PERTH GROUP COMMENTARY ON THE
AIDS Trap was written to
provide a dissident perspective in plain language for anyone
contemplating an HIV test. Perhaps a few individuals will take the
information and advice offered in this brochure at face value. However,
it is more likely most will discuss the content with their doctors. In
other words, either overtly or covertly, doctors will be made aware of
this document and respond to it when requested by their patients.
Others, like the doctors from AIDSTruth.org, may respond even when not
requested (although that would appear to contravene their house rules).
In this commentary we include responses we believe would be typical of
doctors questioned by their patients. The questions to be asked here
are: (i) will the brochure help patients in their decision making?
(ii) will any of the claims lead people to take actions which are
from The AIDS Trap and
the Press Release are in italics. Our comments follow in normal text.
Please cite this material
as: The Perth Group: Commentary on the Rethinking AIDS Trap brochure.
Rethinking AIDS Releases
New Brochure on AIDS Testing
release refers to a “New Brochure on AIDS Testing” yet addresses only
“HIV” testing. It does not define what is meant by “AIDS Testing” but
presumably this refers to laboratory procedures used to document immune
deficiency (AID = low T4 cells) or diagnostic methods for the AIDS
indicator diseases. As Brent Leung’s film discloses, many people are
confused about the terms “HIV” and “AIDS” and are not always able to
distinguish between them. The press release does not alleviate this
(Rethinking AIDS), May 23, 2009 —
The brochure outlines how tests for HIV (Human Immunodeficiency Virus)
or AIDS have no scientific basis and are useless as a diagnostic tool
determining who will get AIDS, and describes the dangers of coming up
positive on the tests.
By failing to
distinguish between testing for HIV and AIDS diseases the brochure
asserts there is no scientific basis for the diagnosis of AIDS indicator
diseases. This is incorrect. In regard to the “HIV” tests, (a) there
is a scientific basis for serological diagnosis; (b) the RA Board is
unaware of or denies the extensive data linking the presence of “HIV
antibodies”, whatever their genesis, to an increased probability of
developing certain diseases, known as the AIDS indicator diseases.
Especially in individuals who comprise the AIDS risk groups. It is
scientificnonsense to state the tests “are useless as a diagnostic tool
determining who will get AIDS”. Further on the brochure states “They
[the antibody tests] test to see if your blood has high levels of the
same proteins found at high levels in the blood of most early AIDS
patients”. Presumably “high levels of the same proteins” refers to
antibodies responsible for a positive ELISA and WB, although it could
also refer to hypergammaglobulinaemia, a typical laboratory feature of
HIV positive individuals. Either finding is abnormal and a sign of
actual or incipient illness. There are ample data this constitutes one
of the “dangers of coming up positive on the tests”.
The Board does
not appear to consider the merits of being tested and found to be HIV
is endorsed by the board of Rethinking AIDS, an association of more than
2,600 doctors, scientists, and other professionals.
does not divulge its authorship. David Crowe says the only names on the
brochure are those of the “editor and illustrator”, implying these two
individuals are responsible for its scientific content. But he also
says “I am in favour of accepting suggestions for changes to the
brochure at any time, and Martin [Barnes] has been very flexible on this
point too. Obviously we may decide that non-critical changes are not
made immediately or not at all”. In other words, he (?the RA Board)
decides the content of this brochure.
In an email to
David Crowe, Celia Farber asked “David, I have a short question: I seem
to recall the brochure being circulated ages ago, possibly months ago,
with invitations to critical feedback. Did that happen or am I
remembering it wrong?”
We did not see
a reply but in a subsequent email to Torsten Engelbrecht Celia Farber
wrote: “Are you certain that PG [the Perth Group] was not given the
copy when everybody else received it”. Nobody asked the Perth Group for
“critical feedback” in regard to this brochure. Perhaps because, as
Celia says, on each subject the Board of RA wants to have the view of
the most “pre-eminent experts”. We discovered the brochure only by
accident and the only time David Crowe asked for our view was after our
last email to him where we said we intend putting a disclaimer to it on
who wrote or endorsed it, the inference is that the brochure has the imprimaturof
“2,600 doctors, scientists and other professionals”. Perhaps the Board
did seek the views of some of these individuals but it certainly was not
all. It seems most unlikely that “2,600 doctors, scientists and other
professionals” would accept the content of this document.
We want you to
know a few facts before you take what’s called an HIV test. Facts that
doctors, nurses, lab technicians, and clinic staff probably won’t tell
technicians, non-medical and non-nursing “Clinic staff” do not consult
result on an HIV antibody test does not mean you have or will get AIDS!
with a positive test “have or will get AIDS!”
the tests DON’T test for a virus.
The most common tests used -- the ELISA and the Western Blot -- are
called antibody tests. They do not test to see if you have HIV. They
test to see if your blood has high levels of the same proteins found at
high levels in the blood of most early AIDS patients. These are thought
to be “antibodies,” that is, footprints of a virus in your immune system
but not the virus itself.
Who or what
are “early AIDS patients”?
present in the patient sera which are detected by the antibody tests are
not just “thought to be “antibodies”“. By definition these proteins are
antibodies. The HIV experts will reply the tests DO test for a virus.
They DO test to see if you have HIV. It is true that HIV antibody tests
are indirect. Like dozens of other serological tests used in clinical
practice. For example, those for syphilis, glandular fever,
brucellosis, streptococcal infections and influenza. Any doctor will
explain there is nothing unusual or mistaken using indirect tests. An
X-ray is an indirect test for pneumonia. An electrocardiogram is an
indirect test for a heart attack. A Doppler ultrasound is an indirect
test for a blood clot in a leg vein. Serological tests are based on the
fact the immune system produces antibodies as a result of infections.
Does the RA Board regard serological diagnoses as invalid?
Although correct, the repeated reference to antibodies as proteins is
confusing because of the need to distinguish between the proteins
(antigens) present in the test kits and the antibodies in patient sera,
with which the antigens react.
is, the proteins on the test are also found in people who are or have
been pregnant, or have had vaccines (like flu shots) or blood
transfusions, used street drugs, or have had infections like herpes,
chicken pox and measles. Just having any of these can make you test
lacks clarity. What is meant by “the proteins on the test”? Are these
the (a) the proteins in the test kit; (b) antibodies in patient sera
that react with these antigens; (c) the chemically combined
antigen/antibodies present in the ELISA or those that constitute the
Western blot bands?
no test is perfect. Antibody or otherwise. In this regard the brochure
does not state anything new.
