Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS)
Between November 1980 and April 1981, Michael Gottlieb, a researcher at the UCLA Medical Center in Los Angeles,
reported on five young, actively homosexual men with a curious wasting syndrome — loss of vitality and weight — involving immune deficiency with low helper lymphocyte (T-cell) counts. These five men contracted infectious diseases — systemic yeast infection and Pneumocystis pneumonia — usually associated with people whose immune systems have been damaged by cancer chemotherapeutic agents, diseases to which healthy people have immunity.
Turned down by a “respected peer-reviewed” medical journal for quick publication, Gottlieb took his findings to the Center for Disease Control (the CDC). The CDC was happy to announce this new disease to the world. At that time the CDC was smarting from congressional chastisement over its media oriented handling of “Legionnaire’s Disease,” which turned out not to be the epidemic advertised by the CDC.
As Gottlieb was making his report, the CDC was receiving other reports of similar illnesses, which also involved Kaposi’s Sarcoma, a previously rare blood vessel cancer. Within one year, these cases were demonstrated to have occurred in clusters; i.e., the cases were coming from specific geographic locations, notably San Francisco, Los Angeles and New York.
When the investigators at CDC looked at what these people had in common, they found them all to be active male homosexuals who used the drug amyl nitrate in the gaseous form. Known as “poppers,” because they come in small capsules which are broken apart (popped), these caps release amyl nitrate gas which is then immediately inhaled.
The medical use for amyl nitrate is in childbirth. When the time for delivery comes, the woman is offered this gas which puts her into a state of temporary anaesthesia and, not incidentally to the gay community, also a state of temporary euphoria. For the homosexual, this temporary euphoria facilitates anal intercourse through temporarily clouding consciousness, inducing euphoria and lowering inhibitions.
The CDC had a problem: did this new syndrome have something to do with amyl nitrate, or was it related somehow to the promiscuous, homosexual, drug-oriented lifestyle? Reasoning that if amyl nitrate could cause immune deficiency, that fact would have long ago been uncovered, the CDC decided that either all of these people were inhaling poppers from one contaminated batch or the amyl nitrate hypothesis was incorrect. They quickly determined that these people could not have been inhaling poppers from the same batch, and therefore the amyl nitrate popper hypothesis met a premature death. The CDC overlooked the possibility that repeated long term use of amyl nitrate might indeed cause immune deficiency. Overlooking this possibility, the CDC declared the arrival of a new infectious epidemic disease transmitted somehow through sexual contact in homosexuals.
The toxicological — amyl nitrate — explanation for this new syndrome was swept under the carpet, and many people can no longer remember ever having heard of it. The priority agenda at CDC became the tracing of sexual contacts in a population of highly promiscuous homosexual men immersed in a culture of avid pursuit of sexual pleasure as the number one purpose in life. Most of these people had an enormous number of contacts through the bath house scene which was popular in that culture in the late seventies and early eighties. This exposure was in the range of several hundred contacts each year.
The “latency period” of a disease is the time from infection to onset of disease symptoms. The latency period of this new disease was postulated, at that time, to be one year. Therefore, the possible numbers of contact links in a population of people with hundreds of contacts per year became truly staggering.
Not surprisingly, a sexual contact trail leading from one disease victim to another was readily discernable. However, a sexual contact link in the gay bath house scene could be made between almost any two individuals. It all seemed to make sense in July of 1982.
History and Personalities
To comprehend what happened next, it is necessary to understand that the field of virology was given a tremendous boost in the 1950s through the conquest of the poliomyelitis virus by Jonas Salk and Albert Sabin. Prior to that event, virology languished as a curiosity in science. After that event, uncountable millions of dollars flowed into virology, inflating the number of people going into that field and the budgets of research departments in university medical schools throughout the country.
