textfiles/bbs/KEELYNET/BIOLOGY/aidsban.asc

______________________________________________________________________________
|  File Name      : AIDSBAN.ASC      |  Online Date     :  12/19/95          |
|  Contributed by : Bob Paddock      |  Dir Category    :  BIOLOGY           |
|  From           : KeelyNet BBS     |  DataLine        :  (214) 324-3501    |
|           KeelyNet * PO BOX 870716 * Mesquite, Texas * USA * 75187         |
|        A FREE Alternative Sciences BBS sponsored by Vanguard Sciences      |
|              InterNet email keelynet@ix.netcom.com (Jerry Decker)          |
|      Files also available at Bill Beaty's http://www.eskimo.com/~billb     |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
The following file is a compilation of four messages all relating to the
banning of the book claiming that HIV is NOT the cause of AIDS.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received: (from bpaddock@localhost) by earth.execpc.com (8.7.3/8.7)
From: bpaddock@execpc.com (Bob Paddock)
To: keelynet@ix.netcom.com

Subject: Ban on AIDS book which questions role of HIV and of government
         research (fwd)

Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 19:56:30 -0500

-------- Forwarded message --------
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 95 16:37:42 -0800
From: Orlin Grabbe <kalliste@earthlink.net>
To: snet-l@world.std.com
Subject: Ban on AIDS book which questions role of HIV and of government
research

"Save The AIDS Book" Legal Defense Fund
1525 E. Noble, #102
Visalia, CA 93292

Contact:  Joel Schwartz
phone/fax: (805) 681-9988
email responses: AIDSCENTRL@aol.com

December 11, 1995

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

FEDERAL COURT DECLARES AIDS BOOK ILLEGAL
Judge orders jury to ignore most evidence

In a far-reaching decision that could throw the publishing industry into
turmoil, the Federal court of the Southern District of New York has officially
banned a controversial AIDS book from being distributed - even for free -
anywhere in the United States.

The verdict against the book, rendered on November 28, ended a contentious
five-day trial in which publisher Alfred S. Regnery was suing to stop
publication of the book.  Judge John E. Sprizzo is expected to enter the
official judgment any day now, including a permanent injunction against the
book and over half a million dollars in penalties against the book's publisher
and main author, Bryan J. Ellison.  The injunction will extend a restraining
order that already shut down the book's publication last week.

"As far as I know, this is the first time in American history that the Federal
government has banned a documentary book," said Ellison, who was clearly
shaken by the decision.

Evan Tolchinsky, the attorney who represented Ellison at the trial, has taken
this case without pay because of the free speech issue.  "There's no question
that this decision represents a radical departure from two hundred years of
American legal tradition," he noted.  "Unless this decision is overturned,
more books will soon join the banned list, businesses everywhere will suddenly
find their contracts invalid, and - worst of all - the AIDS epidemic will
continue to claim victims unnecessarily."

The book is controversial because it documents a growing scientific debate
over whether the Federal government has blamed the AIDS epidemic on the wrong
cause; no charges of indecency, libel, or violation of national security have
been made against the book.  Instead, Regnery justified his lawsuit against
Ellison by trying to enforce a terminated contract made between Ellison and
another publisher who had refused to publish the book.  Regnery himself has
never published the book, nor has he taken any serious measures to do so.

Critics accuse Regnery of illegally reviving the contract merely to shut down
the book's publication, and point out that Regnery worked for several years as
a high-ranking official in the U.S. Justice Department.

Not surprisingly, some Federal officials have openly stated they do not want
the general public to learn about the AIDS information contained in the book.
The Federal government currently spends over $7 billion per year on AIDS, all
directed against HIV, the virus said to cause AIDS.  The Ellison book explains
why hundreds of prestigious scientists and physicians now believe the
government has blamed AIDS on the wrong cause since 1984, and it provides
startling evidence for what many of these scientists believe is the real cause
of AIDS.

The book also carefully documents why the government blamed AIDS on this virus
in the first place, and names the people who designed the War on AIDS.

Widespread distribution of the book could shake public faith in the biomedical
research establishment, says Ellison, resulting in budget cuts for numerous
Federal agencies.

Judge Sprizzo's decision is controversial not only for banning the book, but
also for his conduct during the entire lawsuit.  Sprizzo, himself a former top
official of the Justice Department, remained consistently hostile to Ellison's
defense - declaring, for example, that Ellison had no due process rights, and
trying several times to replace Ellison's attorney with another who knew
little about the case.

