The Brains Behind Rethinking AIDS
South African President Thabo Mbeki's questions to David Rasnick on AIDS in January 2000; Rasnick's replies; the Perth Group's corrections; and Rasnick's response
Introduction
On 19 January 2000 South African President Thabo Mbeki telefaxed eight scientific questions about AIDS to David Rasnick, the president of the Rethinking AIDS Group.
Rasnick shot up his hand with answers the following day, and got history professor Charles Geshekter to sign on as nominal co-author.
In a submission to Mbeki in mid-March, the Perth Group corrected all Rasnick's and Geshekter's elementary scientific mistakes.
Rasnick responded to the Perth Group's identification of his dismal ignorance a couple of days later.
He 'disagree[d] on the technical details' of where he'd got it completely wrong, and without defending them 'stood by' his clueless errors.
Anyway it was unimportant to provide accurate scientific answers to Mbeki's scientific questions, he reckoned, because 'AIDS is a sociological and political phenomenon – not science.'
In other words, when shown up for your ignorance of the science that your organization is meant to be concerned with, getting the science right doesn't matter. (This remains the core philosophy of cellphone businessman David Crowe's new RA group: even though he calls it a 'scientific organization', staging razzmatazz PR shows – consistently ignored by media and everyone else – is more important to him than determining and presenting the best, rigorous, accurate, truthful science and engaging with and deconstructing the orthodoxy with the best, rigorous, accurate, truthful science.)
Moreover, Rasnick said, 'Mbeki ... need[ed] above all else simple, clear discourse on all things AIDS'. As an African being tutored in medical science, Mbeki needed Rasnick to dumb it all down for him. And his 'simple, clear' and wrong answers to Mbeki's questions were just the sort of 'simple, clear discourse' for him to learn from.
Mbeki didn't 'need anyone ... replacing the ready-made answers of the HIV establishment with a new set of ready-made answers from a new perspective', Rasnick said – least of all the 'new perspective' of the Perth Group, 'ready-made', demonstrating, incidentally, that when it comes to AIDS science, Rasnick is a 'ready-made' total ignoramus. All Mbeki needed, Rasnick declaimed, was his ignorant, fundamentally wrong, old 'perspective'.
As for the panel of orthodox and dissident scientists and clinicians that Mbeki told him he proposed convening, Rasnick had this to say: 'Maybe someday soon there will be a real scientific forum for debating the technical details of AIDS. At that time I will be eager to participate in any and all discussions.'
Funny thing is, when true to his promise Mbeki established a 'real scientific forum for debating the technical details of AIDS ... someday soon' a couple of months later – in Pretoria in May, in Johannesburg in July, and on the internet in between – Rasnick broke his.
He wasn't 'At that time ... eager to participate in any and all discussions' of 'the technical details of AIDS' at all. On the contrary, far from 'debating the technical details of AIDS' with the Perth Group, he avoided 'any and all discussions' with them like the plague. Couldn't even bring himself to say hello.
Why, he explained, getting into 'discussions' of such 'technical details of AIDS' was a characteristically Jewish waste of time: all 'very Talmudic'.
Is it any wonder that while this howdy-doody bozo was repeatedly flying in and out of South Africa, Mbeki wanted nothing to do with him. Unlike certain other more scientifically informed dissidents (but that would be telling).
COMMENT ON RASNICK/GESHEKTER RESPONSES TO THE SA HEALTH MINISTRY
by Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos, Val Turner, John Papadimitriou, Helman Alphonso, David Causer, Barry Page.
Question 1: “What means and methods are used in the Public Health
system to test the “HIV status” of individuals?”
Answer: “Our first reaction to this question is that the HIV
antibody tests do not measure HIV at all. Neither does the Western blot (WB)
test. These tests also do not test for AIDS”.
Comment: Your answer implies that there are two types of tests,
antibody tests and the Western blot, which is not the case. The Western blot
(WB) is also an antibody test. Nobody has ever claimed that the antibody tests
measure HIV or that they test for AIDS. According to all “HIV” experts, all the
antibody tests, including the WB, detect antibodies to the “HIV proteins”. They
also claim that the tests are “HIV” specific, that is, they prove infection
with HIV. If by “do not measure HIV at all” you mean the antibody tests are not
at all specific to “HIV”, then: (i) you are contradicting yourself. In answer
to question 7 you state: “problems of cross-contamination [do you mean
cross-reactivity?], poor levels of specificity and sensitivity, the fact that
any of more than 70 diseases can give rise to a false positive test”, imply the
existence of HIV antibody tests. They may not be perfect but nonetheless at
least sometimes they prove past or present HIV infection; (ii) given that the
only proof that AIDS patients are infected with HIV is a positive antibody
test, you would have to accept then that no proof exists that AIDS patients are
infected with “HIV”.