This is a view
shared by the pre-eminent member of the RA Board, Peter Duesberg: “I
think there’s a certain inconsistency on the part of those who so
passionately argue that HIV doesn’t exist, because the same people base
much of their arguments on the fact that the antibody tests are not
reliable. Well, the fact that the antibody tests are not reliable means
that there are antibody tests, and there’s an antigen [HIV]. Antibody
tests do nothing 100 percent reliably; but by acknowledging that
they’re not reliable, they’re acknowledging that an antigen [HIV]
exists, and the test exists. The test is not completely random. It’s
not 100 percent reliable, which most antibody tests aren’t”. (We have
always maintained that nobody has proven the existence of the “HIV
antigen”: that the proteins in the test kits (antigens) are cellular
proteins and the antibodies are either directed against these proteins
(auto-antibodies) or other antibodies which cross-react with them). Any
doctor will confirm that antibody tests are “not 100 percent reliable”
but will also add that they are routinely used in medical practice and
are clinically useful. This is one of the reasons why the antibody
tests cannot be used to argue against the “HIV” theory of AIDS. If
there is “HIV”, then there are “HIV” antibodies, and there are “HIV”
It is true
that a positive antibody test can be found in people who “have had
vaccines (like flu shots) or blood transfusions, used street drugs, or
have had infections like herpes, chicken pox and measles”. If there is
a virus, even if it is a passenger virus, there must be antibodies. The
question is, how do you know in the above people which tests are false
and which are true? In which street drug users and transfused people is
the test false and in which is it true?
Test results are open to interpretation depending on the lab, clinic, or
country in which you test. For example, the same test result could be
read positive in New York but negative in Canada. Partly because of
this, Canada has ten times fewer per capita AIDS cases than the U.S.
wrong. A negative Western blot is zero bands. A test that lacks
sufficient bands to be positive under one jurisdiction may be
indeterminate, that is, not positive but not negative, under another.
To compare the Canada versus US
AIDS prevalence, even “Partly” in this manner, is facile. The
difference in the per
capita AIDS cases between
the US and Canada may be the result of many other more significant
factors, including the definition of an AIDS case.
because HIV tests don’t show a definite positive or negative result—only
something in between—they are interpreted. When you fill out that form
that asks you if you are black, hispanic or gay you are giving out
information that will make it more likely than if you were white or
heterosexual for a lab to interpret your test as positive. Unfair? You
bet it is!
don’t show a definite positive or negative result” applies only to the
ELISA. By its nature the reading in an ELISA can never be zero
(negative). This is no different than counting a sample for
radioactivity. The count can never be zero (negative). That is why one
has to take into consideration the background reading and make other
adjustments before the ELISA is introduced into clinical practice. This
fact is well known to the “HIV” experts and they always perform the
necessary corrections. Otherwise everybody will be HIV positive.
It is not true
to say “HIV tests don’t show a definite positive or negative result”.
Many, in fact probably most tests are clearcut positive or negative.
Laboratory tests are invariably interpreted in light of clinical data.
Since no test is 100% specific there will always be false positives.
However, the probability that a positive test is due to infection, that
is, its positive predictive value, depends on the prevalence of
infection in the group represented by the individual being tested. The
higher the prevalence the higher the predictive value. There is nothing
“Unfair” about this. It is a mathematical fact and how Medicine should
be and is practised. If nothing else, this statement illustrates the RA
Board’s woeful lack of knowledge in regard to the scientific principles
underlying the interpretation of diagnostic tests. It is also
noteworthy that if, on the basis of an antibody test and clinical data,
including prevalence, the doctor is unable to arrive at a definite
conclusion, he will order a PCR test as an ancillary test to sort out
the “HIV” status.
Load” tests don’t work either. “Viral
load” tests use a technique called PCR to find and multiply small chains
of genetic code in your blood that are supposed to show the presence and
amount of HIV. However, finding a chain does not mean they have found a
It is true the
PCR does not detect full length genomes. However, a doctor will explain
you do not need to detect more than a part of HIV to detect HIV. He
will argue that a sufficiently distinctive part allows identification of
the whole. He will tell his patient a skilled anatomist can tell a
skeleton is human by examining just a few bones, and possibly only one
bone. That even amateur art lovers can identify a painting from a
fragment. Who cannot recognise Beethoven’s 5th symphony
from just four notes? Who doesn’t know which make of car’s emblem is a
three pointed star?
could also point out that many full length HIV genomes are recorded in
the Los Alamos Laboratory database. So will Peter Duesberg. Once one
accepts the existence of “HIV” one has no choice but to also accept that
the finding of a small bit of “HIV” signifies “HIV” infection. The
“small chains” of the HIV genome cannot get into human bodies of their
own accord. A small chain must have been the result of infection with a
replication competent virus particle. That is, one that contains the
complete viral genome. Furthermore, “small chains” of the “HIV” genome
cannot be remnants of past infection. All retrovirologists agree that
once infected with a retrovirus, always infected. In fact they claim
that this is the reason they are unable to cure HIV infection. Because
the “HIV” genome persists in the patient’s DNA.
The doctor may
also say that if the patient’s T4 cell count is low that proves the
patient is not infected with “bits” of HIV because only the whole virus,
either directly or indirectly, kills the T4 cells.
No one even
has a theory of how HIV could possibly kill enough T-cells (in your
immune system) to cause AIDS.
“No one even has a theory of how HIV could possibly kill enough T-cells” is
not an assertion HIV does not kill T-cells. There are many theories as
to how HIV kills T4 cells and the HIV experts are the first to admit
none is fully satisfactory. Nonetheless, according to them, HIV
definitely does result in the death of the T4 cells, maybe directly or
most probably indirectly, although the exact mechanism is not known.
There are other infectious agents which are accepted to induce their
effects indirectly. The bacteria that cause tetanus and diphtheria act
indirectly, by releasing toxins that travel to different parts of the
body where they exert their pathological effects. Rheumatic fever is
caused by infection with a bacterium known as Group A Streptococcus.
The lesions in the joints and heart that characterise this condition are
caused by “an autoimmune reaction…which leads to damage to human tissues
as a result of cross-reactivity between epitopes on the organism and the
host” (Harrison’s Principles of Internal Medicine, 17th edition).
