BIG LIE ABOUT AIDS
Penthouse April 1994
ago Dr. Duesberg was a lone voice in the world of AIDS research.
At that time, the molecular biologist, world renowned virologist,
and U.C.L.A. professor began asking a question that seems
like heresy to this day: Is it possible that we were wrong
when we equated HIV with AIDS? While any scientific discussion
should allow such a challenge, others have tried to silence
Dr. Duesberg. AIDS research continues to be driven by the
hypothesis that HIV is its cause, with virtually all our medical
and scientific resources invested in this hypothesis. But
several outstanding scientific voices are joining Dr. Duesberg
in denouncing this approach. Witness the report published
in mid-1993 by a group of Australian researchers led by Dr.
Eleni Papadopoulos-Eleopulos. In this break-through report,
the scientists raise serious questions about the accuracy
of HIV-antibody tests and, more important, the very relationship
between HIV and AIDS. They show that the HIV tests produce
inconsistent results, both within one laboratory that tested
a sample twice and between two labs that tested the same sample.
What's more, it's nearly impossible to determine the rate
of "false positives" because there is no "gold
standard" to independently verify test results, as reported
in the New York Native.
not all. Among other things, the researchers also found that HIV
cannot be isolated in all AIDS patients, but HIV can be found in
people who are HIV-antibody negative. They found that people with
non-AIDS diseases have antibodies that can register a positive result
on the HIV-antibody test. They found that the p24 antigen is not,
as is widely believed, an indicator of HIV infection or AIDS. Indeed,
people with multiple sclerosis, T-cell lymphoma, generalised warts,
and other diseases have the p24 antigen.
In short, it's
time to face the disturbing notion that much of what we've been
told about AIDS is incorrect. Here are some of the factors that
have led scientists to challenge the well-entrenched hypothesis
that HIV equals AIDS:
in high-risk groups. The claim that HIV is the sole cause of AIDS
has a lot of holes, says Dr. Robert S. Root-Bernstein, a professor
of physiology at Michigan State University and the MacArthur Prize-winning
author of Rethinking AIDS; The tragic Cost of Premature Consensus.
The most striking flaw in the logic is that AIDS has not spread
to the general population; it continues to be concentrated in high
risk groups such as subsets of the homosexual population, IV-drug
users; and their sexual partners.
In the heterosexual
population, the percentage of people with HIV or AIDS who are not
drug users is "extremely low" according to figures from
the Centres for Disease Control, points out Dr. Charles Thomas,
president of the Helicon Foundation in San Diego, a former Harvard
professor, and a member of the Group for the Scientific Reappraisal
of the HIV-AIDS Hypothesis.
of the people who come down with AIDS admit to being homosexuals.
One-third do not," says Dr. Thomas. "To date, the C.D.C.
lists almost 300,000 people with AIDS. That leaves 100,000 people
over an 11-year period, not a very great number. And within this
group, a very large proportion are drug users and, in particular,
proof is lacking. According to Dr. Thomas, proponents of the HIV-AIDS
connection have yet to offer any "genuine scientific proof
" that the virus causes AIDS. "Any time scientists propose
that a micro-organism causes a disease, it's incumbent upon them
to come up with the proof that it does. So far they have failed
to supply that proof," he says.
been nearly a decade since HIV was first deemed the cause of AIDS,
so scientists have had plenty of time to offer compelling, foolproof
evidence. "It was on April 23, 1984, that Margaret Heckler
announced too the world that the cause of AIDS had been found, namely,
HIV. Robert Gallo's colleagues said that his research made possible
a blood test for AIDS and a vaccine could be ready for testing in
two or three years. That was in 1984, and nothing has happened in
almost 10 year."
certain rules of science must be followed for any agent to be considered
a causative factor in the disease, adds Dr. Roger Cunningham, an
immunologist, microbiologist, and the director of the Ernst Witsky
Centre for Immunology at the State University of New York at Buffalo.