Your question: “A question we would ask the Health Minister is what
evidence is there that people with antibodies to HIV live shorter, poorer lives
than people in the same community who do not have antibodies to HIV? We know of
no such evidence”.
Comment: There is ample evidence showing a correlation, imperfect as
it may be, between high levels of antibodies and “shorter, poorer lives”. In
fact, one does not need to search the scientific literature to realise that
this is the case. For example, blood donors have low levels of antibodies in
general and the rate of positive “HIV” antibody tests is commensurately low in
this group of individuals. You accept that the rate of a positive antibody test
is higher in individuals suffering from about 70 diseases, which include
malaria and TB.
Since there is a correlation between disease and a positive “HIV”
antibody test, (whatever this may mean), it follows there must be a correlation
between antibodies and “shorter, poorer lives”.
Let us take a few more examples. There is evidence which shows that
drug users have high levels of antibodies including autoantibodies, whose
levels will obviously correlate with the quantity of drugs consumed.
1 According to the well known
HIV expert, Myron Essex,
2 from Harvard University,
autoantibodies give false positive “HIV” tests. As far back as 1986 another
“HIV” expert, Harold Jaffe from the Centres for Disease Control, could not
exclude the possibility that a positive “HIV” antibody test in all drug users
may “represent false positive or non-specific reactions”.
3 Obviously the higher the
level of drugs consumed the higher the probability of “shorter, poorer lives”. Since
a correlation exists between the quantity of drugs consumed and the detection
of a positive antibody test, (whatever its genesis), and the development of
disease on the other, it follows then that a correlation will exist between
antibodies and “shorter, poorer lives”. Conversely, drug addicts who curtail
their addiction, lose their “HIV” antibodies and live “longer, better lives”.
4
“According to Philip Mortimer, director of the Virus Reference Laboratory
of the Public Health Laboratory Service, London, United Kingdom: “Diagnosis of
HIV infection is based almost entirely on detection of antibodies to HIV, but
there can be misleading cross-reactions between HIV-1 antigens and antibodies
formed against other antigens, and these may lead to false-positive reactions”.
5 Haemophiliacs are constantly
exposed to “an array of alloantigens (and infectious agents)”
6 either via factor VIII or
blood transfusion. This leads to hypergammaglobulinaemia and
hypergammaglo-bulinaemia correlates with “HIV” seropositivity.
7 Haemophiliacs are known to
have high levels of anti-lymphocyte antibodies, 74% have anti-cardiolipin
antibodies, 28% anti-nuclear antibodies and 85% immune complexes.
8 HIV researchers accept that
“antilymphocyte, antinuclear and other autoantibodies” gave rise to false
positive “HIV” antibody tests.
2, 9 It goes without saying that
the frequency and quantity of blood and factor VIII administered correlates
with the severity of haemophilia, that is, with “shorter, poorer lives”.
The introduction of factor VIII led to a dramatic decrease in
haemophilia deaths from bleeding but it also had some harmful effects including
myocardial ischaemia, visual disturbances, headache, dyspnoea, bronchospasm,
hypotension and anaemia
10-12 Factor VIII preparations
contain immunoglobulin which may produce systemic reactions such as pruritus,
chills, fever, tremor, flushing, malaise, nausea, vomiting, back pain .
13
In 1985 Robin Weiss and his colleagues concluded: “the abnormal T
lymphocyte subsets [decrease in T4 cellsºAIDS] are a result of the intravenous infusion of factor VIII
concentrates.
14 One year later, researchers
from the CDC wrote: “the factor [VIII] concentrate itself may be
immunosuppresive even when produced from a population of donors not at risk for
AIDS”.
15 It is also of interest to
note that in 1985, before HIV was generally accepted as being the cause of
AIDS, Montagnier wrote: “This syndrome [clinical AIDS] occurs in a minority of
infected persons, who generally have in common a past of antigenic stimulation
and of immune depression before LAV infection”.
16 Obviously the clinical
symptoms and diseases as well as the decrease in T4 lymphocytes induced by
antigenic stimulation with factor VIII and blood transfusions will correlate
with the quantity and the frequency of their administration.
Since a correlation exists between the quantity of factor VIII and
blood administered to the haemophiliacs and the development of a positive
antibody test (whatever it means) and disease, it follows that a correlation
will exist between antibodies and "shorter, poorer lives”.