The argument put forward in The
AIDS Trap is that because
we do not know “how HIV could possibly kill enough T-cells”, the virus
is not the cause of AIDS. This is a very weak argument against the HIV
theory of AIDS, an argument which no scientist or medically qualified
person would consider valid. There are many theories as to how
cigarette smoking and radiation cause cancer. None has been proven
correct. Would members of the RA Board tell patients cigarette smoking
and radiation do not cause cancer?
proven that “viral load” tests are useless in predicting who will get
This claim is
most probably based on findings published by Rodriguez et
al from the Case Western
Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio. In Jon Cohen’s commentary in Science on
these findings we read: “…the researchers report that groups of people
with higher viral loads lost more CD4 cells each year. But on an
individual basis, viral load accurately predicted a person’s CD4 decline
just 4% to 6% of the time. “It really nicely illustrates that when you
look at cohorts and find a general phenomenon-yeah, virus is high and
CD4 is low-it can be very, very poorly accountable when you look at
individuals,” says immunologist Anthony Fauci”.
no one can predict what will happen to a particular individual on the
basis of viral load levels. The same applies to the level of a person’s
blood pressure. Would an RA Board member rather have a blood pressure
of 150/110 or a blood pressure of 280/150? After all, not all the
latter will have a stroke and many strokes occur at lesser blood
pressure levels. What doctor would advise his patients against having
blood pressure measurements or taking medication to lower blood
probably be told to start taking AIDS drugs right away. These drugs
could have side effects like anemia so serious that your life will rely
on regular transfusions. You may have liver failure, rotting bones, loss
of most of the skin on your body, a heart attack, and/or serious changes
in your body’s shape because of fat deposits.
drugs”, those used to treat AIDS indicator diseases, are the same drugs
used to treat the same diseases if the patient is HIV negative. Is the
RA Board suggesting that patients with tuberculosis or PCP do not take
the conventional antimicrobials recommended and proven effective for the
treatment of these disorders? Even though such advice may result in
If by “AIDS
drugs” the RA Board means antiretroviral drugs (ARVs) including HAART,
then all drugs have a benefit/risk ratio. Anti-cancer chemotherapy is a
well known and appreciated example. Although benefit/risk ratio for
ARVs has not been documented in randomised, double blind, placebo
controlled trials they (a) do not invariably cause serious toxicities;
(b) may benefit certain individuals, sometimes dramatically. (Our view
there is no proof for the existence of “HIV” does not preclude
beneficial effects of these drugs. Drugs have many effects, ARVs
included. Our view merely means beneficial effects, if any, must result
from non-retroviral mechanisms. We have published our reasons for the
latter). Even if “HIV” exists, we and Anthony Brink have shown that at
least two ARVs cannot have an antiretroviral effect. And, unlike the
Board of Rethinking AIDS,
Montagnier agrees with us (see below)—the unphosphorylated pro-drug AZT
is not sufficiently triphosphorylated into the active compound
(although, as usual, he does not credit our publication of this fact).
Hence, at least in regard to AZT, we are correct.
must have some treatment. If the RA Board is advising patients not to
take such drugs what alternative are they offering?
medicines have never cured anyone. They do not prolong life.
To what does
“never cured” refer? “HIV” or AIDS indicator diseases? If “HIV” then
the brochure is not saying anything new. HIV experts freely admit that
once infected, always infected. There is no drug and none will be
found, capable of curing “HIV”.
If by “The
AIDS medicines have never cured anyone” is meant AIDS diseases;
medicines, the antifungal and antibacterial drugs which have been proven
effective long before the AIDS era?
diseases, the acute or chronic?
would the RA Board advise a person diagnosed with PCP not to be treated
with, for example, Septrin? What is the RA alternative?
does not list any recommendations for treating or preventing AIDS. The
RA Board has completely ignored our predictions. Even those proven by
the HIV experts themselves in this regard.
Let us repeat
these predictions for those not familiar with them.
In the 10th July
1986 re-submission letter to Nature regarding
her paper Reappraisal of
AIDS : Is the oxidation induced by the risk factors the primary cause? (ultimately
published inMedical Hypotheses), EPE wrote: “If my paper does
nothing other than draw attention to the oxidative nature of the risk
factors and its biological importance, then it offers what is so far the
only hope of treatment which will arrest and reverse the otherwise
invariable fatal course of the disease. In my opinion this alone would
more than justify its publication”.
In 1989 we
recommended the following combination therapy [protocol, according to
the reviewer] for KS in AIDS therapy.
“1. Cessation of nitrites intake and anally deposited sperm. The
presently observed longer survival of AIDS patients with KS may be due
to change in lifestyle.
radiotherapy or hyperthermia.
of antioxidants and in particular sulphydryl compounds which are known
to correct immune deficiencies, to inhibit the toxic effects induced by
radiation in normal tissue thus permitting a more radical local
irradiation, and also to augment the effects of hyperthermia”.
(Radiation was introduced for the sake of publication.)
At least one
oncologist took notice.
I hope you
will forgive me for bothering you but I have been intrigued by a
hypothesis that you had published in the International Journal of
Radiation Oncology Biology and Physics, Vol. 17, pp. 695-698, 1989.
Perhaps you have seen my name as I wrote the chapter about AIDS in the 6th Edition
of Radiation Oncology by Moss and Cox. In any case, I am now preparing
an update for the 7th Edition
and I intend to reference your hypothesis”.
his associates were the first to publish evidence that cessation of
exposure to semen, including anally deposited semen, reverses a positive
antibody test and leads to the normalisation of the T4 cell count. This
was followed by reports from the MACS and other studies in gay men.
(Although no reasons are given by the MACS authors is does not stretch
credibility to assume such individuals altered their lifestyle.)
In 1989 Eck
proved our prediction that AIDS patients and those at risk will be
oxidised. To date, the best support of our 1988 claim that AIDS can be
prevented and treated by using “currently available therapeutic
[antioxidants in general and SH-containing in particular] substances”
has been published by researchers from Stanford University. However,
although they most probably were aware of our work (because we sent them
our publications) where we identify the oxidising agents to which the
AIDS risk groups are exposed, including malnutrition, they wrote:
“HIV-infected individuals would be better served if we could identify
the mechanism that underlines the GSH depletion and intervene, if
possible, to prevent its occurrence”. The best advice they could give
in this regard was: “it may be prudent for those individuals to avoid
excessive exposure to UV irradiation and unnecessary use of drugs that
can deplete GSH – eg. Alcohol and prescription or over-the-counter
formulations containing acetaminophen [paracetamol]”.
Nowadays we all know (except the members of the RA Board) that
Montagnier is the pre-eminent apologist of our oxidative theory of AIDS
and advocates that AIDS patients be treated with antioxidants. This is
despite the fact, obvious in his last book, that he has a questionable
understanding of the topic. We also know Montagnier advises the same
patients be treated at the same time with anti-retrovirals, which he
admits may be oxidising!
responding to a question regarding EPE’s AIDS theory and antioxidants,
Gallo stated, “They can help; but they are not a cure”.
according to all the HIV experts, are the anti-retrovirals a cure. The
difference is that to date billions of dollars have been spent trying to
find the most effective ARV drugs, mode of administration and
advantageous combinations. However, perhaps with one exception, the
Herzenberg study, not a penny has been spent on research into or
clinical trials on the use of antioxidant compounds for the treatment of
It is true
that many people treat AIDS patients and those at risk of AIDS with
of them do not realise the best known “antioxidants” may not be
far back of 1982 EPE showed that biological function is a non-linear.