During the trial, Sprizzo repeatedly changed the testimony of witnesses and
ordered the jury to ignore any testimony that reflected badly on Regnery's
case.  Sprizzo's final instructions then suddenly redefined the entire
lawsuit, thus guaranteeing the jury's verdict against the book.

Peter Duesberg, Ellison's co-author on the book, joined Regnery's side late in
the lawsuit.  During the trial, Duesberg confessed that he had been contacted
by Federal officials who offered him money and other inducements to suppress
the information in the book.  Duesberg claimed he did not accept these offers,
yet he refused to disclose the identities of the officials.

Ellison's supporters believe this case is a turning point that will awaken and
outrage the American public against big government and its abuse of power.
Not only will he appeal the decision, says Ellison, but a movement against the
Public Health establishment will undoubtedly grow around this banned book.

The lawsuit was held in Federal court in the Southern District of New York.
The case number is 95 Civ. 0157 (JES).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: bpaddock@execpc.com (Bob Paddock)
To: keelynet@ix.netcom.com

Subject: Re: Ban on AIDS book which questions role of HIV and of government
         research (fwd)
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 19:58:37 -0500

-------- Forwarded message --------
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 1995 08:23:12 -0800
From: sisto@indigo.ucdavis.edu (Michael Sisto)
To: snet-l@world.std.com
Subject: Re: Ban on AIDS book which questions role of HIV and of government
         research

>Thank you for the info -- but please tell us more!
>
>What is the name of the book?  How can we get it?  How can we help to
>promote its publication?
>
>                                -- A. Goldstein
>

All, you can find information on purchasing this book @

               (http://www.lablinks.com/sumeria/aids/dbook.html)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: bpaddock@execpc.com (Bob Paddock)
To: keelynet@ix.netcom.com

Subject: Re: Ban on AIDS book which questions role of HIV and of government
         research (fwd)

Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 19:59:03 -0500

-------- Forwarded message --------
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 1995 08:27:12 -0800
From: sisto@indigo.ucdavis.edu (Michael Sisto)
To: snet-l@world.std.com
Subject: Re: Ban on AIDS book which questions role of HIV and of government
         research

Just finished "Why We Will Never Win The War on Aids" by Bryan J. Ellison and
Peter H. Duesberg. Felt it was more objective than much of what I've read
about AIDS over the last ten years. The book is not available from Barnes &
Nobel or Walden Bookstores, per telephone calls. Only sources I could find are
as follows:

     Loompanics Unlimited              1-800-380-2230 1-360-385-7471
     PO Box 1197                       #82097 19.95 + 4.00 Shipping
     Port Townsend, Wa                 08368 VISA & MC catalog PA95

You can also order from the publisher.

     Inside Story Communications
     1525 E. Noble, #102               19.95 + 3.00 for Shipping
     Visalia, CA 93292
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: bpaddock@execpc.com (Bob Paddock)
To: keelynet@ix.netcom.com

Subject: Banned AIDS book author in Spin Magazine. (fwd)

Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 20:00:38 -0500

-------- Forwarded message --------
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 1995 08:26:04 -0800
From: enki@ix.netcom.com (CYRUS )

Subject: Banned AIDS book author in Spin Magazine.

...As to the banned AIDS book mentioned earlier. I don't know what the name of
this banned book is, so if anyone else comes accross the title please let us
know.
                                                                 Thanks
                                                                 Cyrus

===========  FORWARDED MESSAGE
The following is a reprint from the September 1993 issue of
Spin magazine:

PROFESSOR PETER DUESBERG believes HIV doesn't cause AIDS.

Is he the heretic the medical establishment claims, or a
20th-century Galileo? Bob Guccione, Jr. tries to find out.

In March 1987, Dr. Peter Duesberg, professor of molecular biology at the
University of California, Berkeley, and one of the world's leading experts on
retroviruses, a field he helped pioneer, wrote in Cancer Research that he
didn't believe HIV, a retrovirus, caused AIDS.

He argued that HIV was too inactive, infected too few cells,  and was too
difficult to even find in AIDS patients to be responsible. And since the virus
is notoriously difficult to isolate, antibody detection became the indicator
of infection-something Duesberg protested is highly inconsistent. Antibodies
dominant over a virtually unfindable virus has always meant the immune system
has triumphed over the invader, not capitulated to it.