Individuals with AIDS, AIDS-related
complex and those at risk, have circulating immune complexes, rheumatoid
factor, anti-cardiolipin, anti-nuclear factor, anti-cellular, anti-platelet,
anti-red cell, anti-actin, anti-DNA, anti-tubulin, anti-thyroglobulin,
anti-albumin, anti-myosin, anti-trinitrophenyl and anti-thymosin antibodies.
17, 18 Anti-lymphocyte auto-antibodies have been
found in 87% of HIV+ patients, and their levels correlate with clinical status.
19, 20 Many of these are autoantibodies and the
higher the affinity and the higher the titre, the higher the probability of a
tissue damaging autoimmune inflammatory response and eventual organ failure.
The autoantibodies precede and predict tissue damage and organ failure. In the
case of some diseases such as autoimmune thyroid disease and insulin dependent
diabetes mellitus, such antibodies are detectable for many years or even
decades before overt disease ensues and causes “shorter, poorer lives”.
The notion that a non-specific laboratory test reliably predicts
disease is nothing new and is quite familiar and useful to clinicians. For
example, it is difficult to imagine anything less specific than the erythrocyte
sedimentation rate (ESR-the speed at which a vertical column of red blood cells
gravitates downwards in a test tube). Yet if the ESR is elevated, this “must
always be taken to indicate disease if anaemia and pregnancy are excluded”.
21 Similarly, although there is
no proof that the antibodies which react with the “HIV” proteins are directed
against a retrovirus, nonetheless the evidence shows that such antibodies, at
least in the risk groups, predict a propensity to particular diseases defined
as “AIDS”.
22-24
Your question: “Furthermore, why are antibodies to HIV a sign of
impending disease and death? Antibodies are a sign of immunity, not imminent
death? We know of no answer to this question”.
Comment: The answer is simple: the antibodies may not be a sign of
immunity. Your question seems to paraphrase one of Peter’s main arguments
against the HIV theory of AIDS. He claims that after antibody to viruses,
including HIV, appear in the blood, they neutralise the virus and since AIDS
develops after the appearance of antibodies, HIV cannot be the cause AIDS.
However, as Weiss and Jaffe point out: “Most persistent infections, however,
proceed in the presence of a humoral [antibody] response”.
25 It is the individuals who
have persistent antibodies to Treponema pallidum who develop secondary
syphilis, not those who are negative. Not only are the antibodies not a sign of
immunity but in some cases, such as Dengue fever, the viral antibodies
exacerbate the disease.
26 As far back as 1935, Albert
Sabin, in a series of experiments designed to investigate the “mechanism of
immunity to filterable viruses” (retroviruses and thus “HIV” by definition are
filterable viruses) concluded that: “The results with the cultures containing
the “treated” virus are not only an additional control for the above
experiments, but also a confirmation in vitro of the observations made in vivo
in the preceding investigation, and show quite definitely that the immune serum
does not alter the physical state of the virus in a way which would render it
non-infectious…For even among the ordinary bacteria, the anti-bacterial
antibodies are not always the ones that protect against infection...It was,
therefore, difficult to escape the conclusion that even in the presence of
tissue, the action of the protective substance was not upon the virus, but
rather upon the tissue. This effect upon the tissue was such that it became
refractory to infection and unsuitable for the multiplication of virus. That
this refractory state does not represent a permanent, irreversible change in
the cells is evident from the observation that by profuse washing it was
possible to render the tissue susceptible again”.
27-30
In a paper entitled “Delineation of putative mechanisms involved in
antibody-mediated clearance of rabies virus from central nervous system” the
authors concluded that: “The protective activity of a particular mAb
[monoclonal antibody] in vivo did not correlate with its virus-neutralizing
activity in vitro…these mAbs block virus infection by an inhibition of the
intraendosomal acid-catalysed fusion step that leads to virus uncoating” and
thus to RNA transcription and virus multiplication.
31 Depending on the initial
conditions of the terrain and the dose/nature of the antibody, the change
induced by the antibodies may not affect the disease (and virus
multiplication), induce immunity or may lead to exacerbation of the disease.
Question 2: “What definition is used, again in the Public Health
system, to classify a person as being afflicted with AIDS”?
Answer: In your answer you state that
“Childhood AIDS is AIDS by
association. A child can be labelled with AIDS because the mother has
antibodies to HIV”.
Comment: In no country or continent, including Africa, is a child
said to have AIDS because the “mother has antibodies to HIV”. According to the
Bangui definition of AIDS in African children: “Paediatric AIDS is suspected in
an infant or child presenting with at least 2 of the following major signs associated
with at least 2 of the following minor signs in the absence of known cases of
immunosuppression such as cancer or severe malnutrition or other recognised
etiologies.