Despite the expenditure of such vast amounts of resources, virology produced very little of use to human health through the 1960s and ’70s. When the ’80s rolled around, virologists were desperate for an epidemic, any epidemic, to which a viral cause could be assigned. Without such an event, virology was headed to the status of a museum piece in science, and many virologists were going to learn how to pay the bills some other way. Thus, when the new epidemic was announced in 1981
and named “AIDS” in 1982, there was a loud rumble of activity in the virology laboratories throughout the nations.
Now, enter one Robert Gallo, an individual working at NIH (the National Institutes of Health), who had embarrassed himself on a couple of previous occasions by announcing discoveries which turned out not to be accurate. Searching frantically for a cause of AIDS, he settled on the idea that a convincing case for some type of human retrovirus might be made.
Through 1983, he fought a losing battle to convince his peers that a retrovirus named “HTLV-I,” which he himself had discovered, was the culprit. This virus, and possibly a variant named “HTLV-II,” was already thought to cause T-cell leukemia in humans, and this presented a serious problem. How could the same virus cause leukemia, which makes T-cells grow out of control, and also cause AIDS, a disease in which the virus is supposed to kill T-cells?
Meanwhile, Luc Montagnier, of the Pasteur Institute in Paris, had isolated another human retrovirus and named it “LAV.” He asked Gallo to assist him in presenting LAV to the scientific community as a possible cause of AIDS. Montagnier sent Gallo a sample of his LAV virus for study.
Soon after that, Gallo claimed to have isolated an almost identical virus, which he named “HTLV-III.” Gallo probably renamed the LAV virus discovered by Montagnier claiming the “new” virus as his own. When later confronted with this, Gallo was to claim that Montagnier’s virus somehow “contaminated” his test tubes. Although fraud was suspected by a few well-trained virologists in 1984, it was not investigated by NIH until 1989, and Gallo was not convicted of scientific fraud
until 1992. (Somehow, despite this, Gallo is hailed by the popular media as one of the great scientific minds of our times!)
All of that was in the future. Back in 1984, Gallo was busy plotting to pin AIDS on HTLV-III. Finally he felt he could make his move. He called a press conference on April 23, 1984 and announced that he had isolated the virus which causes AIDS.
A press conference is against all scientific protocol which requires that evidence be published in peer-reviewed journals and then checked by independent research. Since Gallo was the big gun in virology at NIH, he had the weight of a large portion of the medical research establishment behind him, as well as the authority of the federal government, when he made his surprise announcement to the press.
Very few people at that time even knew enough to challenge Gallo, and the few who did realized that the coup d’etat had been successful, and that they had better jump on the bandwagon or loose all research funding. When the HTLV-III virus was renamed “HIV,” the “human immunodeficiency virus,” the dogma was set in concrete.
All research into other possible causes of AIDS ceased and almost the entire scientific herd thundered off in the direction of a viral cause of AIDS. Those scientists willing to think for themselves and speak the truth of their findings were left in the dust of a money/prestige-hungry research establishment herd. Meanwhile, Gallo quietly sent in his application for a patent of his
test to detect “HIV antibodies” and from this patent a veritable fortune has been made.
To begin to think for yourself about AIDS, it is necessary to review the basic assumptions regarding infectious disease. A German medical doctor, one Robert Koch, published a landmark paper in 1876 announcing that he had proven the cause of anthrax, a disease of cattle, to be caused by a microorganism with a tubular shape, a “bacillus.” This was the first convincing evidence to show that some diseases are caused by animals so tiny that they cannot be seen with the naked eye.
Koch demonstrated his proofs along a line of logic which became known as “Koch’s postulates,” even though the first part of the hypothesis was created by another German doctor, Jakob Henle, in 1840. Henle stated that if a microorganism was to be shown to cause a disease, that microorganism would have to be isolated from diseased tissue and grown outside the human body.
Yet another German doctor postulated, in the 1870s, that such a microbe also must be shown to cause the same disease when introduced into another animal. Thus, did the germ theory stand when Robert Koch published his finding. Koch’s postulates set the gold standard for identifying infectious diseases.