Finally, there were AIDS cases without any HIV, virus or antibody, further
weakening the hypothesis. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) swept those
under the carpet by changing the definition of what an AIDS patient is to
necessarily include HIV infections.

But hundreds of HIV-free, certified AIDS cases surfaced again at the 1992
International Conference on AIDS, and now total over 4,000. This time the CDC
changed the name of the disease. Duesberg contends it's AIDS nonetheless and
changing the name only further distracts from the likelihood that HIV doesn't
cause it.

Duesberg was and continues to be assailed for his views.  Science progresses
by debate but, AIDS, suffused with overtones of life-style criticism and
moralizing, became as much a social issue as a medical one. Truth became
subjective and relative and as hard to pinpoint as an exit in a house of
mirrors.

At first, the medical establishment tried to dismiss Duesberg, then, when that
failed, became obsessed with him. Each advancement and understanding of
detecting the virus was trumpeted as crushing Duesberg but never succeeded in
doing so. "They move the goalpost," he said repeatedly, "but they don't change
anything."

A number of the world's top scientists began agreeing with him, including Kary
Mullis, the inventor of PCR, the most elaborate HIV detection machine: He
believes HIV doesn't cause AIDS.

Duesberg's credentials are impeccable. He is a member of the National Academy
of Sciences and a recipient of an Outstanding Investigative Grant from the
National Institutes of Health in 1985. He was a candidate for the Nobel Prize
for his work in discovering oncogenes, thought to be a cause of cancer, in
viruses. But he derailed his chances of winning when he cautioned that his
findings did not prove that there were cancer genes in cells, as was popularly
theorized at the time (and still an unproven theory). An insane move for
a scientist's career but an exemplary act of ethics.

I interviewed Duesberg over the course of a month, beginning in his cramped
office in his Berkeley laboratory and continuing through hours of long
distance telephone cross-examinations. As the government health agencies still
fail to produce a single effective treatment, a vaccine, or even proof of how
HIV is supposed to bring on AIDS, Professor Duesberg's skepticism about HIV
and his hypothesis about what he believes are the real causes of AIDS become
ever more important to hear.

SPIN: Why do you think HIV doesn't cause AIDS?

Dr. Peter Duesberg: Every virus I've ever seen gets its job done by killing a
cell at a time, and when it has killed enough, you get sick. HIV is said to be
responsible for the loss of T-cells, which are the immune system. Now, in
every AIDS patient studied so far, there is never more than, on average, one
in 1,000 cells infected by HIV.

How many cells in 1,000 would another virus infect-for instance a flu virus?

If it would cause flu, then 30 percent of your lung cells are ruined by the
virus, the lining is gone, or is infected.  If you have hepatitis almost every
single cell in your liver is infected.

A lot of very bright scientists are working in AIDS and they don't all have
dubious agendas and they must have asked themselves the same questions. If HIV
doesn't kill a lot of cells, why is it widely believed to be the cause of
AIDS?

By assigning it all these unprecedented, paradoxical properties that no other
virus ever had. They say it can kill cells indirectly, or can induce something
called autoimmunity, which essentially is, the virus sends out a trigger and
the body is now convinced to commit suicide. Or they say there are cofactors,
if you really press them hard on it. But what they are has yet to be
determined.

How feasible is the argument that HIV triggers autoimmunity?


It is very implausible indeed. There are a million Americans with HIV who are
totally healthy. There are six million Africans according to the World Health
Organization who have HIV; 129,000 had AIDS by the end of last year, that
means five million eight hundred and so many thousand had no AIDS.  Half a
million Europeans have HIV and 60,000 have AIDS. So there are millions and
millions of people on this planet who have [HIV but] no AIDS-why don't seven-
and-a-half million get autoimmune disease if HIV is the cause of an autoimmune
disease?

Well, the establishment says that everybody with HIV will develop AIDS and
it's just a matter of time.

In the last ten years this has happened in America to about 20 percent of all
people with HIV, 250,000[including deaths to date] out of a million.

But the people who are dying from AIDS are hardly ever your all-American
friends of 20 to 40 years of age: Virtually all heterosexual Americans and
Europeans who had AIDS are intravenous drug users. And the homosexuals who get
AIDS had hundreds if not thousands of sexual contacts. That is not achieved
with your conventional testosterone.

