All Episodes
Previous Next
July 9, 2023 - Jim Fetzer
01:03:45
The Uncensored History of AIDS - Interview With Celia Farber
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Today we're interviewing Celia Farber, who has written a book about the AIDS epidemic and what the heck does that have to do with COVID?
Well, it has a lot to do with it because Fauci was involved with both of them and it was a early predictor to exactly understand what he did in the COVID pandemic, specifically with things like discrediting reputable scientists like Peter Duisburg, and also discrediting inexpensive outpatient therapies that were far more effective than the recommended strategies for that treatment.
In the case of HIV, it was AZT that actually killed the very people it was supposed to help.
So a fascinating discussion.
If you have any interest in what set the basis of what happened in COVID-19, you're going to love this book.
Peter Duisberg mapped the genetic structure of retroviruses.
So to him, yes, they were entities, But no, they didn't do anything.
They didn't infect or kill cells.
They were harmless.
There was no cell death.
And fascinatingly or disturbingly, the HIV orthodoxy never contested that.
So I would say they had a supernatural belief in HIV.
Back to Peter, it's like a building just falls on him.
And next thing you know, his name becomes synonymous with wrong, dangerous, homophobic, Murderous.
And then this culture kicks in where it becomes a sport and a career advancement to trash Duisburg if you have anything to do with AIDS research.
So he really became this almost unbelievable scapegoat for the errors and crimes of Fauci's AIDS apparatus.
AZT was one of the darkest, most shocking chapters, possibly the most deadly drug ever given to humans.
The estimate I've heard is that upward of 300,000 died from high dose AZT in the early years.
That's 1,800 to 1,200 milligrams.
All of a sudden, Fauci drops the dose to 500 and people start dying less, which incredibly He spun into that he was saving lives because they lowered the dose of what was killing people.
So a lot of what we're in today, like these, these insane, promiscuous ways of, of medicating and treating people without any regard for safety or the possibility of death.
A lot of what these tricks are, you know, dark tricks are exactly the same as COVID.
Welcome everyone, Dr. Mercola helping you take control of your health, and today I'm joined by an author, Celia Farber, who has written a book a while ago about the history of AIDS, and it has incredible importance now.
So I'm going to let her discuss her history, because she started this as a young woman, I think it was 19 or 20 years old, and she just got fascinated.
I want to find out why she was so fascinated, why she dubbed Deke, and why she interviewed One of the people I regret not ever having interviewed before, Dr. Peter Duisburg, and we'll talk about him.
He's one of my heroes.
He's sort of a harbinger of things to come that we've experienced the last few years, how they absolutely discredit.
This guy was the premier virologist in the entire world.
Number one, indisputable, non-controversial, most well-respected virologist up to humanity until that point.
Started telling the truth about AIDS and Fauci was involved and absolutely discredited, demolished him, destroyed him.
And I just never circled back because I was getting a lot of discrediting for even suggesting that HIV was not the cause of AIDS, you know, and that almost got me taken off.
Well, before they eventually did in 2018.
So, we want to talk deep on that, but let's find out first.
Welcome, thank you for joining us, and tell us how you started on this journey.
Thank you, Dr. McCullough, for having me.
It's a pleasure to be here.
I got started, what you said about Peter Duisburg just now was so perfect.
You're exactly correct.
What was done to him?
I think the chapter in my book that I feel most strongly about is the first chapter, which is all about Peter Duisburg.
It's called The Passion of Peter Duisburg and it charts, it's really, it reads almost like a Shakespearean tragedy because he came here from Germany, came to the United States from the Max Planck Institute Excuse me for interrupting for a moment.
For those who don't know, the Max Planck Institute is one of the most well respected scientific institutions in the world.
I think more well respected than the National Institutes of Health.
So he has a very good pedigree.
Yeah.
And he wrote a paper which his scientific biographer said that was the paper that sealed his scientific doom forever after.
It was in 1987 in a journal called Cancer Research, mostly saying, I'm going to try to keep it very simple here, that retroviruses are not causes of cancer, and then toward the end of the paper, nor are they causes of AIDS.
So, for the purposes of this conversation, I know this too has become Very controversial.
From the other direction, do retroviruses exist?
Let's presume for this moment, you know, because we're back in history in the 80s.
Peter Duesberg mapped the genetic structure of retroviruses, so to him, yes, they were entities, But no, they didn't do anything.
They didn't infect or kill cells.
They were harmless.
And he had phrases like, you know, HIV, that's a pussycat.
It's not going to do anything.
Saying that HIV is going to cause AIDS is like saying you're going to conquer China by killing three soldiers a day.
In other words, there was no there there.
There was no cell death.
And fascinatingly or disturbingly, the HIV orthodoxy never contested that.
So, I would say they had a supernatural belief in HIV.
They would say, we just know HIV causes AIDS, and anybody who doesn't know that is, of course, dot, dot, dot, dangerous, homophobic, murderous, and so forth.
Spreader of misinformation!
Yes, super spreader!
So, they got up the Really, the first thing that's happening here that brings us to where we are with COVID.
Before we go there, before we go there, maybe you can elaborate a little bit further on Peter Duesper because, as you said, it's the most important chapter in your book.