Therefore, the basis for a new biological science was laid down in eloquently logical terms in 1876. Some diseases were definitely caused by microbes; however, to avoid a gross abuse of the new theory, these logical postulates were required to be fulfilled before any disease could be said to be infectious, i.e., caused by a microbe.
It became generally accepted that in order for a microbe to cause a disease it must have the following characteristic:
- It must be found in sufficient quantity and in proper distribution to fully explain the symptoms of that disease;
- It must be isolated from the infected tissue;
- It must be cultured (grown) in pure culture outside the human body;
- It must, without fail, cause the same disease when introduced from this culture into a second animal, human or
Any exception to any of these requirements, even one single exception, would be enough to debunk the entire hypothesis of a particular microbe causing a particular disease.
Koch’s postulates were laid out in this manner to prevent the temptation to blame microbes for disease states in which they have no causative relationship. After all, microbes are everywhere, and usually they have nothing to do with disease states. Koch’s postulates were defined for just such a scientist as Robert Gallo.
When we apply Koch’s postulates to the theory that “HIV” causes the disease known as “acquired immune deficiency syndrome,” we are immediately in very hot water. Let us see why.
Koch’s First Postulate
The virus must be found in sufficient quantity and in proper distribution to fully explain the symptoms of AIDS, in all cases.
First, according to Koch’s postulates, the virus must be found in everyone with AIDS. Is it? Certainly not. Acquired immune deficiency has been present in the world since there have been lab studies to measure its parameters. I graduated from medical school in 1969. The syndrome was well-known at that time. There still are many people with AIDS who do not have HIV. Therefore, HIV fails Koch’s first postulate.
Koch’s Second Postulate
The “HIV” virus must be isolated from the infected tissue, in all cases.
Since the virus is not even present in everyone with AIDS, it cannot be isolated from the tissue of those people. Koch’s second postulate: geht kaput.
Koch’s Third Postulate
The virus must be grown in pure culture, outside the human body.
This postulate is not fulfilled, as it requires the presence of T-cells to grow the virus in a test tube or on an agar plate. You can argue that these T-cells are outside the body, and even if you grant that Koch’s third postulate is fulfilled, the other three postulates must be fulfilled also to make the case for HIV as the cause of AIDS.
Koch’s Fourth Postulate
The virus must, without fail, cause the same disease when introduced from this culture into a second animal or human.
Koch’s fourth second postulate is that the virus must cause the same disease when introduced into another animal. Does it? Well, granting species specificity for a virus, the jury is still out on that one.
The experimental animals for a species-specific organism can only be other members of that species, in this case humans. We cannot ethically inoculate humans with HIV, so we must study the disease in its natural state. If we find someone who has turned “HIV positive,” we presumably have a case to study.
But, what happens if such a person does not become ill? In that case, we must postulate a “latency period,” a period of time between the presence of the virus and the onset of illness. No one knows what a virus is doing during a latency period — perhaps drawing up battle plans for the war ahead?
In 1983, the latency period was said to be one year between infection and onset of AIDS. When many people with HIV antibodies did not develop AIDS, the latency period was pushed back year by year. The latency period is now up to thirteen years. This self-serving latency period is designed to get around the question of why these people are not developing AIDS.
To fulfill Koch’s fourth postulate, the HIV virus must cause AIDS in every person who has the virus. This appears not to be the case.
And what about people who are exposed to the virus but do not develop antibodies? It is said that about 1000 sexual exposures are necessary, in the average case, to result in a presence of HIV antibodies in the recipient.
What happens the other 999 times? Could it be that the healthy person, who does not already have a deficiency in immune functions, simply kills the virus on contact? Perhaps having the antibodies to AIDS is evidence of former infection successfully eradicated. This is what such autoantibodies mean in all other cases in which the person is healthy.