It is achieved with chemicals. Those are the risk groups, they inhale poppers,
they use amphetamines, they take Quaaludes, they take amyl nitrite, they take
cocaine as aphrodisiacs.

What is it about intravenous drug use as opposed to ordinary drug use, like
snorting cocaine, that would mean theses people would go on to develop AIDS?

It's a matter of degree. With drugs, the dose is the poison.  You take one
aspirin, you lose your headache, you take 200, you drop dead. You smoke one
pack of cigarettes, you're fine, but if you smoke two packs of cigarettes for
10 or 20 years, you may get emphysema. It is the same with drugs.

If you snort a line of cocaine on a weekend, you probably won't notice the
difference. But if you inject it intravenously two or three times a day,
that's when the toxicity shows up. We're designed to take some shit. But we're
not designed to inject cocaine three times a day.

People have been having a little cocaine in their tea in South America, yes,
but not injecting it three times a day, and nobody was inhaling nitrites-
nitrites are toxic as hell. Nobody was taking amphetamines at those doses;
they were not available. That's what's new.

But back to this argument about HIV. Viruses can only work one way. They can
only be toxic if they affect a cell.  They cannot work at a distance. There's
no exception. Viruses are what you call an intracellular parasite. They don't
have an autonomous life. They are just a little piece of information that is
stuck into a cell and acts like a parasite. But outside of the cell it's like
a disc outside a computer.

So is there any precedent of a virus creating an autoimmune disease?

There are a few hypotheses, but no. When a doctor doesn't know how to explain
a disease, he has two classical crutches: it's a slow virus or it's an
autoimmune disease. I've heard that for the last 20 years.

When they didn't know what diabetes was, it was a slow virus or an autoimmune
disease.

Alzheimer's: slow virus or an autoimmune disease. And with AIDS, slow virus,
causing an autoimmune disease. You have both!

An autoimmune disease is a misdirected immune response.  It cannot tell a
harmful virus from a harmless one, it overreacts. If the virus were the
trigger, that should follow as soon as the virus gets in you. Not, as they say
about AIDS, you get infected now, ten years later you get diarrhea. It's
totally absurd.

Is it possible that AIDS could be an autoimmune created disease, but HIV isn't
the trigger?

Some of the AIDS diseases could possibly be autoimmune diseases. Certainly not
all. 38 percent of American AIDS cases have nothing to do with immune
deficiency. 38 percent. 10 percent are Kaposi sarcomas, 19 percent are this
so-called wasting disease.

That's seen in Africa a lot, the slim disease?

Yeah, there it's somewhat different, it's usually coupled with infections. But
the American or European wasting disease is actually specifically defined as a
nonparasitic disease.

Anyway, 6 percent is dementia, 3 percent is lymphoma cancer. If you add those
up, that's 38 percent of all American AIDS cases. Out of 250,000, that's about
100,000-their diseases cannot be explained by any form of immunodeficiency
whatsoever.

Why is it considered AIDS, then?

That's one of the questions I would love to know the answer to. I have asked
several experts; they always get mad. AIDS is always presented as if it's all
immune deficiency. It is not at all. Cancer has nothing to do with immune
deficiency.

So what is the common denominator between all of the 25 AIDS diseases?

None! They name it AIDS, that's all. None of these 38 percent have anything
whatsoever to do with immunodeficiency, but they're called AIDS.

There's not one AIDS disease that's new. What is new is only the incidence of
these diseases in 20-to 45-year-old men, mostly, and a few women, has gone up.

I've always thought the 25 diseases that form the AIDS syndrome had the common
denominator that they were the results of the Immune system's inability to
stave them off.

That's how they try to sell it without looking at the evidence.  But cancer is
not a consequence of immune deficiency. Dementia has nothing to do with the
immune system. Your brain is independent of the immune system. Of course, if
there's no immune system, and your brain gets infected, you can get
meningitis. But it doesn't affect your IQ. Sure, in the end, if everything
fails you can get all sorts of diseases.

Even if you accommodate the virus with all sorts of absurd and paradoxical
hypotheses-indirect mechanisms, and cofactors, autoimmunity, a ten-year
latency period-even that doesn't get you around the solid number of 4,621 HIV-
free AIDS cases [worldwide, a third of these in the U.S.].

How do you explain those? You couldn't have a better alibi than being there!
And that is suppressed. Here we have a real cover-up. Last year the numbers of
these cases was going up like crazy, and Anthony Fauci [director of National
Institutes of Health [NIH], and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
[CDC] called a meeting. And you know what they did?