And I absolutely regret never having had the chance and opportunity to interview him.
And as I understand from our previous discussion, though, he's had a stroke and he's not what he used to be and he's elderly.
So, I am vicariously having my interview with Peter Duisburg through you.
So, why don't you tell us a little bit more why he's such a critical figure in this story?
Yeah, Peter Duisburg introduced, so it wasn't just the sum total of his critique.
I argue HIV is not the cause of AIDS.
It cannot cause AIDS because its whole category of retrovirus has never been known.
And that was definitely true up to the moment that Robert Gallo said HIV is the cause of AIDS.
I found it in my laboratory at that famous press conference in 1984.
Up to that moment, they all agreed that retroviruses as a class were not pathogenic.
So there's this very strange mid-air complete flip.
Where everything changes overnight.
It's like a revolutionary change.
And the classical scientists of integrity were so thrown by this, they didn't even attend the press conference.
They didn't think there was any chance that, as they said, that this would fly.
This press conference where Robert Gallo announces that a so-called retrovirus is the cause of AIDS.
So we had, okay, but back to Peter.
What he does that's so monumental in the history of American science, post-1980s, is that he first of all dissents, he opposes, from his stature, which you described so well, the idea of opposition.
And he has no idea that he's doing anything dangerous, never mind career-annihilating.
Just tell the truth.
Yep, and he's behaving, he's conducting himself precisely in the conduct of a scientist, as a scientist should.
He's innocent in what he's doing.
And this, it's like a building just falls on him.
And next thing you know, his name becomes synonymous when this is, you know, of course, an orchestrated campaign.
His name becomes synonymous with wrong, dangerous, homophobic, murderous and then this culture kicks in where it becomes a sport and a career advancement to trash Duisburg if you have anything to do with AIDS research.
It was gladiatorial, you know, they just they went out of their way to come up with more and more lurid and hideous things to say to him about him in the press and it went all over the international press so he really became this Almost unbelievable scapegoat for the errors and crimes of Fauci's AIDS apparatus.
Meanwhile, over in AIDS land, everything they were predicting and terrorizing people with was not coming true at all, was not panning out.
Whereas Peter Duisburg's predictions and critiques were panning out exactly.
And the more he was right and they were wrong, the more trashed, and he never got another Federal Research Dollar from the NIH after he wrote that paper I described in 1987, the one that sealed his fate.
Not one dollar.
Now, he had an outstanding investigator grant that lasted seven years toward the beginning of his troubles.
So, he was safe for a few years.
Those kind of grants only go to very rare I think it's only about 30 or 35 scientists in the whole country that get that kind of grant.
I could be wrong about that, but you've already established how utterly at the top of his field he was.
So really, in a sense, my story and my writing and what I've covered is not just about the nitty-gritty of the science and who's correct.
It's about this moment where science becomes, as I have said, under Tony Fauci, science became woke.
It wasn't called woke then, but he transposes the language of American science and it was then called political correctness.
So in other words, AIDS spreads like this or like that and is going to affect everybody because that's what we're supposed to say politically, not because that's what's true biologically or epidemiologically.
So we're all stuck now in this brand new era of you just get beaten and flogged for observing 2 plus 2 equals 4, and many of us just dug in.
I was by no means the only one.
I was one of the most persistent, and I started very early.
The question fascinated me because I just couldn't square the circle.
How come these guys over here are all saying this, and then this top scientist is saying this, and then others rallied around him.
Kerry Mullis, who invented PCR, was a staunch defender of and friend of Peter Duisburg always said he's absolutely right.
So really the dissent movement was saying there must be proof in science.
Robert Gallo provided no proof that HIV was a pathogen, was the cause of AIDS or a coherent pathogen.
So it just kept growing and growing.
And I was pretty much, with a few exceptions, I had the field to myself because nobody wanted to interview these people because it was absolutely radioactive and death to your career.
And I can But it was absolutely fascinating and Peter Duisburg in my experience... What motivated you to go down this dangerous path?
I didn't actually, I was, I actually didn't realize it was dangerous.
I actually did not realize.
I just kept thinking we're going to, we're going to solve this.
We're going to, these voices are going to come to the fore and everyone's, I mean, that's how, that's how stupid I was.
Naive.
Naive is a far better term.
Yeah.
And I was already way too far out at sea, you know, when the bludgeonings began and I realized how dangerous It in fact was, and that the people we were up against were of a much more dangerous variety than I had realized.
As an incredible testimony that even four decades prior to what Fauci implemented with COVID, that he had this type of power to destroy people and convince the entire country of a fake narrative.
Yeah, let me speak a little bit about how he did that, because having lived through it, I remember vividly, it was, let's say that an editor at a major magazine or newspaper became interested in this very interesting story, this is a great story, and so that's interesting, and thought to get on it or get a reporter on it.
Somehow he had, I guess it was a surveillance network, and knew And went in there, and somehow the story dies.
The reporter gets taken off it.
The show gets cancelled.
I had friends who had... One friend had a major show at an ABC local show.
It was a new show, a talk show.
And he had Peter Duesberg on, and myself.
And next thing you know, the whole show's cancelled.