Therefore, Koch’s postulates are failed at every turn. The only way to believe that HIV causes AIDS is to either have insufficient knowledge to think for oneself or to have a vested, financial and/or ego interest in the theory being true. That includes over 99% of the population, so the HIV theory of AIDS is the banner of a thundering herd of virological and public opinion.
So if AIDS is not caused by HIV — or at least some infective agent — how do we explain the “explosion” of AIDS in the population? The fact is, there has not been an explosion of AIDS. The predicted explosion of AIDS never happened.
The only way the CDC has been able to create the appearance of an increase in the rate of AIDS is by almost yearly adding one more disease to the list of diseases which are said to result from AIDS. Now, diseases which have been around forever are said to be a manifestation of the AIDS virus: candidiasis, cervical cancer, dementia, Kaposi’s sarcoma, lymphoma, Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia, thrombocytopenia and toxoplasmosis. All one needs to have AIDS, by CDC definition is
the HIV virus and one of these diseases. Just about any disease is fair game to be added to this list, as long as the person also has the HIV virus.
Meanwhile, in Africa, people who are HIV positive are not manifesting AIDS with the same complex of diseases, but rather are showing up with signs and symptoms of wasting: weight loss, loss of appetite, diarrhea — in other words the signs of calorie deficiency malnutrition. Of course, malnutrition is endemic to most of Africa. It seems that the World Health Organization is willing to do the same job overseas that the CDC is willing to do in the U.S., namely take whatever endemic
(meaning always present) diseases are present and call them AIDS when seen in combination with an HIV positive blood test.
Let us therefore rethink AIDS. Although it is not of epidemic proportions as previously advertised by the CDC, there certainly is more acquired immune deficiency around than there was in 1969. It also is true that a large percentage of those people who are ill are carrying antibodies to the HIV virus. Is there an alternative way of looking at this situation, perhaps one which would make a bit more sense than the HIV hypothesis of AIDS?
Another Possible Cause of AIDS
Let us remember that an ever-increasing amount of petrochemicals are produced each year: 500 billion pounds at the present time. Probably, this stands behind the cancer epidemic. During the average day, the average American is exposed to 500 xenochemicals (chemicals foreign to human biochemistry), molecules which have not existed in nature during the development of the human immune system. These xenochemicals are added to the soil which grows our food. They are added to animal feed fed to livestock, and they are added to food to prevent the growth of bacteria.
Some of these xenochemicals are xenobiotics, chemicals which the FDA actually approves of introducing directly into the human body for therapeutic purposes, for example, antibiotics. The word antibiotics means, literally “anti-life,” and you better believe it. Antibiotics severely suppress the immune system, and no other category of medication has been so commonly used, overused and abused in this century — so much so that bacteria have gained enough experience with them to develop wide-spectrum resistance. This is another problem of epidemic proportions, as is cancer. The cancer epidemic may be nothing more than another manifestation of immune suppression rendering the immune sy stem incapable of performing its usual function of killing off cancer cells before they can multiply out of control.
While it is very difficult to prove that minute amounts of any single petrochemical produces cancer or immune deficiency, it stands to reason that when there is exposure not to one or even a few petrochemicals each day, but rather something on the order of 500 different chemicals, it becomes obvious that they may work synergistically to cause cancer and AIDS. While it may be true that you are safe from being eaten by any one of the small animals of the forest, it also is true that if they all attack you together, you are dead meat.
It also may be that most street drugs, as well as drugs which are sold through the pharmacy and over the counter, are immunosuppressive. Probably, the immune system cannot distinguish those drugs of which the FDA has approved and those of which is has not approved, both being equally dangerous to immune function.
What About HIV?
So what about the presence of the HIV virus in many people with AIDS? It seems far more likely to me that this virus is a so-called “passenger virus,” in other words just going along for the ride. The other possibility is that it is a strong, but not totally determining factor in producing AIDS.