It appears that nobody in the AIDS field, including those who treat
patients with AIDS, are aware of this. We have no doubt that if the
Herzenberg study had taken this fact into consideration the results may
have been considerably improved.
are absolutely necessary to treat AIDS indicator diseases and
“supplements” to correct proven deficiencies. Lasting health can be
obtained only by diet (with very little adjustment a diet can be turned
from an oxidising to reducing), avoidance of stress and by cessation of
exposure to disease risk factors.
positive on a HIV test is a threat to life itself. It is your right to
refuse an HIV test.
We assume the
RA Board is asserting that mere knowledge of having a positive antibody
test poses a threat to life—akin to the traditional Australian
aboriginal custom of pointing the bone. Or, as Peter Duesberg argues,
knowing one is HIV positive is ipso
toxic. No one, including AIDS physicians, would dispute this
assertion. Since (a) the brochure asserts, “A positive result on an HIV
antibody test may (but not always) mean your immune system has been
injured by repeated infections, heavy drug use, or inadequate rest or
nutrition”; (b) “This could be a wake-up call to change the way you’re
living”, are these not excellent reasons for having an HIV test? How
does one get a “wake-up call” without the alarm clock? Especially
someone in an AIDS risk group who is symptomatic? Isn’t it dangerous to
advise a person to forgo such a test? Yet the RA Board offers the
contradictory “It is your right to refuse an HIV test”. In fact two of
the most prominent scientists of the RA Board contradict each other
regarding the meaning of the test.
In his essay:
“Can We Learn from Parenzee?” Henry Bauer says there were many problems
in the Perth Group testimony which led to the loss of the case.
Unbelievably, one of them was our alleged inability to provide an
alternative theory of AIDS and of the meaning of the antibody tests.
(Perhaps Henry Bauer has forgotten the many email exchanges he had with
us when he first encountered the dissident movement).
He wrote: “If
there is indeed the need to present an alternative theory, I point
without false modesty to the conclusions reached from my collation of
positive HIV-test is an entirely non-specific indication
of a reversible stimulation
of the immune system (a stimulation that remains to be fully understood,
but which quite possibly reflects oxidative stress, as the Perth Group
likelihood that a given stimulation of the immune system will produce an
“HIV-positive” response is mediated by an individual’s age, sex, and
race” (emphasis in original).
according to Peter Duesberg, the antibody tests detect HIV antibodies.
Indeed, if there is a virus, and it infects humans, albeit being
“harmless”, antibodies must also exist. Which means for Henry Bauer to
convince Peter Duesberg or a jury that the test detects “stimulation”,
we must first prove there are no such things as “HIV” antibodies, that
is, HIV. (In his latest paper Henry Bauer now claims the antibody tests
detect “HIV” antibodies and in fact the antibodies neutralise “HIV” and
make it a harmless “passenger virus”.)
If a patient
asks the RA Board for advice what is he going to be told? The test
measures non-specific stimulation of the immune system? Or “HIV”
antibodies? Who decides? Henry Bauer or Peter Duesberg? Or both? If
it’s a harmless retrovirus the patient may well ask why people with
antibodies to this harmless retrovirus face an increased risk of dying.
He will ask the same question if the mechanism is non-specific immune
stimulation unrelated to a retroviral infection. Whatever the advice,
how will it help him?
winner Kary Mullis has been asking publicly for years to see scientific
references that AIDS is caused by the virus HIV. So far (2009) no one
has provided this proof. The epidemiological evidence of “testing HIV
positive” correlating with AIDS cases is simply not there.
contradictory statements in the brochure. On the one hand it is said,
“The epidemiological evidence of “testing HIV positive” correlating with
AIDS cases is simply not there” and on the other that the antibodies are
“found at high levels in the blood of most early AIDS patients”.
In 1989 Peter
Duesberg wrote: “The epidemiological correlation between these
antibodies [HIV antibodies] and AIDS is the primary basis for the
hypothesis that AIDS is caused by this virus…and antibodies to HIV
became part of the definition of AIDS”. The quote is taken from a paper
entitled “Human Immunodeficiency virus and acquired immunodeficiency
not causation” published in the Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences (emphasis
This is tragic
because thousands are suffering from the horror of being classified “HIV
will not change this. Doctors will have no problem responding to
questions patients ask after reading this brochure. Those who decide to
be tested and are HIV positive will suffer but so will those who have to
decide whether their doctors or the RA Board are correct about testing.
Those who decide not to be tested will worry about their decision. Not
being tested may prove more psychologically toxic than being tested.
After all, being tested is the only way a patient can find out if he or
she is HIV negative. There are many thousands who can avoid the
“suffering from the horror of being classified “HIV positive”“ by
testing HIV negative. On the other hand, the only way to avoid the
“suffering from the horror of being classified “HIV positive”“ is to
prove there is no evidence a retrovirus HIV exists.
of liberating those who have tested positive from an unthinking and
uncaring medical system has not yet been widely accepted.
Many if not
all health care professionals will be highly and rightly indignant being
cast as “unthinking and uncaring”. This statement is inconceivably
ignorant and serves no good purpose for anyone.
If the RA
Board believe in liberating “those who have tested positive from an
unthinking and uncaring medical system” what form will this liberation
take? What alternative will the RA Board provide? If a patient with
PCP takes the advice not to consult an “unthinking and uncaring” doctor
and goes to the Directors of the RA Board for help, what help will be
offered? Ironically, it is dissidents with HIV or AIDS who will be most
troubled by this brochure. If they do not consult a doctor from the
“unthinking and uncaring medical system” they risk not being diagnosed
or dying. However, if they do consult this doctor they may well feel
they are guilty of betraying the dissident movement.
Jane Scovill died Celia Farber wrote asking us for help. We responded
immediately that we would be delighted to do so. In our email we
strongly advised her to “obtain the services of a local paediatric
pathologist. Preferably a forensic paediatric pathologist. We are
going to try and find a name or two from another colleague in Perth”.
She responded she had a pathologist. “Our pathologist is an expert in
forensics and works frequently in paediatric cases but even still, if
John [Papadimitriou] is willing, I would love another go over just to be
sure”. We asked her to send us the autopsy reports and the WB results
and any other tests which were used to prove that Eliza was infected
with HIV. We wrote 3 questions regarding the WB and asked Christine to
give them to the attorney to pass on to the coroner. She sent us the
autopsy findings and John wrote a report based on these findings which
satisfied her requirement “I want to be sure the report absolutely and
without question stands up to challenge and scrutiny”. Based on the
data Christine sent us John concluded the cause of death could not be
We were not
given any WB results or answers to our questions. After numerous emails
(10-15) Christine told us that her pathologist’s name was Mohammed
Al-Bayati and she had a few other people helping her as well, including
Rodney Richards and “David Crowe is assisting the pathologist by
proofing and editing his report [the pathologist’s]. Todd Miller is
assisting David with a second look at the proofing and editing”. (For
what possible reason would a pathologist require the assistance of
laymen in the preparation of his report?). In a subsequent email she
said that the “reason” she had David Crowe was “to check for typos”.