Major signs
(a) weight loss or
abnormally slow growth;
(b) chronic diarrhoea 1
month;
(c) prolonged fever 1
month.
Minor signs
(a) generalised
lymphadenopathy;
(b) oro-pharyngeal
candidiasis;
(c) repeated common
infections (otitis, pharyngitis, etc);
(d) persistent cough;
(e) generalised
dermatitis;
(f) confirmed maternal
LAV/HTLV-III infection”.
32
Question 3: “Of the people determined to have died of AIDS, what
“opportunistic disease” was identified as having been the immediate cause of
death?”
Answer: “Mr President, we would like to know how doctors know the
difference between:
1. pneumonia and AIDS
pneumonia?
2. tuberculosis and
AIDS tuberculosis?
3. intractable
diarrhoea and AIDS intractable diarrhoea?
4. meningitis and AIDS
meningitis?
5. generalised
septicemia and AIDS generalised septicemia?
6. wasting syndrome and
AIDS wasting syndrome?
7. Kaposi’s
sarcoma and AIDS Kaposi’s sarcoma?
8. cardiomyopathy and
AIDS cardiomyopathy?
9. multi-system failure
and AIDS multi-system failure?”
Comment: One does not answer a question with a series of questions.
If you wish to use this type of reasoning then you should ask a much more
fundamental and relevant (as far as the HIV hypothesis of AIDS is concerned)
question. Namely, how do doctors know the difference between a true and a false
positive HIV test in the individuals with the diseases you list, when for
example it is accepted by even well known HIV experts that at least 50% of AIDS
patients with mycobacterial diseases (such as TB) and their contacts have false
positive HIV antibody tests which would satisfy even the most stringent
criteria for a positive test?
2
Question 5: “Has any research been done on the health profiles on
the population where allegedly it has been found that there are large numbers
of “HIV positive people” (e.g. in KZN)?”.
Answer: In your answer you state
“We know of no study that shows
that AIDS is sexually transmitted”.
Comment: It is true that at present no study exists which proves
that AIDS is a bidirectionally sexually transmitted disease. However, it is
equally as true that at present there is ample theoretical, experimental and
epidemiological evidence which shows that AIDS and a positive “HIV” antibody
can be sexually ACQUIRED. We also have pointed out that if one has problems
understanding the theoretical evidence or, for one or another reason, cannot
read all the experimental and epidemiological data, then suffice to read the
numerous publications from:
1. The Multicenter AIDS Cohort study the largest, longest, best
designed and executed prospective study in gay men.
33-38
2. Nancy Padian’s study, the longest, largest study in heterosexuals
22,
39-42
to realise that:
(a) AIDS and a positive “HIV” test can be sexually acquired.
(b) The only sexual act, in both gay and heterosexual sex, which is
related to the appearance of AIDS and a positive antibody test is receptive
anal intercourse.
(c) The frequency of this practice, by either sex, and not the
number of partners (promiscuity) is the risk factor for the development of AIDS
and of a positive antibody test.
(d) It is not homosexuality per se but the sexual act “anal
intercourse may be practiced by a much larger absolute population of
heterosexuals than of homosexuals”
43 which is important. In other
words, AIDS and a positive antibody test, like pregnancy, can be sexually
acquired but not sexually transmitted. The difference is that while pregnancy
can be acquired by a single sexual intercourse, for AIDS to appear a very high
frequency of receptive anal intercourse over a long period is necessary. AIDS
is more like anal (Daling, 1987 #1346; Kondlapoodi, 1982 #1348) and cervical
cancer.(Reid, 1978 #1347) The effect is not the result of the act itself but its
high frequency. But, as with pregnancy and cervical and anal cancer, other
factors may promote or militate the development of AIDS.
There are several reasons why, unlike sexually acquired anal and
cervical cancer, AIDS became a separate disease. They include the following:
(i) The very high level of
sexual activity in a very small fraction of gay men. In 1989, Jad Adams, a
medical journalist wrote: “Looking at homosexual men with and without the
disease it looked clear that the AIDS patients were mainly those who had a
large number of sexual contacts (and ‘large’ often means twenty a week); those
who were receptive to anal intercourse and those who practised… brachioproctal
intercourse...For just over a decade it was possible for anyone, waiters and
diplomats and building workers, to enjoy orgies every night”.