No other retrovirus has been thought to produce illness in human beings, so why this one? It is well acknowledged that the HIV virus is cleared quickly out of the body. The mechanism by which it is cleared is through the production of an antibody, which is specific for the virus. What can be found in an “HIV positive” individual is this antibody, not the virus itself. The virus itself is undetectable, and this is explained away by the AIDS establishment as a “latency” period. How does a virus which is not present do progressive damage to an immune system?
If an immune system is already weakened and on its way to a decompensated state, it is well-known that all kinds of weak viruses can exist in the body which would not be allowed in by a competent immune system. This does not mean that these viruses cause illness, it only means that they are along for the ride, they are passenger viruses. HIV probably is one of these viruses.
While it may be true that the retroviruses have the ability to cause the cell to produce more viruses, if those viruses are causing no problem, it is just not relevant. It may even be that, at the end-stage of AIDS, there is a sudden increase in HIV virus particles. However, this does not mean that HIV is causing the final collapse of the immune system, but vice-versa: the final collapse of the immune system allows large numbers of HIV particles to exist.
No one yet has proposed a reasonable mechanism by which the HIV virus might actually damage cells, and in all likelihood it is as harmless as the other retroviruses. Nevertheless, if the immune system eventually decompensates from multiple toxic exposures, it is easy to blame a virus which is going along for the ride. It also fits the allopathic paradigm of one disease, one cause.
Multiple contributory factors causing one disease is too complex and unpredictable for the allopathic paradigm to accommodate. Likewise, multiple contributory treatments for a disease process are thought not to be “scientific,” even if they work.
If the allopathic paradigm were applied to criminology, all criminal acts would be committed by individuals and never by groups and there would be only one cop for each criminal. Therefore, in Tombstone there could not have been a “Clanton gang” and there would have been only one cure for one Clanton, i.e., one Wyatt Earp, not his brothers and not Doc Holliday. The shootout at the OK Corral never happened. Ah, well, I digress.
The Psychological Impact of the HIV Hypothesis
It is probable that the HIV causation hypothesis of AIDS and all the scare tactics which go with it are a hoax — of which some sharp scientists are well aware but who are not yet talking.
It is estimated that there are one to two million HIV positive individuals in the U.S. That figure has not changed, because AIDS is not an epidemic. Nevertheless, many people who are HIV positive have become aware of it through Robert Gallo’s patented HIV antibody test. Except for the HIV dogma, those people would be going about their lives blissfully unaware of anything to be worried about regarding their health. Now these people live with a death sentence hanging over their heads.
The Psychosocial Impact of the HIV Hypothesis
This has changed lives. It has caused depression and lethargy. Many productive citizens have given up and are waiting to die. Some have committed suicide in despair and anticipation of a future of suffering and certain death from AIDS. Many relationships have been smashed asunder by the knowledge that someone is “HIV positive.” The toll in psychological suffering is impossible to calculate, but it must be staggering.
All this would be excusable, if the CDC knew, as a fact, that HIV always leads to AIDS and death. This is just not the case. The idea of the inevitability of an AIDS-related death for people with an HIV-positive blood test is a wild guess for which there is no proof. It is a thundering herd of paradigm-dominated, research grant-motivated opinion.
The Interpretation of an HIV Positive Blood Test
In my opinion — the best guess of a person who has examined the evidence — a positive HIV test means one of two things: your immune system is in serious trouble from exposure to immunotoxic chemicals (which can include amyl nitrate), probably on a life-long basis, or there is a curious “hole” in your immune system, which allows the virus to exist in your body long enough for your immune system to make a special antibody to get rid of it.
An almost decompensated immune system probably is much more common than a singular defect which allows the virus to xist. I cannot tell you how to distinguish between these two conditions. If you become “HIV positive,” it would be prudent on your part to assume that your immune system is in trouble and to clean up your life style to support a healing process. A thorough reading and application of the principles and knowledge contained in this web site network would be an excellent beginning.