They gave it a new name. They call it "Idiopathic CD-4 lymphocytopenia."
Or ICL. When you're HIV-free now, it's no longer called AIDS.

There's 4,000 cases that don't have HIV, but the 250,000-plus cases that
remain do have HIV.

That's what you think. How do you know that?

Because they've been tested.

By whom?

By their physicians.

So who tells us that they have been tested?

A guy goes to his doctor, clearly very ill, he has AIDS. He's tested or was
tested earlier on and is found to be HIV-positive.

Even now, there is no record, anywhere, that says in how many American AIDS
cases HIV was actually found.

But in every AIDS case, the CDC would know whether or not the patients were
HIV-positive, because the physicians reported it.

You're led to believe this by the CDC, but the evidence that HIV is there,
they never disclose. Nowhere in the HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report, as they call
the national statistics kept by the CDC, do you ever find HIV data. No survey
on HIV at all. All they talk about is AIDS. And then you read a little more of
the fine print, how AIDS is defined. They accept what you call "presumptive
diagnosis"- AIDS cases without HIV tests.

You know what that means? The guy wears a leather jacket, has an earring, and
is coughing. And he's from San Francisco.  That's an AIDS case. I don't even
have to check it, his physician thinks.

I recently wrote a letter to Harold Jaffe [acting director of the Division of
HIV/AIDS at the CDC]. He acknowledged 43,606 presumptive diagnoses up to 1988.
I checked the literature and came up with 62,272 until 1992.

Let me get this straight, you're saying between 43,000 and 62,000 of the cases
of AIDS up until 1992 were not tested, which means we have no idea whether or
not they were HIV-positive.

Absolutely.

They may or may not have been HIV-positive.

Yeah. Even in the latest AIDS definition, in January 1993, they allowed
presumptive diagnosis. In other words, a good number of them even now will be
reported without and HIV test.

The public perception is that all cases of AIDS have HIV, that a case is not
defined as AIDS without the presence of HIV, which would mean, by definition,
that somebody tested them.

Most people assume, like you do, that everyone [with AIDS] is positive. That's
not the end yet. We have what is called false-positive antibody tests. They
call them HIV tests, but you know what you're testing. The antibody can be
there and the virus could be long gone.

Additionally, there are crossreactions, where the antibody might react to,
say, malaria or arthritis and that's mistaken for engaging HIV?

Exactly. Or people vaccinated for the flu. Blood donors, ten recently seven
out of ten were positive for HIV.

Did they have the virus?

No!

How do we know they didn't have the virus?

They were checked a half a year later, and the test was negative. There was no
virus.

Every year, 12 million blood donations are checked. The donors are treated
preferentially; they don't want them to get the flu so they give them a flu
vaccine free. Seven out of ten of those guys then tested after the flu vaccine
turn out to be "positive" for HIV. They didn't have HIV, the flu vaccine
crossreacted with the HIV antibody.

How often is the test false?

The test can be wrong over 50 percent of the time. If you just repeat it, half
of them fall out immediately. But if you look at a group on newly recruited
soldiers, one in 100 tests positive, and when you check them again, one in
1,000 remains positive.

That's pretty incredible. That means only one out of every ten that tested
positive is actually positive.

You see, that's the point: The idea that everybody who has AIDS is known to
have HIV is far from the truth. There's a significant percentage who are
totally untested. And the tests are often unconfirmed, and even if they are
confirmed, they are only antibody tests. There are a number of people who even
have a positive Western Blot-the more reliable antibody test-but when you look
for the virus it's still not there.

In San Francisco, there are three people, false positives, who found out now
they have no HIV, but were treated with AZT, which is designed to inhibit the
virus. And AZT, as we all know is extremely toxic. And they have AIDS now.
They have pneumonia, they have pneumocystis-exactly like AIDS-and they have no
virus.

You presume it was because of AZT.

That's what they're suing for.

Explain why you have called AZT "AIDS by prescription.

It's AIDS by design. It was designed over 20 years ago as a chemotherapy. And
chemotherapy is a rational but desperate treatment for cancer. The rationale
is, Let's kill all the growing cells for several weeks. The hope is the cancer
is going to be totally dead, and you are only half dead and recover.