And he never worked again.
It was GDR stuff.
It was across the board.
It was 100% consistent that anybody who touched it, there were maybe a few exceptions who people could write about it once, were tapped on the shoulder and warned, and they didn't necessarily lose their career.
But yeah, it was, and they were open about it.
We intend to destroy, and that was their word, destroy one top level AIDS researcher named John P. Moore sent out an open kind of declaration of war saying, they called us denialists, AIDS denialists.
He said, we will crush you.
We will crush all of you.
So that was the climate of it.
Sounds just like science is supposed to work.
Anyone with an opposing view.
Yeah.
They were, and now after all these years, I'm realizing, okay, so they were part of something much larger.
They were part of this new revolutionary, what shall I call it, post-modern, 2 plus 2 does not equal 4 science, it is whatever we tell you it is.
They've created that kind of empire of terror during AIDS, for sure.
It's just that not that many people knew about it because it was still within the corridors Certain risk groups and only, you know, some unfortunate journalists or scientists who got caught up in it.
Then with COVID, they threw a much bigger net because now it was just, first of all, PCR laid the trap.
Instead of with HIV, it was antibody tests, right?
So, it was a little more difficult to get people into the trap.
Yeah, PCR didn't exist then because Cary Mullis, when did he invent that?
He invented it in the early 90s.
I thought it was after the HIV epidemic.
Yeah, it was used by the AIDS, what shall we call them?
I can't call them scientists, what are they?
And I can't call them researchers, the AIDS gang.
The AIDS cabal.
It was used by them, PCR was, and this drove Carrie crazy, it was used by them for something that was called, to measure something called viral load, which was to keep primarily HIV positive gay men going back to the doctor to get tested and tested and tested, so it became, the whole thing was a numbers game.
Lynn Margulis used to call it used to call them numerologists, these kind of researchers, so they get their patient, you know, staring at numbers, what are my, what are my viral load numbers, and that was supposed to give you a sense of how sick or well you could expect to be.
So, it also ushered in a culture of technocratic surrogate marker, you know, never look at the patient, the patient never checks in how he or she feels, it's, it's, Sort of like on the way to AI, on the way to synthetic biology, all the stuff that is now upon us.
These idols were elevated and worshipped in AIDS.
So there are other similarities to what happened with COVID other than Fauci being at the head and the lead leadership of directing this whole narrative.
Maybe you can review some of those now.
The ones I'm thinking of would be the vilification and discrediting, not only of scientists, but therapies that could effectively address this.
Because just like they vilified ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, went out of their way to fund fraudulent studies published in highly respected peer-reviewed journals to discredit them, they did similar strategies with Other inexpensive therapies, and in the case of HIV, it was Bactrim, which I believe at the time might have been generic.
So it was really inexpensive, just like hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin.
And it was used to treat one of the infections that took many people out with AIDS, which is pneumocystis carinii pneumonia.
That's exactly right.
And I just don't recall if it was generic or not, but I think it might have been.
By that time.
I think it was.
It was, okay.
So it was basically free almost.
Now Bactrim is not a safe drug like ivermectin.
It can kill you too.
It has killed many people.
But it was better than dying from pneumocystis perineum pneumonia.
And they were withholding it and holding them out for this drug called AZT that was horrendously expensive, never proven to work, and killed people.
Yes.
They even killed celebrities back then, like Arthur Ashe, who died with HIV, believing that he was supposed to take this AZT, took it and died.
So why don't you elaborate on that story?
AZT was one of the darkest, most shocking chapters.
There's a lot in this.
I'll try to keep it simple.
AZT was a compound that was shelved in the early 60s for being a chemotherapy that was considered too toxic for human use.
Shelved by its owner Then called Burroughs Welcome.
Do you remember Burroughs Welcome?
Yeah, the forebearer of the Welcome Trust that Jeremy Farrar used to head.
I think now he's in the WHO.
Yeah, exactly.
So, for reasons that cannot be fathomed, they pulled that compound out of the drawer and put it in capsule form and made it the first drug to treat AIDS, a condition of immune devastation, a chemotherapeutic agent, too toxic to be released in the early 60s.
Just forget about this one, right, because it was such a broad spectrum Cell death toxicity, that it wasn't even considered, and I've always thought that was very key, that they were kind of afraid of it, you know, in 1960, as a cancer chemotherapy.
So, why is that the one they pull out when it's time to offer a drug, because the activists were at this time, and this is key,
protesting in the streets on a scale that was that was that was not trivial okay you know and where that came from and who was paying for that is is another subject and I'm learning more and more about that but regardless of the roots of this activist movement the activist movement ACT UP primarily comes in and their cry their battle cry is
You're killing us, Fauci, by not giving us a drug now.
We want it now.
We're dying now.
We have no time.
So, the revolutionary cry was, there is no time, which fits hand-in-glove with the agenda of Fauci Pharma, all of them, because they don't want it.
At that time, you'll correct me if I'm wrong about this, but my understanding is it took about 10 years to bring a drug through safety and efficacy testing by the FDA in the 80s, right?
It was, it was very, but that's about, that's typical, right?
More or less, right?
