The HIV establishment was transnational, sparking and condemning as a unified globalist voice. However, in European countries where funding is less reliable upon Dr. Fauci’s approval, dissenting professionals could generally keep working, without intelligence to the state apparatus.
Dr. Claus K?hnlein, an oncologist from Kiel, Germany, was less subject to the financial discipline by the state actors or the political hysteria that was censoring dissident scientists in the United States and was in some ways more of a threat to the HIV propaganda juggernaut than even Peter Duesberg, as he spoke from direct clinical experience. K?hnlein saw his first AIDS patients in 1990 and treated several hundred over the decades in his very conventional Kiel clinic. Ignoring “HIV,” and instead treating each symptom, he got almost all of his patients out alive. “I lost maybe a handful,” he said in an email, when contacted for this book.
His views on AZT were unequivocal. “We virtually killed a whole generation of AIDS patients without even noticing it because the symptoms of the AZT intoxication were almost indistinguishable from AIDS,”116 he said in one interview. He elucidated during an RT interview in 2010, during a “Rethink” conference in Vienna, “When I worked at the University in Kiel, I witnessed the mass intoxication of the patients with AZT. AZT was the first recommended treatment, and we all know today that the dosage was much too high. We gave 1500 mg on a daily basis and that literally killed everybody that took this treatment. That is the reason why everybody believes that HIV is a deadly virus but there is still no proof of this assumption.”117
The reporter was incredulous, so K?hnlein elaborated, “They were all over-treated at that time and the reason why doctors didn’t notice it was easy to explain because the placebo control was stopped after four months,” he replied. “It was said that for ethical reasons nobody can withhold AZT treatment. After these four months the mortality rose tremendously in both groups.118
“This mistreatment was the very reason why everybody believed HIV [to be] a deadly virus and that HIV positive tests put everybody at equal risk, which is completely nonsense. So, a healthy pregnant mother today, an HIV positive pregnant mother, is told she carries the same deadly virus as a hopeless . . . IV drug addict.”119
In an email, K?hnlein pegged the evidence against both HIV theory and AZT to three studies:
“Harm is usually underreported,” he wrote. “To prove it you need three studies: The AZT licensing Fischl study,120 the Hemophiliac study in Nature where [editor] John Maddox showed that the HIV positive hemophiliacs started dying only the very year AZT was introduced.121 And lastly, the Concorde Lancet study122 which showed: the more AZT, the more Death.”
In his Oct. 30, 2020 exposé, “The Other Media Blackout,” Wall Street Journal columnist and editorial board member Holman W. Jenkins Jr. complained that the medical community has failed “to acknowledge complicity in poisoning hundreds of thousands of human beings. The illness and death that resulted from high AZT doses administered in the 1980s and 1990s is irrefutable.”123
“From my personal contacts with people in the field,” says Dr. David Rasnick, PhD, an AIDS researcher, chemist, and designer of protease inhibitors, “I can tell you that I’ve found no evidence anywhere that people live longer, better lives who take these anti-HIV drugs, these protease inhibitors, either alone or in cocktails, as compared to a similar group of HIV-positive people who do not take these drugs. So I do not know where the evidence is for the claims that you see in New York Times or on CNN, or wherever you see it that people are living longer, better lives as a consequence of taking these drugs.”124
Duesberg points out that the annual mortality rate of HIV-positives undergoing antiviral therapy is 7 to 9 percent—far higher than the mortality rate of all HIV-positives worldwide, at about 1 to 2 percent per year.125 Furthermore, there is ample evidence that treated HIV-positives die much faster of liver failure or cardiac failure than both HIV-infected individuals and AIDS patients who do not take AZT.126
Gays Join Dr. Fauci
In marshaling institutional resistance to dissent from the growing cadre of prominent scientists and doctors, Dr. Fauci found an unlikely ally: the AIDS community.
Beginning after his 1987 reconciliation with Larry Kramer in Toronto, Dr. Fauci quickly moved to build financial bridges to gay leadership and quiet dissent from AIDS activists. That year, he began by funding ACT UP and amfAR and leading AIDS activists, like Kramer and Martin Delaney. NIAID funneled extravagant annual public education grants to advocacy groups. The funding effectively muted their criticisms of Dr. Fauci.
The AIDS establishment—hospitals, medical and research centers, and pharmaceutical companies—created opulently paid consulting contracts for important members of gay organizations.127 The gay community thereby became powerful gatekeepers for the AIDS establishment.128
Other political, economic, and ideological rationales helped Dr. Fauci recruit gay community leaders to his campaign to build a cancel culture against Duesberg and drown out his voice in the liberal mainstream press. In an era when Christian conservatism was so powerful that it credibly claimed to have put Ronald Reagan in the White House, ideology and medical opinions attributing the “gay disease” to orgies and excess partying tended to feed anti-gay bigotry. The gay community, therefore, happily endorsed Dr. Fauci’s one-bug theory.
There were compelling mercantile drivers, as well. During the 1970s, the principal financial supports of the gay press were ads for the $50,000,000-a-year popper industry129 and for the bars that flourished on popper sales.
As Ian Young explains in “The Poppers Story: The Rise and Fall and Rise of The Gay Drug,” in Steam, “During the seventies and early eighties, much of the gay press, including the most influential glossy publications, came to rely on poppers ads for a huge chunk of its revenue, and poppers became an accepted part of gay sex. There was even a comic strip called Poppers, by Jerry Mills. The unwritten agreement was almost never breached: poppers ads appeared only in gay publications.”130