Chemotherapy is a rough treatment. You lose your hair, you lose weight, you
get pneumonia, you get immune deficiency, you literally get AIDS, you have
nausea, all the AIDS symptoms, because it's severe cellular intoxication.  You
kill a lot of good cells, too. Often the treatment works, the cancer is indeed
dead and you survive and recover.

Now you give that drug to somebody indefinitely. Not just for two or three
weeks. Every six hours, your HIV-positive person takes 250 mg of AZT. So they
lose weight, they become anemic, they lose their white cells, they have
nausea, they lose their muscles. Like Rudolf Nureyev, they cannot even stand
on their own legs. And then they die. Like Kimberly Bergalis, Nureyev, Arthur
Ashe, Ryan White, and many others.  That's what you call AIDS by prescription.

There's one issue even more fundamental we scientists have never discussed: Is
AIDS actually an infectious disease or not? You see, you can "acquire" a
disease in two ways.  Either by a microbe-and then it's an infectious disease;
then you can pass it on, sexually or otherwise-or you acquire it from the
environment, that is, by toxins, like you acquire lung cancer from smoking or
liver cirrhosis from drinking.

Those are two entirely different mechanisms of getting a disease. So how do we
tell them apart? The infectious diseases have one thing in common: Without one
single exception, all infectious diseases are always equally distributed
between the sexes. Zero exceptions. From measles to mumps, syphilis, gonorrhea
hepatitis, tuberculosis, all infectious diseases follow soon after contact.

Microbes don't mess around. They have a generation time of hours or at very
most a day or two.  That's their built-in generation time. They grow at that
rate.  There is no other way. They can't do it faster and they can't do it
slower.

You are 75kg of meat to them. Nothing more, nothing less.  And they convert it
within days to themselves, that's what they do. There's not one authentic
exception, where you get infected today and get a disease ten years later.

And it certainly doesn't happen ten years after antibodies are made.
Antibodies are an indication that the body has noticed the guys and knocked
them out.

Isn't the argument, though, that the immune system is losing the battle? The
antibodies may be there, but the T-cells are being depleted, so the immune
system is actually losing the battle?

Only if the virus has ever overwhelmed the immune system, but it hasn't. The
immune system does beautifully. It knocks the virus out to a level where
nobody can find it. [Dr. Robert] Gallo and [Dr. Luc] Montagnier had a hell of
a time finding it. Because it was gone. That's why we look for antibodies in
the AIDS test. It can't find the virus. That's the third point-again, no
exception to that rulewhere you have an infectious disease, the microbe that
is responsible for that disease is abundant, very active in many cells.

What about this recent discovery that large quantities of HIV are in the lymph
nodes?

What they're doing is using a bigger scope, the polymerase chain reaction,
which amplifies a needle in a haystack to a haystack itself. So now you can
all of a sudden see it.

And they say, isn't it great what we can see with a new scope.  Well, the
problem is, you don't help the emperor a lot if you can see his clothes only
with a microscope. All they're doing is applying bigger and bigger scopes.
They magnify the needle, but they don't make more of it, they only see it
better.

What you're saying is if a man is six feet tall, and you put him on a cinema
screen, it doesn't mean he's really 20 feet tall.

That's right. Now, what's the prediction for a non-infectious disease, a toxic
disease? One of them is, it's not distributed equally between the sexes or
randomly in the population, it's distributed according to exposure. The
smokers are the ones who get lung cancer, the nonsmokers hardly ever get it.
The alcoholics get the liver cirrhosis and not the milk drinkers.

And so it's exposure to the toxin. The health consequences are not immediate.
You don't get sick from one cigarette.  It takes years of build-up. You have
to reach a certain threshold of toxicity.

You believe this explains the so-called latency period.

That is the classical relationship between drug consumption and the disease
that follows. Unlike the infectious agents, which work immediately or never.

The argument about AIDS is that there are lots of people who do drugs and
don't have AIDS.

It's the dose. There's a genetic constituency, some people are more resistant
than others. But very roughly, it's a cumulative thing. It's a certain
threshold you have to reach and that varies personally. Now look at AIDS. It
fits none of the criteria of an infectious disease-not equally distributed,
not soon [manifested], no active microbe, nothing is there. You can't find HIV
even if people are dying-you can, tiny bit, occasionally....

What about the 10 percent of AIDS patients that are women?

Those are drug users mostly.

Okay, the statistics say something like 75 percent of the women have some kind
of recreational drug history, or were HIV-positive and went on AZT. That sill
leaves about 25 percent that don't have a drug history.