(Please note: In one of the first emails he sent us defending his
interference in the Parenzee case, David Crowe said he did not interfere
but “I’d call out the comments, and return them to him [Defence Lawyer
Kevin Borick] in a cohesive document, performing whatever editing was
necessary because many scientists make spelling and pronunciation
errors”.) We did not know Al-Bayati and at the time knew very little
about Rodney Richards. And at this very same time we were in the
aftermath of Harvey Bialy’s (whom we do know) involvement in the
Presidential AIDS panel pre-absorption experiments. We pointed out to
Christine Maggiore that “too many cooks spoil the broth”. In the
meantime we were assembling evidence to show that no matter what the WB
results were, the test did not prove infection. Unfortunately Christine
never sent us the test results. The only thing we heard about the case
subsequently was an email Christine sent to an undisclosed list, which
included us, stating:
independent pathologist’s report on my daughter’s case—completed on
October 25 and subjected to many rounds of attempted hole shooting by a
variety of experts—is now posted for public review and comment at
for your support throughout these dark, dark days”.
Later we read
Al-Bayati’s and Andrew Maniotis’ reports and realised there were
significant differences between their reports and John’s. There was no
mention of questioning whether Eliza was infected with “HIV”, a
condition necessary to claim Eliza died from AIDS. We were disappointed
that at the end Christine chose to decline our help but in no way blame
her. She was in a very stressful situation and had the unenviable task
of deciding which advice would prove most beneficial in her
We are told
that AIDS is spread by sex and body fluids, but this has never been
shown by experiment…The idea that AIDS could be spread by sex to
everyone was politically motivated and has since been shown to be wrong.
Hysteria about sex has contributed to misinformation about AIDS.
remotely familiar with the scientific literature and epidemiology of
AIDS will know there is an association between sex and AIDS. A summary
and interpretation of the evidence can be found in our publications.
The best explanation can be found in our evidence in chief and
cross-examination in the Parenzee hearing. Unfortunately, David Crowe
declined to buy these particular court transcripts although he was
specifically asked to by the person who donated most of the money for
this purpose. Reading towards the end of the last two emails we sent
David Crowe on the Perth Group and the Parenzee hearing are sufficient
to realise that the available evidence shows that “sex and body fluids”
play a proven role in the development of AIDS. In fact gay men did not
need us or any other scientist to tell them the health problems they
first encountered in the late 1970s were related to sex and drugs.
Let us take
yet another look at some of the evidence. In the above mentioned paper,
published by Peter Duesberg in the Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences in
1989, he wrote: “Although HIV does not appear to cause AIDS, it may
serve in the U.S. and Europe as a surrogate marker for the risk of AIDS
for the following reasons…Indeed, the probability of being
antibody-positive correlates directly with the frequency of drug use,
transfusions, and male homosexual activity.” One year later in the same
journal Peter Duesberg wrote: “A consistent alternative explanation for
the high prevalence of antibody to HIV (and other microbes) in AIDS risk
groups and AIDS patients proposes that HIV is a marker for American AIDS
risks. The probability of becoming HIV antibody-positive correlates
directly with the frequency of injecting unsterile drugs with the
frequency of transfusions, and with promiscuity. However, in America,
only promiscuity aided by aphrodisiac and psychoactive drugs, practiced
mostly by 20- to 40-year-old male homosexuals and some heterosexuals,
seems to correlate with AIDS diseases.” So, in contradiction to The
AIDS Trap, according to Peter Duesberg, a correlation does exist
between AIDS, HIV and sexual promiscuity.
above correlation and the fact we all agree HIV (either because it has
not been proven to exist or because it is a harmless passenger virus),
is not the cause of AIDS, it follows some other factor(s) associated
with sexual promiscuity must be the cause. Below we cite some of the
published evidence in regard to the association between sex, a positive
antibody test and AIDS. However, before doing so it will be helpful to
emphasise a seminal fact in regard to STDs. All sexually transmitted
diseases are bidirectionally transmitted. That is, from active (semen
donating) partners (gay and heterosexual men) to passive (semen
accepting) partners (gay men, heterosexual women) and vice
evidence that addresses having or acquiring a positive antibody test or
AIDS is epidemiological. There are no studies where the presence of
“HIV” is first documented in the genital or rectal secretions of a
series of index cases from whence it is transmitted to uninfected sexual
partners. Rather than perform this basic, unambiguous, definitive
experiment, HIV experts rely on epidemiologists performing mostly
cross-sectional analyses on certain groups of individuals and
documenting risk factors for the presence of a positive antibody test or
AIDS. However, cross-sectional analyses cannot prove sexual
transmission of a virus because (a) infection has already occurred and;
(b) HIV experts accept there are non-sexual modes of “HIV”
transmission. Hence epidemiologists have also performed a few
longitudinal studies where risk factors are assessed for individuals who
seroconvert during the course of the study. HIV experts claim such
studies demonstrate bidirectional transmission of HIV but in our view
there is no such proof in any such study of gay or heterosexual sex. We
challenge anyone on any side of this debate to produce even one such
study. Significantly, over all the weeks of testimony at the Parenzee
hearing, not one HIV expert witness, including an expert in HIV
epidemiology, could produce evidence which proved transmission from the
passive to the active partner. The same expert has not produced such a
study subsequent to the hearing despite specific and repeated requests
to do so.
As far as we
know the first epidemiological study which reported the relationship
between sexual activity and Kaposis’ sarcoma, one of the first AIDS
indicator diseases, was published by Marmor, Friedman-Kien and their
associates. In Lancet in
May 1982 they reported: “The distributions of the number of different
sex partners per month in different time periods before disease showed
that patients were more promiscuous than controls. 50% of patients
reported having sex with 10 or more different partners during an average
month in the year before onset of disease, compared with 17% of
controls. Some reported extreme levels of sexual activity: the most
promiscuous patient estimated that he had had sexual intercourse with an
average of 90 different partners per month in the year preceding
disease…The initial models, constructed to test our primary hypotheses
of (1) infection through sexual activity and (2) a carcinogenic effect
of amyl nitrite exposure, indicated statistically significant effects of
each of these variables after adjustment for the effects of the other.”
updated paper published in 1984 they concluded: “Many sexual behaviours
listed as risk factors in Table 4 were highly correlated with one
another, with nitrite use or with cytomegalovirus antibody titers.