rule is that an agent that's going to be blamed for a disease should
be able to be isolated from each and every case of disease,"
says Dr. Cunningham. "That is not true with HIV and AIDS. It's
very, very difficult, in many cases of AIDS, to isolate the virus
at all from these individuals. The second step is that you should
be able to transmit the agent that is [causing] the infectious disease
to another animal and have the disease develop in that animal. To
the best of my knowledge, that has never been done with the agent
we call HIV. The final step, of course, is to remove the agent from
the animal which has been infected, put it into another animal,
and transmit the disease this fashion. This, too, has not occurred
Gottlieb, chairperson of the Department of Microbiology and Immunology
at the Tulane university School of Medicine, agrees that too little
is known about HIV to conclude that it causes AIDS on its own. "This
is a very complex disease that is poorly understood, at best,"
states Dr. Gottlieb. "We know a lot about the HIV virus; it's
probably been the most extensively studied virus ever. But in spite
of that, we know relatively little about how the virus acts to cause
Gottlieb, "When HIV was isolated from people who had the disease
we call AIDS, the immediate presumption was that this was the causative
agent. It became a very popular idea that this 'new virus' must
be causing the disease by itself because it was isolated from the
patients with the disease and caused damage to cells in the test
tube. This ignores the likelihood that there are many other factors
involved in determining how this virus causes disease."
Says Dr. Gottlieb:
"The viewpoint has been so firm that HIV is the only cause
and will result in disease in every patient, that anyone who challenges
that is regarded as 'politically incorrect.' I don't think - as
a matter of public policy - we gain by that, because it limits debate
and discussion and focuses drug development on attacking the virus
rather than attempting to correct the disorder of the immune system,
which is central to the disease."
Strohman, a biologist for 35 years and professor emeritus of cell
biology at the University of California at Berkeley, believes that
HIV may be completely unrelated to AIDS, but that we have no way
of knowing this because scientists will not even entertain the possibility
that their HIV theory is incorrect. "In the old days it was
required that a scientist address the possibilities of proving his
hypothesis wrong as well as right. Now there's none of that in standard
HIV-AIDS program with all its billions of dollars," says Strohman.
concludes that it's best to keep an open mind when so little is
yet known. "If you firmly believe that HIV is the sole causative
agent, you're going to try your best to show that it's true. I think,
at the moment, we're all best off if we keep our minds open. Nothing
has been ruled out at this point."
protects against disease. No infectious agent causes disease in
every person who's infected, assuming natural immune responses are
at work, says Professor Steven Jonas, professor of preventive medicine
at the State University of New York at Stony Brook. "Native
American Indians in the seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth
centuries were decimated by smallpox because their immune system
couldn't produce antibodies to the virus. But that's a different
situation. With HIV, the only way we know that people have been
infected is because they develop the antibody - a chemical that
the body makes to fight off an infectious agent, such as a virus,
bacteria, or fungus - to HIV.
the body produces an antibody to a disease, there is no historical
precedence for it spreading uniformly throughout the population
and killing everybody that gets infected," Jonas continues.
"For example, look at the Black Death that hit Western Europe
around 1365. Most people focus on the fact that it killed a third
of the population of Western Europe. What they don't consider is
that two-thirds of the population didn't die. They survived despite
the fact that no measures were taken to prevent infection or treat
that when the average healthy person is infected with HIV, he or
she is highly unlikely to develop AIDS in the absence of cofactors.
The basis for this reasoning comes from his personal experience
with tuberculosis bacillus.
medical student in the late fifties and early sixties," he
says, "I was exposed to tuberculosis. Although I became infected
with the tuberculosis bacillus, I never got tuberculosis and I never
will get it. The only thing that changed was that I developed the
antibody to the tuberculosis bacillus. Otherwise, my body functions
in a healthy way. Similarly, when people become HIV-positive, all
that means is that they've got the antibody on board. If their immune
system functions in a healthy way, it kills of the virus.
Magic Johnson announced that he was infected by HIV," Jonas
continues, "I wrote him a letter saying that assuming he didn't
have any other disease or condition that compromised his immune
system, and assuming he didn't tale AZT, I would wager $ 10,000
that he would not die of AIDS. I advised Magic Johnson to unretire
and go back to playing in the N.B.A. He took that advice, although
I'm sure it was not because I sent him a letter. I think it was
highly unfortunate that he was forced to retire. I'm sure that there
are any number of players in the N.B.A. who are HIV-positive, and
none of them will get AIDS either, unless they have some other disease
or condition which compromises their immune system."