So, with this, again, I'm going to use the word revolutionary, with this revolutionary change, with the activists chaining themselves to radiators, flinging themselves, laying on the highway, throwing blood in St.
Patrick's Cathedral, etc.
So, they garnered a lot of attention and a lot of public sympathy.
They were fighting for their lives and if they didn't do this, they would die.
And then there's this almost unbelievable tragic outcome that the drug that they successfully wrench from the system is possibly the most deadly drug ever given to humans.
The estimate I've heard is that upward of 300,000 gay men, mostly gay men, died from high-dose AZT in their early years.
That's 1,800 to 1,200 milligrams.
All of a sudden, Fauci drops the dose to 500, and people start dying less, which, incredibly, he spun into that he was saving lives with his apparatus, because they lowered the dose of what was killing people.
So, a lot of these tricks are, you know, dark tricks, are exactly the same as COVID.
AZT was a really, really box one event, I would say, in medicine.
But what it achieved, that we're still suffering from, was this Demolition of the formerly conservative FDA drug approval, safety and drug approval process, which was turned into something bad, evil.
You know, you only support that if you hate people or you hate gay men and you want them to die.
You want it to take 10 years to test a drug.
That's cruel, right?
So this idea that Fauci was at odds with the activists in the beginning, that only comes from this story Or mythology, maybe, that the bad thing that he did was to try to hold back drugs until they were safety and efficacy tested.
And now we know him.
We know his character.
We know that he's not into safety or efficacy at all.
So, AZT was a terrible, like, massacre.
It was a massacre.
A global massacre.
So many people died.
They also even pushed it through, they broke down the wall that was in place since thalidomide that ensured that pregnant women took no chemical, nothing under any circumstances, right?
It was just a zero possibility.
Am I right that after thalidomide for many years, pregnant women basically were given Almost no medication, unless it was absolutely, absolutely necessary.
Typically, the general policy, even as of today, except when they have extended waiting circumstances, like what they did with the COVID jab, did the same play, identical.
In the mid-90s, there was a, guess what, a study that showed that AZT given to pregnant women throughout gestation could help minimize the risk of the baby being born, HIV.
The whole thing is so macabre.
And so they broke down that.
So a lot of what we're in today, like these insane, promiscuous ways of medicating and treating people without any regard for safety or the possibility of death, a lot of these concepts are put in place in AIDS, which was a revolution, a a lot of these concepts are put in place in AIDS, As COVID is a revolution, this is like revolutionary public health medicine.
Emergency, emergency, emergency, right?
That's what drives it all.
That's the justification.
I'm sorry, what did you say?
That's the justification for driving it.
So do you think that it would seem obvious now in retrospect that apparent conflict with and the HIV protesters was engineered specifically to facilitate the introduction of ACT without appropriate testing.
- I do. - Do you have any evidence to support that?
- Okay, engineered.
You know, that gets into this thing, what is a conspiracy?
What are shared interests?
There comes a moment in the official history where Larry Kramer sits on a bench with Tony Fauci and they decide to join forces pretty early on.
They decide, we're not enemies anymore, let's work together.
Fauci brings the activists inside the palace wall, so to speak, inside the NIH.
They're now sitting at the tables as though they were researchers But more powerful than researchers.
They're dictating terms.
They're dictating which medications they want and when they want them.
And then they begin to dictate what's going to happen in Africa, what kind of microbicides African women are going to take.
And these guys got very powerful.
So they were in and they were... I know a fair amount about what the climate was like in there and how how the dynamic was between Fauci and the activists.
And also what a strange thing to bring the patient advocates inside and let them begin to dictate things.
So to answer your question, to me, that's, that comes very close to proof or at the very least, it's, it's a conspiracy of shared interests.
Would you agree?
Sure.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Peter Staley is the name of the, the, he was the leading, the leading activist of ACT UP, the one who was in all the papers and he's still, he's still alive.
Peter Staley is very, very close to Fauci.
He just did a talk at the Kennedy Center not too long ago, and the two of them sit down, Fauci, Peter Staley, and Peter Staley says, And Fauci says, Peter says, usually over the years, when we get together over the decades, we, we drink some Pinot.
So he pulls out a bottle of Pinot Noir and two glasses and it's just so cozy.
Right.
And it's just like, it's like a date.
And to me, that was not, you know, that was not cute or charming.
It was, it was deeply alarming just to see how, because you see the activists were, We're militant and also violent.
So, they were the ones who enacted all the bans, the cancelling, the crushing, the career termination, including mine.
They were Fauci's, what's the term, foot soldiers, or what's a better term for that?
Henchmen.
Henchmen, yeah, yeah, because they knew how to do traumatizing Do you think they taught him anything for the future?
Do you think they were his mentors in some ways?
I think they taught him something dark.
Do you think they taught him anything for the future?
Do you think they were his mentors in some ways?
I think they taught him something dark.
I think they taught him how much power you can get if you seize control of the public psyche and the public guilt with the accusation of who you are and what's killing you and what you demand against.
Again, revolutionary.
They demand it in the manner of revolutionaries.
And I think they taught him you don't have to be so stodgy and bureaucratic and follow the rules, Tony.
We can just change the world as we demand.
