causing mechanisms of HIV are simply too "mysterious" to comprehend. "The mystery of that damn virus," he said at the time, "has been generated by the $2 billion a year they spend on it. You take any other virus, and you spend $2 billion, and you can make up some great mysteries about it too."

http://www.duesberg.com/viewpoints/kintro.html
"
I like and respect Peter Duesberg. I don't think he knows necessarily what causes AIDS; we have disagreements about that. But we're both certain about what doesn't cause AIDS.

We have not been able to discover any good reasons why most of the people on earth believe that AIDS is a disease caused by a virus called HIV. There is simply no scientific evidence demonstrating that this is true.

We have also not been able to discover why doctors prescribe a toxic drug called AZT (Zidovudine) to people who have no other complaint other than the fact that they have the presence of antibodies to HIV in their blood. In fact, we cannot understand why humans would take this drug for any reason.

We cannot understand how all this madness came about, and having both lived in Berkeley, we've seen some strange things indeed. We know that to err is human, but the HIV/AIDS hypothesis is one hell of a mistake. "

http://www.duesberg.com/viewpoints/index.html

Why is that controversial?
Also, why is it relevant. We're also full of bacteria, most of which
are harmless and many of which are beneficial. It could quite well be
the same with viruses. But some bacteria and some viruses clearly are
*not* beneficial, at least not in any obvious sort of way.
Oh, and there are also both bacteria and viruses which will not kill a
person of normal immune function, but whic *will* kill someone with
impaired immune system. So what? (Missing the point...)
That's to me less disturbing than the assertion that it's not
contagious--whatever its mechanism. Causative agent is a technical
matter; means of transmission is a very personal one.
Shannon

Hi Shannon,
It's not controversial to us, but it is based on a totally unknown fact for most of the population. Also, even with that information, logic doesn't matter to a good portion of those people. Against all odds, I sent the message to my kids and sister with a bit of explanation. They probably trash it without reading.
Best,
Ellen