Well, see, if you talk 25 percent out of 10 percent, you're talking 2.5
percent. And now here we come to the definition of AIDS. AIDS is 25 old
diseases under a new name in the presence of HIV. These diseases do occur with
or without HIV.

Is there a difference in the manifestation of, for instance, tuberculosis, in
a case where a woman has tuberculosis and HIV, and a case where a woman just
has tuberculosis?

None that I know of.

Woman A has tuberculosis, no HIV. Woman B has tuberculosis and HIV; she is
said to have AIDS. Now, are there any physical differences?

No. In terms of diagnostic features, it's the same.

Absolutely the same? And they should, if they're both of average health,
either recover or die at the same pace?

It should be exactly the same. The only thing is that because HIV is rare in
this country, only one in 250 Americans, 0.4 percent, are HIV-positive, and
because it's so difficult to pick up, the odds are that he or she may have
been one of those people who have practiced risk behavior, or been receiving
transfusions.

Okay, woman B  is not a prostitute, is not promiscuous, is not an intravenous
drug user-

And HIV-positive and has tuberculosis? That would be exactly the same as the
woman without HIV and tuberculosis. Totally the same.

What you're saying is woman A and woman B are identically sick. So we can
challenge the readership of the magazine that if anyone out there has AIDS and
is HIV-positive but hasn't done any risk behavior, they should contact us and
let us look at their case history, and we would learn a lot if such a person
who doesn't come from one of the risk groups has HIV and has developed AIDS.

Have you scrutinized the case history of any patient who has AIDS, is HIV-
positive, and doesn't come from a risk group?

They are extremely rare. Those are the cases like Kimberly Bergalis. They give
them AZT and then it's finished.

Did Kimberly Bergalis [the Florida woman who contracted HIV from her dentist]
get AZT before or after she had AIDS?

She had a yeast infection, that was her diagnostic disease, which is not so
rare in women. And antibodies for the virus.

After her HIV diagnosis, they gave her AZT. She was otherwise healthy, except
for the yeast infection?

Tell me a woman with a yeast infection needs blood transfusions for anemia.
Tell me a woman with a yeast infection who loses 30 pounds in a year. Tell me
a woman with a yeast infection who loses her hair and needs a wheelchair
because of muscle atrophy. How many women fit that description? I've never
heard of one.

And all she had at the time of prescription of AZT was a yeast infection. Are
you sure of that?

They said the yeast infection was first and then she later also had some kind
of a pneumonia and they don't say when they started her on AZT. But I have yet
to ever hear of a 21-year-old that needs blood transfusions for pneumonia or
a yeast infection.

AZT destroys the bone marrow, doesn't it?

Of course it does, it kills the red cells. Anemia is the fist direct effect of
AZT toxicity. If you have no red cells. Anemia is the first direct effect of
AZT toxicity. If you have no red cells, you can't pick up oxygen. You're in
trouble, my friend.

Is a transfusion itself very immunosuppressive?

Well, one or two transfusions are not going to make a very big difference.
It's a problem for hemophiliacs who get it regularly and keep getting foreign
proteins over and over and over. You get proteins from somebody else, that's
suppressive to your own immune system.

Let's look at Arthur Ashe from the public perception: heterosexual, non-drug-
user, former athlete, has a blood transfusion following bypass surgery. He
discovers he has HIV from the transfusion. He develops AIDS and clearly dies
from it. How do you explain that?

Arthur Ashe had the virus since 1983, that's when he had transfusions for
surgery. And in '88, he was put on AZT and later on ddI. Last December, he
looked like he came from Auschwitz. He was emaciated, he was unfocused, he
couldn't answer questions well. That's why he got pneumonia; a sportsman at 49
doesn't die of pneumonia, but an AZT victim like Kimberly Bergalis does.

So before he took AZT, he was healthy?

Except, of course, this congenital heart condition which was pretty well taken
care of. The plausible cause of death considering his background would have
been some heart problem.  But not a pneumonia. Like others who took AZT and
died way too early, he was a typical example of an AZT victim. Another note
about Arthur Ashe: He had the virus in 1983, he died in 1993, ten years later,
his wife happens to be HIV-negative. In ten years, he couldn't transmit HIV to
his wife? It's a sexually transmitted disease, remember, officially.