The Checkered History and Deadly Presence of AZT
In 1964, Jerome Horwitz of the Detroit Cancer Foundation, synthesized the drug azidothymidine in an effort to find a treatment for cancer. The action of azidothymidine is to block the replication of DNA in the dividing cell. Horwitz’s hope was that azidothymidine would kill cancer cells without serious toxic effects in the patient.
However, when he conducted experiments on mice with cancer, it must have failed miserably, because he did not bother to publish his results — nor did he apply for a patent. Probably, he found that his mice died before their cancer was affected, an outcome similar to that in most patients treated with chemotherapy to this day. Thus, azidothymidine joined a host of other
failed chemotherapeutic agents on the shelf destined to gather dust in the annals of what might have been.
Then came AIDS. In an environment with people dying by the score everyday from AIDS, with doctors and patients alike feeling impotent, the drug companies knew there was a fortune to be made in the chemotherapeutic treatment of AIDS. The trick was to get FDA approval, and the stampede would be on.
Burroughs-Wellcome, the British pharmaceutical giant with an American division, looked into a handful of off-the-shelf, out-of-the-past chemicals and found azidothymidine, also known as “AZT,” a powerful blocker of replication of the HIV virus.
Full of enthusiasm, with dollar signs in their eyes and loaded with influence at the FDA, three individuals, Barry, Broder and Bolognesi of Burroughs-Wellcome, published the results of their studies. In an environment of intense political pressure, particularly from the gay community, to find an effective treatment for AIDS, Burroughs-Wellcome struck a deal with the
FDA to shortcut the process of approval of AZT and rushed it to market after studies which were, in retrospect, clearly flawed in design and execution. In 1987, with FDA approval in the bag, AZT became the standard of treatment for AIDS.
If one takes the time to read the label of possible side effects of AZT, one realizes a paradox. Here is a drug for treating autoimmune deficiency which causes autoimmune deficiency. When one sees the result of treatment with AZT, the list of possible side effects becomes the list of probable, almost certain, side effects. When AZT hits the scene, T cells are killed by the millions. Loss of appetite, nausea and vomiting (of blood), muscle wasting, severe fatigue, bloody diarrhea and slowed growth in children are the results which the doctor can count on seeing in the person taking AZT.
And yet, paradoxically, these all are signs of AIDS. It only becomes a question of what really causes AIDS: HIV or AZT.
Now, take this information and add it to the fact that, in 1990, AZT was approved by the FDA for the preventative treatment of AIDS, and you can guess what happens. In comes a patient, probably with an infection, to see the doctor. Doc says “OK and let’s get an HIV test just to be on the safe side.” The test comes back positive, doctor explains the death sentence and says, “Well, we don’t have a cure, but if you take AZT perhaps we can prolong your life until a cure is found.” Doctor wants to help, patient wants to live, Burroughs-Wellcome and the local pharmacy want the business, FDA approves and — voila! — another AZT prescription.
Patient, who was perfectly healthy, by the way, begins to take AZT. On the next visit to the doctor, weight loss is noted and patient is not feeling so well. T-cells are down. Doctor says, “Well, too bad to say, but it appears that you are in the early stages of AIDS. We had better increase the dose of AZT.” You can see what happens next. It happened, for example, to Arthur Ashe, who was informed, but not convinced, of this information, so he continued taking AZT. “Besides,” he said,
“what will I tell my doctors?”
Now, there are a few other drugs — ddA, ddC and ddI — which are approved by the FDA for the treatment of AIDS. They have the same mechanism of action as AZT and also the same result. AIDS, like cancer and vascular disease, is a disease which selects out those people able to think for themselves and willing to inform themselves. Those who blindly follow the blind will, well, both fall into a ditch. Darwin lives!
An Alternative Treatment of AIDS
If HIV does not cause AIDS — and I am persuaded that it does not — its presence is an indication of probable impending compromise of the immune system. The last thing a thinking person would do in that case, if he wishes to live a long life, is further damage his immune system by taking immunosuppressant drugs like AZT and its buddies. If you think about it, there is no way to damage an immune system other than by allowing substances into your body which have that effect.
