Aug 6·edited Aug 10Liked by dpl

I apologize once again to DPL and everyone for the technical difficulties. I hope I can fix them since they seem to be on my end. In the meantime, I hope that I might be permitted to finish the points I was trying to make about "motives" when my microphone cut out for the last time.

I have to say, though, that, with all due respect to my good friend Anthony Brink, I believe Brink's refusal to grasp the motives I have proposed that may have been behind the actions of Duesberg and Rasnick in the 2000s is bordering on naivete. Anthony and I explored this history (particularly at this link: http://www.tig.org.za/History_of_Rethinking_AIDS_3.htm ), but as I said, we did not really delve too deeply into specific motives back then. I'm not sure if I got this point across, but I tried to emphasize that it wasn't necessary for these guys to have had a specific concern about Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos and her "redox theory" of cellular function and structure to explain the suppressive actions they took against Eleni and the Perth Group in the 2000s. However, one thing that seems certain is that the stakes were DEFINITELY HIGHER- MUCH HIGHER no doubt- for Duesberg and Rasnick in the 2000s (specifically starting in 2003 once they launched their startup biotech company) than they ever were for them back in the 1990s when the divisions between the two main factions of "AIDS" dissidents were first coming into focus for all of us.

For one thing, Duesberg and Rasnick acquired a venture capitalist "donor" who was a "hands on benefactor" and more importantly, this VC was also an **INVESTOR** in Duesberg's and Rasnick's startup biotech company. This donor gave at least $500k to Duesberg in the period between 1995 and 2003 which was right around the time that Duesberg and Rasnick launched their aforementioned biotech company I referenced in this audio discussion. Presumably, it is quite possible that that amount does not include any likely additional investments that were made by the VC to Duesberg's and Rasnick's biotech startup company AFTER that period. The venture capitalist also purchased a "state of the art microscope" for Duesberg in the amount of $80K so that Duesberg and his colleagues could supposedly "confirm" the so-called "aneuploid" status of any cell. By comparison, it is important to point out and as I had also tried to say (but I may have been cut off from audio), the Perth Group had stated repeatedly that the necessary isolation experiments to prove the existence of "HIV" would have cost around $100K.

In addition to all the money Duesberg's VC invested directly with Duesberg, the VC donated money probably totaling in the hundreds of thousands of dollars to several of the most prominent "AIDS" dissident groups of that time (late 1990s) all of which were primarily supporters of Duesberg and less so of the Perth Group. The VC also covered the costs of sending Duesberg's book to every member of the U.S. Congress. However, significantly, as Anthony should recall, the VC never donated ONE PENNY to the Perth Group nor to Stefan Lanka nor to Continuum Magazine which was a huge booster of Perth and Lanka! It is extremely naive and a clear violation of expected human behavior to think that this VC would not have been striving for the highest possible ROI (return on investment) for all that money he spent in the "AIDS" dissident movement and for all the untold sums he invested in Duesberg's and Rasnick's startup biotech firm!

IMHO, it is not a huge leap of faith to assume that Duesberg and his VC and the rest of the cabal who surrounded Duesberg may have been concerned that ANY attack on Duesberg could risk compromising his credibility when he could least afford such a risk. I agree with Brink that it is entirely possible that no one in the Duesberg cabal was smart enough to grasp the significance of the differences between Duesberg's aneuploidy theory of cancer and Eleni P-E's broader theory on cellular function and structure. However, again, such a specific fear would not have been necessary for all of the suppressive actions taken by the Duesberg cabal to "fit" and to make sense in the possible scenario that I have proposed.

Nor, again, IMHO is it relevant that the topics of concern may have seemed unrelated to each other, i.e., Duesberg and Co.'s concern about his cancer work being undermined by Eleni possibly destroying Duesberg's theory on "HIV" (as she and the Perth Group essentially DID back in 1996 in Continuum Magazine). Duesberg was the MAN, the center of all of this. As such, not only did Duesberg's cronies feel the need to promote him by resuscitating the deceased RA group (which since 2005 was "ALL DUESBERG, ALL THE TIME"), but ALL of them (perhaps the VC most of all) would have wanted to protect their "hero" Duesberg -who was the "star quarterback" so to speak- from ALL attackers and at all costs!! And starting around the year 2003, they DEFINITELY had substantial interests to protect and MUCH to lose....

For my bio, please go to: https://longtimedissident.substack.com/about

Expand full comment

Thank you for all the information given. It´s crucial for all to understand why it was so complicated to even touch the non-virus problem back then, because today, the problems are exactly the same. Of course, the Controllers always write two narratives: one for the masses and one for those who will question it. Also, division is placed by force inside the dissidents views in order to dilute them. But what I really do not understand is why people who admit there is no purification or isolation of any virus prefer not to talk about it. Who knows? No courage? afraid to be attacked too much? lose audience? Sometimes within the "health freedom movement," they push the "version" that can be more acceptable for the masses. But why? It seems that they want to "make peace" between dissidents, but what they end up doing is what the Controllers want: keeping the virus myth. And with the virus myth, injections are protected. So, it´s sad. Anyway, thanks again for the work you've done. The best for you, misha from gamzuletova

Expand full comment

Wow, this is fabulous, DPL! I can't wait to find a couple of hours to really dive into this.

I'm hoping that there are valuable lessons here for me (and everyone) to inform us how to better keep our movement together and aligned with the most important fundamental principles, as opposed to uniting around pragmatism, bbad science, and outright lies and fraud.

I've been mostly disabled and off line for about 3 months, when viscious attacks began being made against me, by "friendly fire". The person who began these public attacks COULD have been mentioned here, as he was a contemporary of these folks.

Amazing that one of the top people from the AIDS dissident movement has attacked me very publicly over my radical No-Virus views and advocacy.

Expand full comment

I finally got to read the whole six-part history by Advocate Brink. What a fantastic view, and the parallels with CONVID are so many. The Duesberg camp of today seems to be the “early treatment” camp. But the viruses are still as fake as ever. And the silencing of fundamental discussion is ongoing, although crumbling finally. Thanks for the excellent article.

Expand full comment
Aug 7Liked by dpl

Great stuff Dude, It's a shame so few know who you are.

Expand full comment

I also wanted to provide the link for the "debate" that I referenced which lasted from 2003 to 2005 on the web site of the British Medical Journal. You can choose which way you would like to view this MASSIVE thread at this link: https://bmj.rethinkers.net/

I prefer loading it ALL on one page, link here: https://bmj.rethinkers.net/bmj_debate.html

Rasnick's posts I mentioned in our audio discussion are visible early in the debate. As I said, he dropped out of this discussion on the bmj.org web site within a few months, possibly because he became busy with other projects (including inter alia, the startup biotech company he had just co-founded with Duesberg). However, it is also true that, as I said, neither Rasnick nor Duesberg nor their venture capitalist investor had any power or influence over that platform of the BMJ's web site. So, at least in THIS instance, Duesberg and his cabal could not stop Eleni and the Perth Group. Thankfully, Perth was allowed to post freely and share lots of information while DOMINATING this "debate" for two solid years until the plug was eventually pulled by the editors of the BMJ themselves....

Expand full comment