He probably used a condom-

In '83, you didn't even know what HIV was. And he certainly didn't use a
condom when he fathered his daughter [now 5].  Maybe he used a condom in the
last two years with AZT-probably didn't need a condom 'cause one of the
consequences of AZT is impotence.

You told me that when they transport HIV for researchers to study it, they
transport it in T-cell cultures, but the T-cells don't die. Explain that.

In 1984, in Science, Gallo said HIV kills T-cells and that is the cause of
AIDS. Also in 1984, in May, he signed under oath to the U.S. Patent Office
that this same virus can be produced in permanently growing human T-cells. And
these T-cells are still growing in his laboratory, in dozens of companies on
this planet, enough to conduct at least 25 million tests per year in this
country alone, over 20 million in Russia, millions all over the world. These
T-cells have yet to die.

But some must die?

Not because of the virus. Sometimes they die because people don't treat them
right. But if they keep them going, they go and go and go. If the virus were
toxic to human T-cells by itself, in any way whatsoever, these cells would all
be dead. And it's not only T-cells, you can use B-cells, you can use
monocytes, and skin cells and nose cells. There is no toxicity whatsoever
detectable to that virus to human cells in culture.

Is there any difference between the virus that is mass-produced and the virus
that is found in the body?

Nothing.

Let me go back to HIV 101, if such a thing exists. The orthodox standpoint is
that when people are exposed to the virus, at some point-it can be as long as
ten years-they start to lose T-cells, their immune system diminishes. The T-
cells disappear to a chronically low level. Now, you say it is something else
that is causing the diminishing of the T-cells and it is coincidental to have
HIV.

That's what I think. I support that in two ways. There are a million Americans
with HIV and their T-cells are normal, they don't disappear, they are not
depleted. Six million Africans are said to have HIV normal T-cells, minus
those who get AIDS, that's a small fraction there.

HIV is one of the most harmless viruses you could possibly have. Retroviruses
in fact were the last ones to be discovered, at least in humans, and that
actually says something about them. Viruses and microbes were historically
discovered by the diseases that they caused. It's not that people looked
to see what could we find through a microscope. They were looking for
something that could cause tuberculosis or syphilis, and now AIDS. The last to
be found were the retroviruses, because they never do anything.

We found the polio virus by taking infected cells from a polio patient; we
took an AIDS patient's infected cells and found HIV. Where is there a
difference?

Well, when you look at the polio patient and you look in the right place you
find abundant virus. You look in the nerves when they are paralyzed you look
in the guts when they have diarrhea and fever, you find plenty of virus. Now
you look at the patient and you are in trouble. Gallo was in trouble. The only
one who saw it, and barely, was Montagnier in '83-he got some viruses out of
there. You can squeeze them out but it's an enormous job, because there is
little or no virus.

If I understand you correctly, if you isolate the polio virus, and you apply
it to healthy cells, it will infect those cells.

It will kill those cells in eight hours.

And if you apply HIV to healthy cells, what will happen to them?

The healthy cells will continue to live exactly as if they were uninfected.

The retrovirus basically seems to be a squatter virus, it doesn't want to kill
anybody in the house, it just wants to move in.

That is the reason why we have chased retroviruses so dearly in the last 20
years, because we thought they might be a cause of cancer. Because they don't
kill cells. That's why Gallo is a retrovirologist, or David Baltimore [Nobel
Prize-winning researcher who discovered reverse transcriptase] or me. We were
chasing this class of viruses as possible carcinogens.  Cancer is caused by
cells that grow out of control, not by cells that are dying.

HIV never claims more than one in 1,000 cells every other day. And every two
days you replace 3 percent of your cells.  That is at least 30 out of 1,000.

What is depleting the immune systems of people with AIDS?

Well, it clearly can't be HIV, it's got to be something else.  There is too
little HIV even in people dying from AIDS to explain the loss of these many
cells. The AIDS establishment actually gives me credit for that question, but
they are always "just solving it about now." And for $4 billion [the annual
AIDS budget] they slowly solve that problem, but they haven't solved it yet.

So it's got to be something else. I have an alternative hypothesis, that in
all those Americans and Europeans with AIDS who don't have congenital clinical
problems like hemophiliacs, acquired clinical problems like people who are ill
and needed transfusions, it's drugs in some way or another.

Virtually all heterosexuals with AIDS are long-term cocaine and heroin users.
And orally consumed drugs, which includes to some degree cocaine.......EOF
------------------------------------------------------------------------------