AIDS is politically,
not medical, defined. Why haven't we examined the role of HIV cofactors?
Jonas believes it is because we applied a political, rather than
a medical, definition to the syndrome's pathophysiology. AIDS was
first defined during "the radical-right Reagan administration,
which was filled with homophobes," he says. "They saw
a disease which appeared to be developing only in the gay-male population
- a population which, for whatever internal psychological reasons,
they greatly feared. It wasn't until 1987 that Reagan could even
bring himself to say the word AIDS. First they tried to ignore the
existence of this calamity. They tried to find something very specific
to confirm their view that this particular disease was the property
of gay men as a group.
same time," Jonas adds, "there were people who felt that
a single-virus theory would be very useful in helping to raise public
awareness about the 'disease'. It would help them get the research
they thought was necessary and public funding for its treatment
by scaring people into believing that while the disease was affecting
gay men now, it was eventually going to spread throughout the heterosexual
population. This political definition of the disease has proven
to be inaccurate and inconsistent with its real medical nature."
Adds Dr. Charles
Thomas, "The reason that the whole shabby story of HIV is being
held in place is there's so much money riding on it. The federal
government is spending about $4 billion on just the single subject,
and all that $4 billion is predicated on the idea that HIV cause
these diseases, then that money is being wasted. But the people
who are the recipients of that money don't want it to stop."
Thomas believes that the definition of AIDS has been expanded to
generate more funding for AIDS-related diseases. "When you
watch where the money flows," he says, "you can see why
the definition was expanded. If you are diagnosed with AIDS, your
medical bills are picked up by the Ryan White bill, which supplies
$150 million to AIDS treatment and education. Most of the people
getting AIDS were males, and females felt left out, so they applied
very great pressure in order to open up the definition of AIDS to
include women. As a result, they added cervical dysplasia to the
definition, and HIV-positive women with cervical dysplasia are now
allowed to have their bills picked up. The whole thing stinks."
concludes, "I often wonder what would happen if all federal
money for AIDS - education, research, treatment, and so forth -
was suddenly turned off, instantaneously dropped to zero. It's my
belief that AIDS would go away. In other words, the AIDS diseases
that we see today would be reassigned to their former categories
- pneumocystis carinii pneumonia, Kaposi's sarcoma, and the other
25 or so different diseases, now including cervical dysplasia and
so forth. Any individual who died of these various causes would
add to the statistics in each of these individual categories and
would disappear in the profile of mortality of normal disease. AIDS
has been a disease of definition. If we said that it didn't exist
and didn't pay for it with taxpayers' money, it would disappear
in the background of normal mortality."
without HIV, and HIV exists without AIDS. At an AIDS conference
in Amsterdam, scientists reported cases of AIDS in people who did
not have HIV. Dr. Root-Bernstein notes that such cases have been
reported since the onset of the condition. "A small percentage
of the population has been manifesting all the symptoms of AIDS
without HIV," he states. "The C.D.C. has always recognised
this. They call the condition idiopathic CD-4 Tcell lymphopenia,
a fancy term meaning HIV-free AIDS. The number of cases is fairly
small, less than one percent, but they do exist. These people get
all the symptoms of AIDS and never show any signs of an HIV infection.
then, is the role of HIV?" he asks. "The only way to explain
these cases is that the people have other high-risk factors associated
with AIDS, such as malnutrition, multiple infections, exposure to
symptoms, and drug use. In sufficient quantity or combination, [these
factors can] cause the same immune suppression - and therefore the
same consequences - that everyone says HIV causes."
agrees that thousands of people with no evidence of HIV in their
system are dying of the syndrome we call AIDS. "Forty-three
thousand to 44,000 people listed by the C.D.C. as having AIDS in
the past 11 years have never been tested for antibodies to HIV.
You can be sure that there will be a large number of antibody-negatives
among them," Dr Thomas says. "Secondly, there are about
a million people who have been exposed to the virus, as evidenced
by the fact that they have antibodies to the virus in their bloodstream,
yet only a trivial portion, approximately three percent, come down
with AIDS in any one year. I think these two things are damning
evidence against the HIV theory."
like an infectious disease. Contrary to popular belief, says Dr.