So you feel it was these activists rather than Fauci himself that was responsible for slamming you and Duisburg and others?
Well, I know it because they did it very directly.
They were they were the campaigns against me were.
Whether it was I got an award or whether I was published somewhere, they were always there.
One time, I got an award with Peter Duisburg, an organization called the Semmelweis Society.
We were in Washington, D.C.
We came to Washington, D.C.
to speak.
It wasn't somebody from the NIH.
It's AIDS activists flooded them with calls and faxes and threats, and they couldn't put us on the stage, and they asked us, do you mind just not being in the building?
We will give you your rewards, but we can't have you in the building.
They're threatening to destroy our whole organization, which they later did anyway.
We did leave Peter Duisburg, and I spent the day at the National Gallery and the Holocaust Museum.
And then we came back in an infertive ceremony.
We got our awards.
So again and again and again, it was like that.
In other words, when it was shown to me, okay, now you're going to have this taken away from you.
Now, it was always the activists.
It was never the officialdom at the NIH.
So do you think, which came first?
Was it Fauci I mean, I want to invoke the Godfather, right?
Let's think about that.
So what does the Godfather do?
did Fauci learn from their tactics on what he would eventually deploy decades later?
I mean, I want to say that I want to invoke the Godfather, right?
Let's think about that.
So what does the Godfather do?
He silently, he sits there at the top and everybody knows what to do in his name, right?
In his honor.
I think what you're really asking is a good question.
Who was Fauci in the beginning there?
How did he transform into somebody so ruthless, so unaccountable?
And I'm being nice, you know, right now.
And for me, as now a historian of all of this, I place a lot of credence and stock in the symbiosis between Fauci and the AIDS activists, because the AIDS activists were revolutionary, and they did have a revolutionary creed, which was, by any means necessary, we demand what we demand.
And he was a bureaucrat, He was a trained Jesuit.
His politics are opaque.
His faith is opaque.
He has said he was raised Catholic and now he's a humanist.
It's hard to know Fauci, right?
Because all we get is the official Fauci.
I don't I don't think that this whole story is necessarily as Fauci-centric as we try to make it.
I think he's a perfect general in a much bigger war that seeks to destroy many things outside of science.
That's my take on it.
I think this is the big international war that seeks domination over human beings, period, full stop.
And these spectral virus diseases are a good revolutionary tool to get us there.
We made the mistake of seeing them as genuine outbreaks of something, and people got sick, and oh my goodness, the government was trying to do something.
I don't believe any of that anymore.
I think this is all part and parcel of the Great Leap Forward.
Do you think his role will be diminished now that he's retired or that someone will replace him and continue in his path?
That's a really good question.
I think when you have what used to be called charismatic dictators, right?
He may qualify as that and they fall and their time is over and they're replaced.
Inevitably, the culture changes.
It doesn't just carry on.
I think he was unbelievably advanced in his cold-blooded willingness to snuff.
You know, I mean that takes cojones of a sort.
Maybe that's the wrong word.
Just to take out a Peter Duesberg in full public view and transform him into a Despicable, murderous clown.
Like, wow!
You know, the hubris.
So whoever comes after him will no doubt share the ruthless faith.
I mean, the bloodthirst for vaccines and so forth and so forth.
Whether that person will wield over the whole apparatus and make sure that journalists get destroyed and that the shaming culture is intact That I don't know.
I sort of feel like because Fauci has been, in a sense, seen through.
He hasn't exactly fallen, but he has in many ways fallen.
And that was largely thanks to Robert F. Kennedy Jr.' 's monumental book, The Real Anthony Fauci.
What Peter Duisburg did first on the landscape was to introduce the idea of You could be wrong, I'm contesting you.
And that was a shock, because already then there was a culture of, but these people aren't wrong, they're sort of gods.
Gallo, Fauci, their proclamations are true and we all know it, we don't need proof.
There was that really strange idol worship going on at the very beginning.
So what Peter does, regardless of whether people today will say, Peter still believes in viruses, down with Peter Duesberg.
They've got to try to imagine going back in time that there was, it was, dissent against these people was unimaginable.
So he forges a culture of dissent, which then attracts other scientists from around the world.
Yeah, you know, I thought it sounded crazy too.
And the best scientists from around the world signed their names.
It grew to over 2,000 to a document where they said, Through history, if my grandchildren see this, I don't want my name on this thing.
So, the dissent against it, Peter Duesberg was the tip of the spear, but it was huge.
And it was composed of the top scientists from all disciplines around the world.
It was an incredible thing.
And still, those people did not have A chance against the bullies, against the bully apparatus which had the media and which seized, of course, all the captured academia, captured media, captured everything.
You know this.
You know this stuff.
That's really our problem, is we have industrial bullying on such a scale.
It's very hard to overcome.
Yeah, and combine that with the captured federal regulatory agencies that are supposed to protect the public health and actually do the exact opposite.
So it's a prescription for disaster for sure.
And it's sad to see the whole public health infrastructure just get decimated and converted into something to the exact opposite of which his initial charter was.
You know, and unfortunately it evolved into a situation like we have with COVID, and AZT was, as you described, certainly not great, killing 300,000 people, but that pales in comparison to what they've done with the COVID jab.