Therefore, multiple logistic regression analysis of this data set,
including sexual activities, nitrite use, cytomegalovirus antibody
titers, and additional variables describing lifetime incidence of
amebiasis, giardiasis, gonnorhea, and syphilis, were done to determine
which variables were statistically independent in their associations
with disease. Stepwise logistic regression analysis indicated that the
number of partners per month in receptive anal-genital intercourse with
ejaculation, the number of occasions of “fisting”, and cytomegalovirus
antibody titers were the only independent and statistically significant
variables for discriminating patients from controls”. Hence this early
study established a correlation between exposure of the passive partner
to semen and disease.
In the same
year, 1984, Gallo reported “of eight different sex acts, seropositivity
correlated only with receptive anal intercourse…and with manual
stimulation of the subject’s rectum…and was inversely correlated with
insertive anal intercourse”. It goes without saying that an inverse
relationship is completely at odds with the existence of a sexually
In 1986 Gallo
wrote: “Data from this and previous studies have shown that receptive
rectal intercourse…is an important risk factor for HTLV-III infection [a
positive antibody test]…We found no evidence that other forms of sexual
activity contributed to the risk”.
Caceres reviewed more than 20 studies conducted in gay men and concluded
“the cited reports yield convincing evidence that unprotected anogenital
receptive intercourse poses the highest risk for the sexual acquisition
of HIV-1 infection…there is mounting epidemiological evidence for a
small risk attached to orogenital receptive sex, biologic plausibility,
credible case reports and some studies show a modest risk, detectable
only with powerful designs;…no or no consistent risk of the acquisition
of HIV-1 infection has been reported regarding insertive intercourse and
The authors of
the largest, longest, best designed and executed prospective study in
gay men, the Multicenter AIDS Cohort study (MACS), showed that
“receptive anal intercourse was the ONLY sexual practice shown to be
independently associated with an increased risk of seroconversion to HIV
in this study”, and went one step further and found that “…greater
sexual activity [receptive anal intercourse] following establishment of
HIV-1 infection leads to exposure to promoters or co-factors that
augment (or DETERMINE) the rate of progression to AIDS” (emphasis
added). This finding is at odds with the general accepted view that a
person needs to be infected only once with a microorganism in order to
develop an illness or die from that illness. However, these data are
entirely consistent with semen or a non-infectious component being the
To date there
have been only two longitudinal studies in heterosexuals: Nancy
Padian’s in the USA and the European Study Group published by de
Vincenzi and her colleagues. Both studies had cross-sectional and
In their cross-sectional studies de Vincenzi reported that sexual
practices “other than anal intercourse...were not associated with
infection of the partner”.
In their four
year prospective study the authors of the European Group claimed 4 men
and 8 women became infected by having sex with the seropositive
partner. Stuart Brody questioned their conclusion pointing out that “The
problem of subjects’ lying (often euphemistically termed
“social desirability responding”) about engaging in anal intercourse
and intravenous drug use plagues most studies of behavioral
risk factors for the transmission of HIV, and the study
by de Vincenzi and colleagues is no exception. How was the
absence of homosexual contact verified? How was the absence of
anal intercourse among the women verified? If only 4 menand 6 women
among the 121 couples inconsistently using condoms lied
when they denied engaging in anal intercourse (or misreported the
facts for other reasons), there would be no cases attributable to
vaginal intercourse without a condom. At least this much lying
should be expected. Before vaginal and anal intercourse are assigned
of risk and condoms given the credit for saving lives, the
alternative explanation that the disease is spread almost exclusively
by anal and intravenous transmission must be more rigorously
examined. Other investigators found that HIV infection in women
was related to anal intercourse (especially among partners of bisexual
men) and the number of exposures to the index patient, but not to condom
use or the total number of sexual partners.3”. Ref.3 is Padian’s 1987
paper of male to female transmission.
Stuart Brody, de Vincenzi wrote: “We agree with Dr Brody that our
prospective analysis lacks statistical power to show an increased risk
associated with anal intercourse. [That is, they could not exclude the
possibility that the positive antibody tests were the result of anal and
not vaginal intercourse.] Indeed, we found such an association in the
cross-sectional analysis. However, from a public health point of view,
no one should state that there is no risk of HIV transmission through
vaginal sex, since the vast majority of cases of AIDS throughout the
world are acquired in this manner”. It is significant that de
Vincenzi admitted her evidence did not prove that HIV is transmitted by
penile-vaginal intercourse. Neither did she cite evidence to prove her
claim “the vast majority of cases of AIDS throughout the world are
acquired” by penile-vaginal transmission.
In the Padian
cross-sectional study, in regard to the risk factors of male-to-female
transmission, Padian wrote: “The total number of exposures to the index
case (sexual contact with ejaculation) and the specific practice of anal
intercourse...were associated with transmission...Anal intercourse
significantly discriminated between seronegative and seropositive
Also, in this
cross-sectional arm she reported two HIV positive male partners of
infected women. However Padian questioned the validity of both cases
and concluded: “That is, it is possible that the discrepancy between
the efficacy of male-to-female compared to female-to-male transmission
in this study could be even greater”. In fact the discrepancy could be
infinitely great because there could be zero female-to-male
transmissions. She also added: “Of course, because we are relying on
risk factors, the same caveats apply to classification of male-to-female
cases of transmission as well”. These remarks do not sound like a
scientist who is convinced “the evidence for the sexual transmission of
HIV is well documented, conclusive, and based on the standard,
uncontroversial methods and practices of medical science”, as she claims
As is well
known, in the prospective part of her study Padian did not count even
one person who developed a positive antibody test. In a commentary
published at AIDSTruth Padian claimed that her study, which began in
1987, was not designed to prove HIV transmission but to examine the
effects of “behavioral interventions” on the transmission of HIV.
However, when Padian first announced her ongoing study at the 1988
Amsterdam International AIDS Conference, she did not describe it in
terms of “behavioral interventions”.
examine the efficiency of heterosexual transmission of HIV [emphasis
ours] and associated risk factors. Methods:
We enrolled the opposite sex partners of individuals infected with HIV
or diagnosed with AIDS or ARC throughout California. Participants were
interviewed about their sexual practices and medical history;
Laboratory tests for HIV and other co-factors were conducted, as were
physical examinations…Results:…in multivariate analysis, only the
practice of anal intercourse (p-.003) and non-white race (p-.013) were
significantly associated with infection…We have also enrolled male
partners of infected women. In spite of reported unprotected sexual
intercourse (median number of sexual contacts = 399) none of the twenty
male partners were infected”.