Root-Bernstein, HIV does not appear to be spreading sexually throughout
the heterosexual population. The data to support that connection
simply isn't there.
is a famous case of [a woman] who said she got AIDS from having
vaginal sex just one time," Dr Root-Bernstein adds. "As
a researcher I cannot validate that because I have no access to
her medical records to see that she was, in fact, healthy prior
to having sex. And I have no way of knowing that she only had vaginal
intercourse. Many studies show that unprotected anal intercourse
is the highest risk factor [in the spread of HIV and AIDS]. Penile
or vaginal bleeding, or both together, is also highly dangerous.
doctors never ask about these things, and most patients will not
respond," he adds. "There are all sorts of possible mitigating
factors. Even if HIV could be [sexually] transmitted, in every case
where there is good medical evidence, there are always a whole series
of other risk factors involved as well."
no one should take this as an endorsement of unprotected sex. Until
all the medical evidence is finally in, all physicians and experts
agree that "better safe than sorry" is the best practical
sexual advice available.
often assume that if HIV equals AIDS, then they can catch AIDS,
says Dr. Hans Kugler. And the medical profession does nothing to
correct that faulty logic. "If I tell you that two plus two
equals five, you will be able to disagree because you know some
math. If I tell you that HIV is sexually transmitted and causes
AIDS, you should know this to be untrue if you are in the medical
profession . In medical school, one of the first things everybody
is taught is that if you have an infectious disease, you have to
show the infectious agent in 100 percent of the time in people with
the disease. With AIDS this is definitely not the case. Yet the
medical profession doesn't see anything wrong with [believing] that
[HIV causes AIDS]."
AIDS also discriminates
against age and sex, supporting the logic that it is not infectious.
"Normally, when we get older, the immune function decreases.
That's why diseases like cancer tend to increase," explains
Dr. Kugler. "This disease focuses on people between the age
of 20 and 44. And while no infectious disease ever discriminates
against sex, this one is found mainly in males."
Schmidt, a psychiatrist who published his first AIDS-dissenting
paper in 1984, offers further evidence that AIDS is not an infectious
disease. "Figures put out by the C.D.C. in February 1993 show
that of the nearly 13,000 needle-stick injuries that were examined
and followed over the last 12 years, the percentage of people who
got a significant amount of blood in their bodies through needle-stick
injuries who then become HIV-positive amounts to a total of 0.013
percent. "That is statistically insignificant. It's just a
little bit greater than chance. Consequently, on the basis of this
evidence, there is no way that AIDS can be an infectious disease.
Something else must be going on. The more likely interpretation
is that HIV and immune dysfunction - rather than HIV being a cause
and immune dysfunction being a consequence - are both consequences
of something else."
Jonas says, "I think that when a person who already has a disease
or weakened condition becomes infected with the HIV virus, the virus
further compromises the immune system and makes it difficult or
impossible for the immune system to produce antibodies in significant
quantities over a period of time. [It may be] unable to produce
antibodies to diseases such as Kaposi's sarcoma and other recurrent
infections, not a disease, and that these infections are what kill
became interested in the role of cofactors being necessary for the
development of AIDS when, in 1987, he was examining weekly morbidity
and mortality statistics from the public-health service. "The
reports were based on the original HIV developmental AIDS studies
in San Francisco, which said that despite a long latency period,
everybody who has HIV is eventually going to get AIDS and die. [But]
nine or ten years into the study, 25 percent of people in study
groups hadn't developed any sign of AIDS at all. That's a very,
very long latency period."
and other AIDS researchers say that the immune-suppressive factors
most closely linked to AIDS in studies of high-risk groups include
- Drugs, Any
abuse of illicit drugs - particularly such intravenous drugs as
heroin - will suppress the immune system. Malnutrition is also
associated with drug abuse, since most drug addicts would rather
have their drugs than eat well. Drugs can also interfere with
and therapeutic drugs, such as AZT and ddI, which are meant to
treat AIDS prophylactically (to prevent worsening of HIV and AIDS),
actually cause a deterioration of the immune system when taken
for long periods of time.