You can empower yourself to be healthy in two ways: educate yourself and find out what is in your food. Read labels. At least partial truth and partial completeness is required to be printed on the labels of all packaged foods. Knowing what is on the labels and what it means, is a good beginning.
Beyond that, do all things which are in the interest of your health. What that is, you must decide based upon your efforts to educate yourself. I can give you my thoughts, however, only the knowledge you put into your mind ultimately will make a difference in how you treat your body. Educate yourself. Think for yourself. Do not blindly follow others, not me and not other doctors. Remember, the thundering herd of public opinion may just be headed for a cliff. This is the same public opinion which once was certain that the earth was flat. Anyone who thought otherwise was an idiot.
Obviously, stay away from all drugs toxic to your immune system. Obviously, find a source of organically grown foods, or grow your own. Obviously, drink pure water, not that stuff out of the tap. Obviously, lay completely off tobacco, alcohol and all prescription and over-the-counter drugs not required to save your life. Antibiotics are just what the name says: against life agents. Obviously, lay off the street drugs.
Take the opportunity for a spiritual transformation. The presence of HIV in your body can be a wonderful opportunity for spiritual awakening. Nothing brings home the preciousness of life like the possibility of losing it. And nothing brings God closer than loving life. Do not fear death, and yet love life.
I predict that, over the next few years, even virologists will back down to the position that HIV is at most a “risk factor,” or perhaps only a “marker,” and not the cause of AIDS. Probably, they will all pat themselves on the back for “discovering” this through their multi-billion-dollar research programs. Already the process has begun through media events with titles like “Why Some People Have a Natural Immunity to AIDS.”
One should always keep an open mind. I keep an open mind for the HIV hypothesis and yet, as it appears now, it would be the strangest thing in science if it should turn out to be true.
Classical Symptoms of AIDS
Symptoms to not prove a case of AIDS. Only symptoms plus confirming laboratory blood tests confirms the diagnosis. The classical symptoms are the following: profound fatigue, lightheadedness, headache, fevers, night sweats, weight loss, enlarged painful lymph nodes, new growths on top of or beneath the skin or on the mucous membranes, heavy, persistent often dry
cough, diarrhea, thrush, easy bruisability, and unexplained bleeding.
A Final Word
Please understand what I write here is an inquiry into medical science. This is not to be construed as a green light to abandon the concept of safe sex. Nor is it advice to have no concern for the potential risk to others in case you are HIV positive. On the outside chance that HIV really does, after all, have a direct causal role in AIDS, I suggest you follow all precautions which are commonly recommended to prevent spread of this virus. I know a doctor who is so certain that HIV does not
cause AIDS that he intentionally infected himself in front of an audience of hundreds of people. I would not have done that. Nor should you, in my opinion.
The whole sordid story about the HIV hypothesis of AIDS was written into a wonderful book entitled Why We Will Never Win The War On AIDS published by Inside Story Publishing. The authors are Peter Duesberg and Brian Ellison, imminent virologists who lived through the whole thing and have become champions of the “HIV ain’t it” community of scientists. This community grows by several hundred people each year, and it will not be long until its voice must be heard.
Duesberg and Ellison’s book is no longer on the market due to political dirty tricks involving the AIDS establishment and Regnery Publishing which purchased a voided contract to produce the book from another publisher. With no intention to publish the book, Regnery Publishing ordered Inside Story Publishers to stop distributing the book. When they refused, they were sued and ordered by a federal judge to stop. Luckily, the essence of that book was summarized here before it was yanked from the shelves.
You can get the whole dirty story of the suppression of this remarkable and informative book by writing to:
Bryan J. Ellison
Save The AIDS Book Legal Defense Fund
4141 Ball Rd. #157
Cypress, CA 90630