There is no
mention of “behavioural interventions” and, while at AIDSTruth Padian
states “That we witnessed no HIV transmissions after the intervention
documents the success of the interventions in preventing the sexual
transmission of HIV”, in her 1997 paper she wrote, “Nevertheless, the
absence of seroincident infection over the course of the study cannot be
entirely attributed to significant behavior change. No transmission
occurred among the 25 percent of couples who did not use condoms
consistently at their last follow-up nor among the 47 couples who
intermittently practiced unsafe sex during the entire duration of
everyone to accept that, because she later decided to label her study as
“behavioral interventions” to prevent HIV transmission, it is iniquitous
to use her data to question proof of HIV transmission. Hence it remains
a mystery why the title of her paper isHeterosexual transmission of
human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) in Northern California: results from
a ten-year study. Why didn’t she choose a title reflecting what she
later purported was its true nature? The fact is that in this study
there were discordant heterosexual couples who continued to practise
unsafe sex who nonetheless, did not seroconvert to HIV. It is
acknowledged that the proportion who practised unsafe sex decreased over
time, which Padian attributed to her intense program of “behavioral
interventions”. However, no scientist can claim the zero transmission
rate observed in any couple was due to the success of “behavioral
interventions” when, at the beginning of the study, approximately 70% of
the couples were not practising safe sex, as were 25% at the completion,
despite the many and constant “behavioral interventions”. In an emotive
riposte at AIDSTruth Padian stated: “Any attempt to refer to this or
other of our publications and studies to bolster the fallacy that HIV is
not transmitted heterosexually or homosexually is a gross
misrepresentation of the facts and a travesty of the research that I
have been involved in for more than a decade”. The evidence shows that
it is Padian who is unwilling to face up to her own data. The
repackaging of this study illustrates her unwillingness to accept she
was conducting an experiment in sexual transmission of “HIV”, whether
she likes it or not. And this study did not have any seroconversions.
It is significant that in her AIDSTruth commentary Padian did not cite
any of her own research as proof of heterosexual transmission. As with
de Vincenzi, when it comes to
citing proof of heterosexual transmission, Padian cites “everyone
else”. Yet “everyone else” cites de Vincenzi and Padian.
From the very
beginning of the AIDS era, with few exceptions, there has been a marked
epidemiological bias towards an infectious cause of a positive antibody
test and AIDS. In other words, despite knowledge that semen is toxic
and immunosuppressive, data that may have shed light on a non-infectious
cause of AIDS was not sought. The distinction is crucial: the more
significant risk factor for semen is the number of episodes of passive
anal sex with ejaculation; while for infectious agents it is the number
of sexual partners. In
case this distinction is not clear consider the following: The volume
of the male ejaculate is reported to be 0.1-11 ml. Let us choose 5 ml
as a typical quantity. In three months, for example, a gay man could
have a hundred partners, each once, which would expose him to 500 ml of
semen. Or he could have 50 partners, four times, which would expose him
to a litre of semen. That is, half as many partners could expose him to
twice the dose of semen. If a virus is the cause of a positive antibody
test or AIDS then the hundred partners should pose more of a risk than
the fifty partners. And vice
versa. By performing such a study could have obtained a strong clue
to a virus versus a
non-virus causation. However,
virtually no epidemiological study reports such data. What is reported
is the number of (different) sexual partners, not the frequency of anal
sex. One exception is a study by Janet Nicholson
published in the Annals of
“In the year
before testing, homosexual men who were seropositive tended to have a
greater number of sexual partners (p = 0.009), more episodes of
receptive anal intercourse (p < 0.001), and more frequent active (p <
0.001) and receptive (p = 0.023) insertion of hands into the rectum…The
number of episodes of receptive anal intercourse per year was the
variable most highly associated with HTLV-III/LAV seropositivity (F -
27. p < 0.001). After adjustment for this variable, no other variable
was statistically significant”.
words, in this study the number of episodes of receptive anal sex had
more statistical significance than the number of partners. And in a
subgroup of men analysed the quantity of semen was the only significant
risk factor. Hence epidemiologists forgot about semen. The early
notion that semen may have been a cause of immunosuppression and AIDS
was dismissed to the point evidence that could have added weight to this
theory was not even collected. Yet these data should have been part of
each and every study. But when a study, such as Nicholson’s was
published, providing a strong clue, it appears to have gone unnoticed.
If every study had collected the data Nicholson collected, and obtained
the same statistical outcome, scientists may well have had a compelling
scientific reason to doubt the claims made by Montagnier and Gallo that
they had isolated a retrovirus which is sexually transmitted and is the
cause of AIDS.
we have cited shows that:
is a factor(s) associated with sexual activity which play a role in the
acquisition of a positive antibody test and AIDS.
factor is not drugs. Nowhere in the AIDS/HIV literature is there
evidence that the recipient of the ejaculate is preferentially exposed
to “aphrodisiac and psychoactive drugs”.
factor is not a sexually transmitted infectious agent(s). The reasons
definition diseases caused by sexually transmitted agents are
transmitted bidirectionally, from the active to the passive (receptive)
partner and from the passive to the active partner;
infected with a sexually transmitted agent, the development of the
disease does not depend on subsequent infections with the same agent or
further sexual activity.
fact that only the passive partner develops a positive test and AIDS
means that the cause of both behaves like pregnancy, they can be
sexually acquired but not sexually transmitted.
cause of a positive antibody test and AIDS, like pregnancy, must be a
non-infectious agent in the ejaculate (semen) or semen itself. Unlike
pregnancy, but like cervical cancer, it is not semen per
se but the consequences
of repeated exposure to it over a long period. The
lining of the vagina is thick and acts as a barrier to absorption. The
lining of the rectum is a single cell layer designed for absorption. It
is also significant that semen
is retained in the rectum because of the effectiveness of the anal
sphincter muscles. There is no such means of retaining semen inside the
vagina. So large quantities of vaginal semen are not absorbed and thus
cannot affect other organs. The same cannot be said of large quantities
of rectal semen which can be absorbed, especially if the lining of the
gut is traumatised—a well documented occurrence with anal sex. As
with cervical cancer, other factors may promote or inhibit the
development of AIDS. And as with cervical cancer other factors
unrelated to sexual activity may be causal.
factors in addition to semen, present in the GI tract, may contribute to
the acquisition of a positive test is supported by the following data:
(a) microorganisms or microbial products present in the lumen of the
bowel can also be absorbed; (b) 90% of the dry weight of faeces is
bacteria; (c) in mice, injections of extracts of the bacteriumE.
coli, an organism highly prevalent in the human bowel, result in
antibodies that produce a p120 and p41 band on the “HIV” Western blot.
Given that at least 30% of even low or no risk individuals posses an
“HIV” p24 band, these circumstances may bring about a Western blot test
result which is positive under the criteria of most jurisdictions.