- A promiscuous,
fast-track gay lifestyle. Gay men at high risk for AIDS not only
abuse drugs, but also have a tremendously high incidence of sexually
transmitted and other infectious diseases. They are known to be
frequent intravenous-drug users and are also known to trade sexual
favours for drugs. In addition, they may use antibiotics prophylactically
to prevent sexually transmitted diseases. These antibiotics remove
key nutrients from the immune system and prevent it from functioning
properly. Semen that gets into the bloodstream or the immune system
- fairly common in unprotected anal intercourse - can also result
in immune suppression.
concurrent infections. Multiple infections are quite common among
high-risk groups and they are much more difficult for the immune
system to handle than any single disease.
- Blood transfusions
and blood-factor products. Unfortunately, both blood transfusions
and such products as Factor 8, taken by haemophiliacs, can cause
immune suppression and make one more susceptible to any infection,
says that once the immune system is weakened, HIV may trigger a
continued loss of the immune function. "The whole system is
extremely complicated," he says. "It's certainly not as
simple as, If you get HIV, you get AIDS."
CURE OR CAUSE?
AIDS treatments, which incorporate such drugs as AZT and ddI, are
supposed to slow down or stop the spread of HIV and AIDS. But researcher
suggests that such drugs may have the opposite effects, hastening
the degenerative process. Two studies - one performed by the Veterans
Administration in the United Sates and another conducted in Europe
- confirm this belief. These studies found that AIDS patients who
were using AZT fared no better than those who were not.
In fact, after
a few years of treatment the immune system of AZT users deteriorated
much more quickly than that of people not using the medication.
As a result, the European medical establishment recently suggested
at an AIDS conference in Berlin that AZT no longer be given to people
who are diagnosed with HIV but who exhibit no AIDS-like symptoms.
most striking evidence against AZT, says Dr. Root-Bernstein, is
a comparison of AIDS survivors to people who succumb to the disease:
The long-term survivors of AIDS or HIV infection are clearly not
AZT users. "Those people who have had the HIV infection for
five or ten years have not used AZT for more than a week or two
because they found the side effects to be so bad. Most of them have
never used any of these drugs at all," he says. " This
suggests that survivors don't use anything that can cause immune
suppression. They eliminate drugs, including antibiotics and AZT,
and simply try to lead a healthy lifestyle. So they may have the
HIV infection, but it doesn't do anything to them."
Dr. David Berner,
a physician and a haemophiliac, was infected with HIV ten years
ago. He has refused to take AZT, and remains healthy today. His
account: "My last surgical experience was in 1983, making it
my last possible exposure to the HIV virus. Being very healthy,
my wife and I ignored the potential problem. It wasn't until AZT
was heralded as a great treatment for AIDS in 1988 that I decided
it would be prudent to be tested for HIV.
found to be positive, and immediately wondered what the hell to
do about it. My decision [not to take AZT] was aided by several
factors, one of which was my age. Being in my late sixties, I viewed
my eventual demise as less pressing. I had a very close, happy family.
And I was educated to be sceptical during my 25 years of general
practice about newly heralded grand cures. Reflecting back on the
numbers of diseases I treated in the fifties and sixties which now
would be grounds for malpractice, I became sceptical about AZT,
knowing it to be a cytotoxic agent. The other thing that helped
me not to panic about my decision was my excellent health and healthy
time, I had been introduced to an article by Peter Duesberg. I had
the temerity to give him a call. I'll never forget his initial remark.
I told him my plight, and he said, 'If you take AZT, you'll be dead.'
I read his work and got introduced to other people who were sceptical
early on to add some vitamin therapies to my already healthy lifestyle,
particularly the anti-oxidants beta carotene, ascorbic acid, and
vitamins E. Despite my continuing excellent health for a 69 years
old - I do a lot of hiking and mountaineering in the wilderness
- I have still been pressured by well-meaning clinicians to start
AZT 'before it's to late.' I think it's very difficult for these
people to admit that they're either partially or completely wrong."
Over the years,
AIDS researchers have pointed to sub-Saharan Africa - Uganda, in
particular - as the epicentre of the so-called AIDS epidemic. It
has been estimated that one in 40 Africans will die of AIDS, and
that AIDS will account for 500,000 deaths a year by the year 2000.
