HIV & AIDS: Truth versus lies

Everything that you have ever learned is a lie. The trick to remaining sane in a world full of falsehoods is to find the lies that are worth accepting as the truth. Does HIV cause AIDS? Most people would say yes. But it seems that this is a lie. 

I am reading Peter Duesberg’s 1996 book Inventing the AIDS Virus. In this book, Duesberg, a renowned molecular biologist, argues that HIV does not cause AIDS. 

He presents scientific evidence to show that HIV is a harmless passenger virus and that AIDS is caused by a range of lifestyle related factors, drug abuse, antiretroviral medication, chronic malnutrition, poor sanitation and hemophilia.

He contends that HIV is common in human beings and millions of people have it but they never develop AIDS. He accuses American healthcare institutions—Centers for Disease Control, National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation—of stifling research into the real cause of AIDS and spreading a false fear of HIV for financial and political gains. 

I learned about Duesberg’s book from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s book The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health. Kennedy has discussed in detail Duesberg’s evidence and arguments refuting the theory that HIV is the cause of AIDS. 

“In fact, AIDS commonly occurs in people who test HIV negative. If HIV is truly the only cause of AIDS, this should not be possible,” Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. writes in his book. 

Kennedy also claims in his book that the definition of AIDS is based on non-scientific and political considerations, and that Canada and the USA follow different definitions of AIDS. Someone diagnosed with AIDS in the USA instantly becomes AIDS free the instant he moves into Canada, he says.

Gorbachev’s Perestroika and Trump’s MAGA: The fate of two superpowers

The end of World War II marked not merely the collapse of European colonial dominance, but the reconstitution of global power around two ideologically opposed centres: the United States and the Soviet Union. 

What followed was not a conventional war, but a prolonged geopolitical contest—strategic, economic, and ideological—between two systems that functioned, in effect, as rival empires. This bipolar order endured until 1991, when the disintegration of the Soviet Union produced what many scholars described as a “unipolar moment,” with the United States emerging as the world’s sole superpower.

The internal unravelling of the Soviet system is closely associated with the reformist agenda of Mikhail Gorbachev. Upon assuming leadership in 1985, Gorbachev initiated two transformative policies—perestroika (economic restructuring) and glasnost (political openness). While conceived as corrective mechanisms to revitalise a stagnating system, these reforms had the unintended effect of accelerating systemic fragility. 

Economic dislocation, coupled with the loosening of political controls, emboldened nationalist movements within the Soviet republics and exposed institutional weaknesses that had long been suppressed. By the early 1990s, the Soviet state could no longer sustain its internal coherence. It is within this historical framework that I draw a provocative—though undeniably contested—parallel between Mikhail Gorbachev and Donald Trump. The comparison rests not on ideological affinity, but on a shared disruptive impulse to recalibrate an established system.

Trump’s political project—encapsulated in the slogan “Make America Great Again”—has sought to challenge entrenched bureaucratic structures, reorient foreign policy priorities, and question the scale and scope of American global commitments, including defence expenditure and alliance systems.

However, the analogy must be approached with caution. The Soviet Union of the 1980s was a centrally planned economy grappling with structural inefficiencies, declining productivity, and limited political legitimacy. The United States, by contrast, operates within a deeply institutionalised democratic framework, characterised by resilient checks and balances, diversified economic structures, and a globally dominant financial system anchored by the dollar. To equate the vulnerabilities of the two systems without qualification risks oversimplification.

That said, the broader question the comparison raises is not without merit: can large-scale reform within a hegemonic power generate destabilising feedback loops? History suggests that attempts to rapidly restructure complex political and economic systems often produce unintended consequences. In the Soviet case, reform loosened the very mechanisms that had sustained state control. In other contexts, abrupt policy shifts—whether in trade, fiscal management, or military posture—can trigger market volatility, geopolitical uncertainty, and domestic political polarisation.

Speculative scenarios surrounding the United States—ranging from financial market instability to strategic setbacks or inflationary pressures—must therefore be evaluated not as deterministic outcomes, but as contingent risks within a broader matrix of global interdependence. The resilience of the American system lies precisely in its capacity to absorb shocks through institutional adaptation, monetary flexibility, and political contestation. Yet this resilience is not infinite; it depends on the continued legitimacy of institutions and the coherence of policy direction.

A more precise reading, therefore, would avoid deterministic parallels and instead situate the current moment within a longer tradition of great-power adjustment. The United States is not facing imminent collapse, but it is navigating a period of structural transition marked by shifting economic balances, technological disruption, and an increasingly multipolar geopolitical environment. Political leadership—whether reformist or conservative—operates within these constraints.

The historical lesson is not that reform leads inevitably to decline, but that reform without calibration can amplify underlying vulnerabilities. Gorbachev’s experience illustrates how systemic transformation, if not anchored in institutional stability, can accelerate disintegration. Whether contemporary American politics carries any analogous risks depends less on individual leaders and more on the capacity of the system to manage change without eroding its foundational strengths.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr’s book: The Real Anthony Fauci

Just finished reading Robert F. Kennedy Jr’s book The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health. This book is an explosive exposé of Anthony Fauci, Bill Gates, the global healthcare bureaucracy and the multinational big pharmaceutical companies.  

