U.S. government AIDS programs are now receiving $6 billion per year and are based entirely upon the hypothesis that HIV virus causes AIDS. Yet, the articles referenced above and numerous additional publications by scientists who have become involved in this controversy state that: attempts to cause AIDS experimentally with HIV have completely failed; thousands of AIDS victims are HIV-free; and HIV shows none of the classical characteristics of a disease-producing organism. Moreover, AIDS is not a unique disease - it is an increased susceptibility to many ordinary diseases presumably as a result of depressed immune response. This depressed immunity can result from many other factors including those especially prevalent in the AIDS afflicted population - drug abuse and unhygienic exposure to very large numbers of different disease vectors. Moreover, large numbers of HIV carriers who are symptom-free are being treated by powerful life-threatening drugs that kill people in ways very similar to AIDS.
These dissident articles are, of course, only a tiny fraction of the remarkable 77,000 papers that have been published about AIDS, but ultimately only one paper will be sufficient to describe the truth.
First, the arguments presented against the HIV hypothesis are sound, although they are difficult to independently evaluate. In part, they cite lack of evidence. Who has time to check this with a review of 77,000 papers? The burden of proof is on the HIV advocates - a burden they have not accepted in a forthright manner.
Second, it is increasingly improbable that the ongoing expenditure of tens of billions of dollars to chase one infectious disease could be failing so miserably if something fundamental is not wrong with the effort.
Third, the "epidemic'' is not growing as predicted. Only government reclassification of more and more disease types as AIDS cases has kept the numbers of victims at politically necessary levels.
Fourth, AIDS is conveniently serving as an excuse for all sorts of social engineering, especially in the public schools, that could not be sustained without a "crisis.''
Fifth, in describing their explanation of the HIV-AIDS error that they think has occurred, Ellison and Duesberg describe the inner workings of government grant-funded science correctly. The first few chapters of their book are very good reading even if you are entirely uninterested in AIDS. Also, pages 228 and 264-265 describe the way in which AIDS "consensus building'' has diverted billions of dollars into the pockets of the consensus builders of the HIV-AIDS industry.