But in recent years, some AIDS researchers have come forward to
question not only the validity of those projections, but the very
notion that AIDS is pandemic in Africa.
of "AIDS in Africa," one of the "Dispatches"
series of documentaries, investigated AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa
and reached some startling conclusions. Dr. Harvey Bialy states
that there is "absolutely no believable evidence of immunodeficiency
disease in Africa." Likewise, Professor Gordon Stewart, the
only researcher to accurately predict AIDS statistics in the United
Kingdom, found no evidence of an AIDS epidemic in Africa and believes
that statements of doom should be avoided.
No one in Africa receives a blood test for AIDS, so diagnoses of
the disease - and thus statistics on the rate of AIDS - are based
purely on patients' symptoms. Those who have the three main symptoms
of AIDS stated in international guidelines - a persistent fever,
diarrhoea, and a dry cough for a month or more - are classified
as AIDS cases. The problem is, these symptoms are indistinguishable
from those of malaria and tuberculosis, says dr. Martin Okot-Wang.
Therefore, many cases of malaria and TB are being incorrectly classified
as AIDS, reports Sam Mulondo, a journalist who has covered the AIDS
crisis in Africa.
The irony is
that much of the money from international relief efforts is being
channelled into AIDS education and treatment rather than being used
to treat such rampant diseases as malaria, which is curable with
drugs. Doctors and community leaders - anxious to get any money
they can into the public health pipeline - have no choice but to
take money targeted for AIDS and do the best they can in combating
the illnesses they encounter.
who has studied AIDS in Uganda and Kenya on a research scholarship,
also reports that the data on AIDS in Africa is riddled with contradictions.
"I think there are a lot of problems with the way we define
AIDS cases in Africa," she states. "The majority of Africans
diagnosed as having HIV or AIDS have never had an ELISA or Western
blot test to confirm their diagnosis. They're diagnosed according
to a clinical criteria, which says that if you've lost ten percent
of your body weight or have a fever or a cough for over a month,
you have AIDS. Malaria can cause you to have an HIV-positive test.
Flu can cause you to have an HIV-positive test. It's also possible
that someone will test positive for HIV but have HIV-2 instead of
HIV-1, which is not considered to be the cause of AIDS. We're going
to need to see more confirmed tests in order to get any real data.
are no mortality figures for the cases in Uganda," Cochran
continues, "The official caseload of 38,000 cases of AIDS related
diseases is anything but a massive pandemic. Five million people
die of malaria every year in sub-Saharan Africa, making 38,000 cases
of AIDS-related diseases far below the number one would expect,
given all the attention to the epidemic. Africa presumably has the
same number of HIV-positive cases as the U.S.- one million. They
have at least the same number of AIDS cases that we do in the U.S.
these figures are used to promote monetary aid for educational and
counselling programs. Yet of the money raised under the guise of
the AIDS epidemic, says Cochran, very little finds its way into
treatments for tuberculosis or malaria. Little goes to AIDS patients,
prenatal care more food supplies, or the drugs needed to treat opportunistic
infections. "Most of it goes to bureaucratic or other political
purposes that really don't benefit the health of the population,"
interesting thing I learned [on my visit to Kenya] was that they
do have HIV and AIDS, but it's all within the same high-risk groups
we have here in the West," Cochran adds. "This is something
we simply never hear about. We continually hear there are no such
things as African homosexuals and no such thing as drug trafficking,
but it's simply not true. The cases along the coast are all concentrated
within indigenous homosexuals who have no contact with Western homosexuals
- in prostitutes and in drug addicts."
says we are wasting energy by looking only at biological causes
and cures for AIDS rather than environmental ones. "Ninety-eight
percent of diseases in the U.S. are non-infectious and totally preventable.