In an interview Camille Paglia gave to Huw Christie in 1996 she
stated that in the 1960’s and 1970’s “gay men were pushing the limits of the
human body throughout that period…I have constantly said of the gay men of my
generation that they challenged Nature and lost. But I’m saying that is noble
and worthy. It’s like the great Romantics”.
44.
(ii) The same minority of gay
men who practised passive anal intercourse in high frequency were also exposed
to drugs, including nitrites. These drugs acting either alone or in synergism
with passive anal intercourse, may also have contributed to the appearance of
AIDS;
45-48
(iii) While anal and cervical cancer acquired through sexual
activity are dispersed through the world, the small minority of highly sexually
active gay men are localised in a small number of cities making it easier for
physicians to see the relationship between sexual activity and AIDS.
To claim that sexual activity, either alone or in combination with
drugs, plays no role in the acquisition of AIDS, especially in gay men, is not
only scientifically incorrect but, from a public health point of view,
dangerous.
Question 6: “Has any research
been done on ‘HIV positive’ infants, children and orphans with regard to their
health profiles, those of their mothers and families, as well as the lifestyles
and socio-economic circumstances of the mothers and families?”
Answer: “We would have phrased the question this way: Has any research shown that HIV positive infants, children and orphans live shorter or poorer quality lives as compared to HIV negative infants, children and orphans in the same community? In other words, do antibodies to HIV matter at all? To the best of my knowledge, this question has neither been asked nor answered in the mainstream scientific and medical literature”.
Comment: Children with “malaria,
tuberculosis or malnutrition” in communities where they are present in high
frequency will have “shorter and poorer quality lives” compared to the healthy
and well nourished children in the same community. It is also a fact that
malnutrition (weight loss), malaria and TB are associated with a higher rate of
positive “HIV” antibody tests
2, 49-51 Since a correlation exists between a disease
and shorter poorer lives and also between disease and a positive antibody test;
it follows that a correlation exists between a positive antibody test and
“shorter and poorer lives”.
Question 7: “On what do we base statistics we publish occasionally
on the incidence of HIV and AIDS, and how do we arrive at the projection?”
Answer: In your answer you state: “Since 1994, tuberculosis itself
has been considered an AIDS-indicating disease”.
Comment: Extrapulmonary TB has been considered an AIDS indicator
disease since September 1987, and pulmonary TB since January 1993.
Maybe we should conclude by reminding
ourselves of Plato’s advice: "...we are not simply contending in order
that my view or that of yours may prevail, but I presume we ought both of us to
be fighting for the truth..."
REBUTTAL from David Rasnick
RE: Rasnick and Geshekter reply to Perth Group
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000
Subject: Commentary on commentary
Hi All, Just a short commentary on a commentary on a commentary –
very Talmudic.
Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos,
Val Turner, John Papadimitriou, Helman Alphonso, David Causer, Barry Page
published an email commentary on the commentary that Charlie Geshekter and I
provided at the request of President Thabo Mbeki of South Africa last January.
Both Charlie and I stand by what we said. We just plain disagree on
technical details with the Perth Group. Technical debates are the heart and
soul of science. But what's going on in South Africa right now has precious
little to do with science.
AIDS is a sociological and political phenomenon – not science.
That's why Mbeki's idea of a scientific panel to investigate the questions of
AZT, HIV and AIDS is even more important than the actual panel itself. Just by
floating the idea of the panel has brought about media, journalistic, and
public discourse on these issues, albeit often shrill and ad hominem.
Mbeki and his staff, the journalists, the media, and especially the
people of the world need above all else simple, clear discourse on all things
AIDS. They don't need anyone, including Charlie and me, replacing the
ready-made answers of the HIV establishment with a new set of ready-made
answers from a new perspective.
Questions are far more
powerful than answers. That's why I choose to ask questions in the hope of
stimulating others to ask their own questions. An avalanche of questions from
people all over the world will bring down the Apartheid of AIDS.
The analyses and activities
of the Perth Group, Duesberg, Rethinking AIDS, Alive & Well, HEAL, ICMJ,
the few heroic journalists etc. are powerful catalysts that assist people in
formulating their own questions. It will be very satisfying to know that we
played some small role in stimulating an autocatalyzed flood of questioning
around the world.
Maybe someday soon there will
be a real scientific forum for debating the technical details of AIDS. At that
time I will be eager to participate in any and all discussions. But until that
happens, my energy and efforts are focused on supporting Mbeki's heroic efforts
to make it possible and perhaps even fashionable to ask simple questions about
all things AIDS.
That will be a Herculean task, but so was dismantling Apartheid
peacefully.
Dave.