Absolutely.
It's an order of magnitude beyond that, at least, and will continue to take more and more people out.
Yes, and thank you for speaking out so unequivocally about that.
It's nothing could be, no work could be more important.
I was curious, I know you're interviewing me, but I have a question for you, which is when they came after you and specifically you, I mean, everybody, but like they had a special treatment for you where they called you the worst super spreader or something like that.
I mean, it was absurd, but I want to ask how did that affect you or did it affect you?
Yeah, I was incredibly humbled and honored, really, that they would think someone from the inner city of Chicago grew up and, you know, decided he was really fascinated with health and wanted to go to medical school to learn how to stay healthy and keep people healthy.
You know, that would just develop a little website that essentially would evolve into the most visited natural health site in the world.
That I had an influence that much that this type of Hostility or discrediting efforts would be directed at me.
So it was a great honor.
I was sad.
I wasn't a stranger to that discrediting campaign because for the whole time I started the website a quarter of a century ago, I was Really committed to exposing the truth about the problems with medicines, and specifically the pharma.
I was mostly focusing on drug companies, and they're certainly a big part of the issue, but it's much broader than that, of course, as we learned through the last three years.
So they, and one of the, I mean, occasionally, I forget what it was.
I interviewed some, I don't know who it was.
I don't even think I interviewed him.
I just shared an interview that he did, or a podcast that he did at the time, that questioned That HIV was cause of AIDS.
And boy, that stuck with me.
That was a thorn in my side for well over a decade because of my Wikipedia page and everything about me said, he's an AIDS denialist.
And you know, it's just like, yeah, I was pretty naive at that point too.
I didn't realize the, what I know now and the extent of the, But I'm still kind of shocked that they decided to focus so completely.
So I was a bit resistant, but then eventually I became bold and realized that this is just nonsense and that you have to tell the truth.
So I was, but I'm still kind of shocked that they decided to focus so completely.
I mean, there were others, but I was like, even beyond Bobby Kennedy, who I have enormous respect for.
I think it was just because of the reach we had.
I'm sorry?
I think it was just because of the reach we had and the influence I developed over a quarter century.
It was telling the truth and developing reputation all over the world.
And they sought to, actually a few years before that, they essentially got me out of the search engine.
When we first started, we had like Thousands and thousands of important health keywords.
Our site would come up number one.
You type in whatever health word and, you know, Mercola.com would be number one.
And we did this organically because we had the content.
We hit all the marks you needed to attain that.
But then they just took all those out.
It was gone.
So the only way that we established a connection to the public wasn't through the search engine anymore.
It was through the fact that people had found us and knew about us.
So it certainly wasn't the media.
I mean, the media stopped interviewing me about 15 years ago.
We have our own culture now, and health media is so huge, and there are so many.
Do you think that bodes well for where we are?
There are just so many people talking about it.
And nutrition and health.
Yeah, of course, you know, thankfully, what's one of the benefits of what happened during COVID is that there's alternative platforms evolved and becoming ever more popular.
But then in many ways, it's like speaking to the choir, you're only going to really address the people who are already aware of the truth, the people, the others, which is a significant percentage of the population, maybe even the majority.
I don't know.
not hearing that at all.
They're insulated against these messages.
They don't have both sides of the story.
And not only do they have suppressed critical thinking skills, but even if they had them, how can you evaluate things?
You're only given part of the story.
You can't.
So I don't know.
I mean, I think eventually decentralization will kick in and we'll have the ability to spread this information even more widely in platforms that cannot be censored or suppressed.
in the past.
I think that technology is coming.
I don't know if it's going to come before the Great Reset kicks in or after.
I don't know.
But inevitably it will.
And sort of the black swan in all of this is the exponential increase in artificial intelligence.
Yes.
Especially with these large language models like GPT 3.5 and now 4.0.
Being integrated into all the Microsoft products.
I mean, it's an innovation that's far more radical and landmark innovation than even things like the internet itself and things like the telephone electricity.
I mean, this thing, my guess is that most people are clueless as to how big this is.
And it's going to change very, very rapidly.
So it could be easily another tool For the people that own this software to propagandize and brainwash us.
And it's very clear because it's biased and prejudiced with the woke perspective.
But the other counter side of that, they've released the genie from the bottle.
I mean, this is powerful stuff and it can be utilized for good too.
It's just, it's not bad in itself.
It's a very powerful technology.
That's the black spot.
I don't know what's going to come of that, but it's going to evolve very, very quickly.
I've heard people talk about it, but I haven't looked into it myself yet.
Is this something that people can just make a choice to avoid?
Or is it planned to change?
No, you can avoid it for sure.
You don't have to use it, but it's going to be used on you for sure.
I mean, it's not a point of artificial general intelligence, and it's not sentient, certainly, but it's It's a structure, it's a software that has, because of the capacity it has, it has emerging properties.
What does that mean?
It means the stuff's coming out that no one ever, ever expected.
And the more powerful it gets, the more of these steps it's going to have.
And it could really radically explode into something like artificial intelligence, which could be really bad.
It could be really good.