They can be traced to factors that are post-fertilisation. Only
two percent of diseases are genetically induced, yet our biomedical
enterprise is spending 98 percent of its money to support a paradigm
which is molecular and genetic. We've got the whole thing standing
on its head.
for a robust, diversified research program which would put us in
touch with information having to do with drugs and other causes
of immunodeficiency are enormous. Yet our biomedical establishment,
by and large, is not funding them. You can't get money to do AIDS
research unless you're doing some viral, molecular, magic-bullet
approach. It's typical of everything that's gone on in the last
20 years. It's all genetic and molecular; the environment is never
has always been enormously important in fostering health and increasing
life expectancy," Strohman continues. "If you look at
public health in the U.S. and other Western countries in the last
100 years, you'll see that the life expectancy has increased and
that the death rate has dropped, mostly due to the elimination of
infectious diseases. But this elimination hasn't come about from
a molecular approach; it's come about from feeding people and from
providing them with proper shelter and proper sanitation.
refrigeration was probably one of the most enormously important
public-health measures contributing to increased life expectancy.
Only in very rare [instances] have molecular cases produced anything
that comes even close to the impact that environmental manipulation
has had on our population."
points out, the same is probably true of AIDS. The problem is, we
haven't been able to find out because research money isn't being
channelled to Dr. Duesberg and others who want to explore the link
between environmental factors and immune suppression. Meanwhile,
immune-system weakening may be causing specific diseases - such
as wasting disease, Kaposi's sarcoma, and pneumonia - that have
nothing to do with immune dysfunction.
part of any prevention or treatment program is the strengthening
of the immune system. A strong immune system maintains homeostasis
and prevents the outbreak of an adverse condition. Even if the potential
for an outbreak is there, it will not be manifest. Dr. Gottlieb
offers this example: "The herpes virus resides in the nerve
roots on a long term basis. If it doesn't come out and cause genital
or oral lesions, no one is really concerned that the virus is there.
Those breakouts usually occur in relation to decreases in immune
function, whether as a result of steroids, recurrent infections,
or whatever. Similarly, if one could put the HIV virus back in the
box by maintaining a normal level of immune function, that might
conceivably be a very good therapeutic approach based on the herpes
believes we must learn to recognise the different things that can
impair the immune response. "The consumption of all kinds of
drugs, including antibiotics and AZT, is immunosuppressive,"
he says "They prevent a normal immune response to a challenging
viral or bacterial infection. Malnutrition causes overinfections,
which I call hyperinfections, that wear out the immune system. And
just being the recipient of a pint of blood of any kind is not a
good idea unless there are overwhelming reasons to do so. But a
haemophiliac, of course, is obliged to do so, and he suffers immune-system
suppression as a consequence."
Stricker, a haematologist and the associate director of the division
of immunotherapy at California Pacific medical Centre, tells of
his success with dinitrochlorobenzene (D.N.C.B.), a new type of
immune-enhancing agent made of natural compounds. "D.N.C.B.
stimulates the immune system to fight viruses and other infections,"
he says. "We have been following [HIV-positive people] who
have been using D.N.C.B. for three years on a continuous basis,
and the results have been quite encouraging. We have been looking
at patients with early HIV disease or AIDS. We've found these patients
to have a stable course when they use D.N.C.B. on a regular basis.
They do not progress to AIDS and their immunologic studies are either
stabilised or improved. The toxicity is really minimal. There may
be some local irritation from the application site on the skin,
but this usually clears up in a couple of days.
is available through the Healing Alternative Foundation in San Francisco,
Dr. Stricker adds. "Since it is a simple compound, it is not
subject to patent rules or F.D.A. control. It can be obtained for
a very low price, also due to the fact that it is not patentable.
It costs about $20 for a six-month supply."
Dr. Hans Kugler
offers this general outline of immune-building steps HIV-infected
people can take if they feel they are at risk of getting AIDS. "At
first I would definitely not take the AIDS drug because it is immune-suppressive.
This was shown in a recent publication of Pharmacological Therapeutics.
I would stimulate the immune function. I would certainly emphasize
a good and healthy lifestyle.
step would be to move toward super nutrition," Kugler says.
"The important thing to remember is to practice quality nutrition.
Eats foods as Mother Nature makes them, not foods treated with chemicals.
Then you would probably need a good supplementation program. Once
you have started these basics, you put your mind to work. Love,
Medicine and Miracles is a magnificent book to help teach you how
to get your mind aligned."
you can focus on stimulating the immune system into greater action."
Kugler continues. "Since I served in the air force, I compare
the immune system's function to the way military acts during war.
You activate all parts of it - the navy, marines, air force, and
built up a strong defence, you can begin the move toward recapturing
your health and your life.*