I am convinced that allegations that Kennedy makes in his book are mostly true. Governments around the world should investigate these allegations. The American tech and pharma industries are out of control. They have grabbed too much power in all the major countries. They are no longer helping people—to maximize their own power and profits, they are subverting freedom of speech, robbing people of their freedom and destroying millions of lives.

Here are some thought proving lines from Robert F. Kennedy Jr’s book: 

“Complex scientific and moral problems are not resolved through censorship of dissenting opinions, deleting content from the Internet, or defaming scientists and authors who present information challenging to those in power. Censorship leads instead to greater distrust of both government institutions and large corporations.” 

“Pretty soon the incessant lies and propaganda will have successfully instilled in the masses that the only hope for staying alive is via injection, pill-popping, so in sum, no natural immunity.”

“The very Internet companies that snookered us all with the promise of democratizing communications made it impermissible for Americans to criticize their government or question the safety of pharmaceutical products; these companies propped up all official pronouncements while scrubbing all dissent. The same Tech/Data and Telecom robber barons, gorging themselves on the corpses of our obliterated middle class, rapidly transformed America’s once-proud democracy into a censorship and surveillance police state from which they profit at every turn.”

“Ellison, Gates, and the other members of this government/industry collaboration used the lockdown to accelerate construction of their 5G network of satellites, antennae, biometric facial recognition, and “track and trace” infrastructure that they, and their government and intelligence agency partners, can use to mine and monetize our data, further suppress dissent, to compel obedience to arbitrary dictates, and to manage the rage that comes as Americans finally wake up to the fact that this outlaw gang has stolen our democracy, our civil rights, our country, and our way of life—while we huddled in orchestrated fear from a flu-like virus.”

“Vaccines are one of the rare commercial products that multiply profits by failing. Each new booster doubles the revenues from the initial jab.”

“The vaccines are so risky that the insurance industry has refused to underwrite them, and the manufacturers refuse to produce them without blanket immunity from liability. Bill Gates, who is the principal investor in many of these new COVID vaccines, stipulated that their risk is so great that he would not provide them to people unless every government shielded him from lawsuits.”

“No one wanted Americans to know that you didn’t have to die from COVID. It’s 100 percent treatable,” says Dr. Brownstein. “We proved it. No one had to die.”

“Dr. Fauci’s business closures pulverized America’s middle class and engineered the largest upward transfer of wealth in human history. In 2020, workers lost $3.7 trillion while billionaires gained $3.9 trillion. Some 493 individuals became new billionaires, and an additional 8 million Americans dropped below the poverty line. The biggest winners were the robber barons—the very companies that were cheerleading Dr. Fauci’s lockdown and censoring his critics: Big Technology, Big Data, Big Telecom, Big Finance, Big Media behemoths (Michael Bloomberg, Rupert Murdoch, Viacom, and Disney), and Silicon Valley Internet titans like Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Eric Schmidt, Sergey Brin, Larry Page, Larry Ellison, and Jack Dorsey. The very Internet companies that snookered us all with the promise of democratizing communications made it impermissible for Americans to criticize their government or question the safety of pharmaceutical products; these companies propped up all official pronouncements while scrubbing all dissent. The same Tech/Data and Telecom robber barons, gorging themselves on the corpses of our obliterated middle class, rapidly transformed America’s once-proud democracy into a censorship and surveillance police state from which they profit at every turn.”

“Across Western nations, shell-shocked citizens experienced all the well-worn tactics of rising totalitarianism—mass propaganda and censorship, the orchestrated promotion of terror, the manipulation of science, the suppression of debate, the vilification of dissent, and use of force to prevent protest. Conscientious objectors who resisted these unwanted, experimental, zero-liability medical interventions faced orchestrated gaslighting, marginalization, and scapegoating. American lives and livelihoods were shattered by a bewildering array of draconian diktats imposed without legislative approval or judicial review, risk assessment, or scientific citation. So-called Emergency Orders closed our businesses, schools and churches, made unprecedented intrusions into privacy, and disrupted our most treasured social and family relationships. Citizens the world over were ordered to stay in their homes.”

“Anthony Fauci seems to have not considered that his unprecedented quarantine of the healthy would kill far more people than COVID, obliterate the global economy, plunge millions into poverty and bankruptcy, and grievously wound constitutional democracy globally.”

“Therapeutic nihilism was the real killer of America’s seniors.”

On The False Dichotomy Between Socialism & Capitalism

On one side is the Western ideology of socialism which claims that all means of production are controlled by the people (which is a euphemism for the state). On the other is the Western ideology of capitalism which claims that all means of production are controlled by individuals (which is a euphemism for private corporations). 

We are told that they are opposites and that they are the only two ways of running a modern society. But this is a false dichotomy. Socialism and capitalism are two sides of the same coin. Both socialist and capitalist states fund their operations through paper money fueled by government debt which can never be paid. Both create markets. Both require cheap or slave labour. Both control the masses by alienating them from their traditional culture and creating the myth of individual freedom and progress. The capitalist markets need the government as much as the socialist markets do. 

Socialism and capitalism are not an either-or. The war between them is a mythology propagated by Western philosophers and politicians. They always exist in tandem. Neither can exist without the other, at least, in the form that we can recognize. All societies, which have adopted the Western model, have mixed economies — they have elements of both socialism and capitalism.