So you can choose not to participate in using it, but it's going to be used on you from people writing you emails or, you know, their projections are within a very short time, the majority of content written online is going to be using this.
Almost all of it will be.
And you should play with it just to see what it does, but it's quite extraordinary.
But you just have to know it's bias and prejudice and you can actually give it prompts.
And that's a whole other science, the science of prompt engineering that directs it to eliminate that bias and prejudice.
But who knows?
I mean, these people aren't stupid.
The people that own the software, they could engineer that out of the ability to stop it.
But right now you can't.
So powerful tool.
I mean, that's, you know, this is Black Swan.
So we have no idea.
I know no one has an idea.
The people who created this don't understand it because it's like a genie's out of the bottle.
Wow.
I've been a science and technology guy for a long, long time.
I've been passionate about science for over five decades, and I've never seen anything like this.
I mean, this is rivals and may likely be a greater innovation than the internet itself.
Wow.
Yeah.
That's chilling.
It is chilling, yeah.
But as I said, it's not either bad or good by itself.
It's like a gun isn't good or bad.
It's how you use it.
So you can use it to protect yourself or you can use it to rob someone or kill someone.
But it's a powerful tool, for sure.
So it'll be interesting to see what the future holds and how that's Deployed and what it evolves into, because it's going to evolve very, very quickly.
And this is, you know, we're basically our almost everyone's experience is just limited to the company called OpenAI, which introduced it.
But there are many, many other companies who are using similar software that and probably the granddaddy of them all is Google.
who owns the most phenomenal artificial intelligence community in the world called DeepMind.
And they have yet to launch their LLM.
So who knows what this nefarious giant is going to come up with.
But it's going to come soon.
So we just have to make sure that we go back to the analog world as much as we can, that people...
Yeah, right, foundational.
Simple things, structures like eating, diet, exercise, sun exposure, growing your own food, the basics.
You know, the rest of it is diversion of some sorts.
But yeah, I think that's when it comes to, especially with the great reset implementation, we're going to need to had the fundamentals down really, really, really well.
Because we know, I mean, to me, that's one of the best benefits of COVID is it woke so many people up to the reality.
It woke so many people up, right?
It's just people are so awake and they...
You could never tell.
I mean, I would have been pro-vaccine choice for many decades, you know, for over two decades, maybe closer to, well, almost three decades, actually.
Almost three decades.
And that didn't do me a lot of good from a risk perspective.
But now more and more people are beginning to understand it's not just the COVID jab, it's the whole damn system that's flawed.
And it's not correct.
And vaccines are not the way to get healthy.
I don't think they ever were.
I'm not even sure any of them ever, ever worked.
That might sound like heresy, but we can see that's 100% true for COVID jam.
Oh, absolutely.
No argument there.
What we're seeing here, I mean, the way they get people to do these things like take these shots is by, I'm stating the obvious here, but it's because the The terror, the fantasy fiction, the dark fantasy of a single pathogen that kills you is still in the public mind.
And I hope with this one, I hope and pray that we're not going to do another one after this, that this is it.
Because it really is that, and that was one thing T'auchi really honed over so many years, Nothing else makes a difference.
There's no terrain.
It doesn't matter.
Nutrition doesn't matter.
What you eat doesn't matter.
No research went to that and it was absolutely scorned, again, both by Fauci and by the AIDS activists and so forth.
So, it was a total culture of sort of like, you're a machine.
You've got this bad bug in you.
It's the machine model of biology.
The bad bug is eating up your T-cells on an algorithm that's inevitable and unstoppable, and nothing will influence that.
Getting out in the sun, swimming in the ocean, eating well, what you think, whether you meditate or pray, none of that's going to affect it.
So, in that sense, he's just such a He's such a sterile, he's advocating for a complete inversion of everything we all know to be true about health and that was, that's really his legacy is that he spent 40, 50 years getting Americans to think about everything else but how to stay healthy.
Well, it's that in conjunction with the whole Technocracy that's evolved around it to support it.
So it's going to be much more difficult to deploy on the next one.
And I don't know if they're going to use a virus the next time.
Those are certainly suggestions they made, but it could be some other.
Fear of approach that allows the soon to be world health authorities to declare a pandemic of international emergency.
I forget the specifics that it's called, but essentially allows them to dictate to the entire world.
What's what is and what isn't a pandemic and then.
As a result of that declaration, the implementation of emergency use authorization or emergency use powers that essentially destroy almost every country's constitutional rights, but just like they did in the last one.
So that's that's the challenge around it.
You know, there's a lot of evidence to suggest that they're going to seek to do this, and that's why we've just got to be prepared.
Virus tyranny, right?
But it's not even virus.
It's just, it's not even virus.
So that's a word that needs so much deconstruction.
But let's call it public health tyranny then, okay?
Yeah, that's a more appropriate term, right?
Yeah, public health tyranny.
It's too late now in the sense that now that people have, it's not too late, nothing is too late, but what I mean is now that the, I feel like this dark kind of truth has leapt forward and, you know, shown its fangs and people have seen, wow, you're not, you're not trying to save my life or my grandmother's life or anything.
This is, in fact, you killed my grandmother and you tried to, so like, okay, Now the mask is off, that's the good news, but now the preacher is so all enveloping and we're all asking the same question.
Can they just, like with AIDS, there was still choice.
You were heavily brainwashed, but if you got tested and you tested HIV positive, you still had a choice to take the drugs or not.
What are they going to do next is of course what we're all we're all worried about and people say a lot people need to wake up people need to I think people are largely woken up very much so very much so but does it matter how awake you are if they have if they have seized control of of the entire all mechanisms of you know the whole apparatus of functional life that's what we have to stop and we all say we have to stop them we have to stop them and I want to talk about how
How is that done?
I think, by and large, it's done by starting with keeping your body healthy, keeping your mind clear, keeping your soul clear, and then you can go from there.
We can't actually necessarily control whatever they're going to try to do, but the good news is, to my mind, how stupid they are, how sloppy they are, how many mistakes they've made, And how much people hate them right now?
Well, it's not everyone.
It's not everyone, that's for sure.
I don't even know who's the majority, but it's certainly a fair number, a large percentage, well over a third of the population who share those views, for sure.
And it seems to increase daily, regularly.
So, it's a tall agenda.
So, what's the name of your book again, Celia?
It's Serious Adverse Events, An Uncensored History of AIDS.
It's a reissue of a collection of 12 of my pieces spanning between 1988 and 2006.
It's published on Chelsea Green.
We share a publisher, you and I.
ChelseaGreenBooks.com, you can order it there, or Amazon.com, if you just put in my name, Celia Farber, and you can find me on my Substack, which is called The Truth Barrier, and the address is celiafarber.substack.com.
Great!
So, you're still writing, then, on Substack, because that's... Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, actually, I'm number 49 in all Substacks in culture.
I'm very proud of that.
Great!
Congratulations!
People are coming to the Substack.
They want to know the history.
They want all kinds of details.
I'm astonished.
Nobody wanted to know about this first.
Yeah, Substack is a good example of what some of the benefits that came out of COVID because it really wouldn't exist.
I don't think if the COVID pandemic hadn't hit and the censorship that they were implementing.
Grateful for that platform.
So we share that platform too, in addition to Chelsea.
That's right.
And don't, you know, I just want to say, who knows, maybe, maybe Peter Duesberg will recover.
Maybe we'll have a miracle and maybe we'll be able to interview him.
I'm planning to try, Yeah, if you discern if that's possible, I'd love to interview him because he's really an icon for sure.
Massive, one of the first, well, one of the major iconoclasts in healthcare in the 20th century for sure.
And he paid the price for it.
And virtually very, very few people understand and appreciate what he did and who he is.
A number of people like him, though.
I mean, we've seen him, and they're almost all martyred, because they oppose the narrative.
But I hope he does recover, and I hope we do have a chance to connect with him.
Yeah, again, in this first chapter called The Passion of Peter Duesberg, that was the first draft of what later became an article I wrote for Harper's.
You see the detail, the sophistication of the takedown, and I think that's a really important blueprint to see exactly how they did it, how they did what they did to him, and how far it went.
It's probably the most comprehensive detail, apart from Harvey Bialy's scientific biography of Peter Duisburg, Oncogene's Aneuploidy and AIDS, A Scientific Life and Time of Peter Duisburg.
That's a fantastic book.
He's a very important figure.
And he's still with us and we owe him a huge debt.
Sure.
You know, reflecting on what happened to Peter and many of the other physicians who are vilified and discredited and suffered in the pandemic is, I believe one of the reasons that sort of follow up a reflection on your earlier question to me that I was so I believe one of the reasons that sort of follow up a reflection on your earlier question to me that I was It didn't rely on me seeing patients.
that essentially was self-funded by the people who read my stuff.
And so, not bragging, just making an observation that I was relatively insulated from the types of tactics that they deployed against Duisburg.
So, they couldn't take me out of a university.
They couldn't take me out of a hospital setting.
They couldn't take my license.
They couldn't take my license because I wasn't seeing patients.
And they knew.
They would have if they could have because they tried to do that a few times.
And I sued them in the Illinois State Supreme Court and won because I was It was a First Amendment case.
I wasn't benefiting in any way, just telling the truth.
So I think that because they didn't have those levers, I was relatively insulated.
And they tried, though.
They took away my bank accounts that I had for 20 years.
The bank said, oh, we don't like you anymore.
You've got to find a new bank in two weeks.
When was that?
Yeah, so they can do that, but you know, it all works out.
We'd find other relationships and stuff.
But they tried, but they really couldn't attack me and vilify me.
Well, they tried to vilify me, but they couldn't hurt me economically and financially.
Right.
And in fact, it backfired on me.
All this discrediting campaign, well, make my book the number one book sold in the country for a week or two.
I love that.
Yeah, because people knew what was going on.
Anyway, enough reflection.
Thank you for your work and effort.
Your book is available now, right?
It is.
The official launch date is March 23rd, but it is entirely orderable now on Amazon and at ChelseaGreen.com.
Sorry we couldn't get to you earlier.
I was doing a lot of traveling, so I'm just catching up now with interviews.
It's an honor to meet you and be on your show and thank you so much.
Most welcome.
Thanks so much for watching.
▲
Export Selection