“sex and body fluids” do play a role in the development of a positive
antibody test and AIDS. To claim otherwise is to give detrimental
health advice to the very people we have been trying to help over the
past 25 years. It is not sexual orientation or even the practice of
receptive anal intercourse by gay men or heterosexual women that is the
problem. The real culprit is the repeated exposure to large doses of
semen. To paraphrase Peter Duesberg, it is the dose not the drug that
kills. The claim that “sex and body fluids” play no role in the
acquisition of a positive antibody test and AIDS is scientifically wrong
and dangerous. The HIV experts, as a matter of course and convenience,
lump anyone and everyone who question their theory as dissidents. By
making and publicising this statement the RA Board provides the HIV
experts with a highly effective plank with which to vilify all
dissidents. Especially since the RA Board claims the views expressed in
this brochure are representative of an “association of more than 2,600
doctors, scientists, and other professionals”. The RA Board’s denial of
the role of “sex and body fluids” in AIDS plays into the hands of the
HIV experts and comes at great expense to those of us who identify such
evidence as factual.
Last year, in
the popular press we read “Kevin de Cock who has headed the global
battle against AIDS, said at the weekend that…”It is very unlikely there
will be a heterosexual epidemic in countries [outside Sub-Saharan
Africa]”“. Or that “…at long last, AIDS finally became just another
disease”. This year in an article published in Lancet it
is claimed that even in Sub-Saharan Africa AIDS is mainly a gay men’s
disease. In other words, AIDS is still AIDS and not “just another
disease” and “HIV” is still HIV which must be treated with
antiretroviral compounds. The only difference is that AIDS now is a gay
men’s disease and “HIV” is still a deadly virus but, which unlike all
other sexually transmitted agents, is spread only by anal intercourse.
And this will remain the same if we do not make it known that:
date, nobody has proven the existence of HIV. What is referred to as
“isolation of HIV” is no more than a collage of nonspecific phenomena
which, either alone or in combination, do not prove the existence of a
retrovirus, much less a unique retrovirus “HIV”. The “molecular
signature” of “HIV” cannot be that of HERVs for the simple reason that
no one has proven their existence. As Gallo testified at the Parenzee
hearing. There are also many reasons why it is not a retroid, SINE,
LINE or LTR. One suffices to illustrate this point. Since all the
above are present in all of us, then the “HIV” molecular signature must
be found in all of us. However, to date nobody has proven the existence
of the “HIV” molecular signature (the whole “HIV genome”) in the
uncultured cells of even one AIDS patient, much less in all of us. As
far as Andrew Maniotis’ recent, “new” interpretation of the vaccine
failures (failure to seroconvert) is concerned, please read EPE’s
presentation to the Geneva AIDS conference, Appendix XI of our mother
to child monograph and the analysis of vaccine failures we wrote for
Celia Farber. Vaccine failures tell us nothing about the experiment the
“HIV” experts “wanted Dr. Duesberg to perform on himself”. People do
seroconvert after “HIV” vaccination (that is, “HIV gp120”). The problem
is that despite this they subsequently develop a full “HIV molecular
profile”, that is, “HIV infection”.
is no evidence which proves that T4, T8, Th1, Th2 cells have unique
evidence indicates that the cause of AIDS is cellular oxidation induced
by the oxidising agents, and malnutrition, to which the patients
belonging to the AIDS risk group are subjected.
may be a better way to treat AIDS patients than with HAART.
question their doctors based on the content of this brochure will get
rational answers that refute most of the assertions. This will leave
them even more confused and, far from liberating them from “unthinking
and uncaring” doctors, may well make them hostile and angry.
Furthermore, AIDS physicians will point out this brochure explicitly
denies (a) a connection between a positive test and AIDS; (b) a
connection between sex and AIDS; (c) a role for conventional treatment
for HIV seropositive and AIDS individuals with and without AIDS
indicator diseases. They will argue such assertions are wrong and
dangerous to the health of large groups of people.
encompassing message in this brochure seems to be:
exists. The RA Board, like the HIV experts, claims there is evidence
which proves the existence of a unique retrovirus HIV. However, unlike
the former, the RA Board claims HIV is not the cause of AIDS. The
retrovirus “HIV is a long-established,
non-pathogenic passenger virus, neutralized by antibody after
asymptomatic, perinatal or non-perinatal infections (just like all other
human and animal retroviruses)”. However, the vast majority, if
not all immunologists no longer believe there are scientific reasons to
justify the long standing claim that viruses are neutralised by
antibodies. In fact, as far back as 2000 when David Rasnick and Charles
Geshekter wrote to President Mbeki making this claim, we replied and
provided reasons, including experimental data published by Sabin as
early as 1935, that this is not supported by the scientific evidence.
RA Board, like the HIV experts, accepts there are HIV antibodies. This
being the case there are HIV antibody tests. However, while the HIV
experts claim these tests are highly specific, the RA Board claims their
specificity is low. But they do not indicate how they can discriminate
between a true and a false positive antibody test, for example, in a
pregnant woman. Furthermore, unlike the HIV experts, the RA Board
denies any correlation between a positive HIV test and the risk of
AIDS. The Board fails to see that the clinical, laboratory and
seroepidemiological data may have clinical utility, and can inform
public health policy even if a retrovirus HIV does not exist. Rather
than face up to this fact the Board prefers to deny the data.
3. Like the HIV experts,
the RA Board claims HIV is sexually transmitted.
4. Both the HIV experts
and the RA Board claim HIV kills the T4 cells. However, unlike the HIV
experts, the RA Board assert “No one even has a theory of how HIV could
possibly kill enough T-cells (in your immune system) to cause AIDS”. In
other words, the difference between the experts and the RA Board is only
one of degree.
5. At present, at least
some if not all of the HIV experts agree with our long standing evidence
that T4 cells play no role in the development of the clinical syndrome.
Not so the RA Board.
6. At present even
Montagnier seems to agree with us, at least in regard to one of the
antiretroviral drugs, that antiretroviral drugs do not have an anti-HIV
effect. Not so the RA Board. The RA Board claims the ARVs are toxic.
So do the HIV experts. The RA Board never mentions their efficacy, or
lack of efficacy. Montagnier: “AZT has another drawback: to be active
(that is, to be used by the reverse transcriptase enzyme), it must
receive phosphate molecules (become phosphorylated). The cellular
enzyme that adds phosphates is present in sufficient quantities only in
strongly activated lymphocytes. These occur in large numbers during the
advanced stage of the illness and are the preferred target of the
virus. Yet the virus can also infect and replicate in less activated
lymphocytes, in which the concentration of phosphorylated AZT is too
weak to inhibit the reverse transcriptase. This is one reason why
treatment of asymptomatic patients with AZT alone has proved
disappointing. But there are other reasons as well. Since AZT acts
only during the phase of reverse transcription, the already infected
cells are not at all sensitive to AZT, since the phase of reverse
transcriptase has already passed and the viral genes have already been
inserted into the cells’ chromosomes. The macrophages, in particular,
which have a rather long life span, even when infected, could thus
produce considerable amounts of virus, even in the presence of AZT”.
(All one has to do to see that AZT is not triphosphorylated in vivo at
any time, and thus could not act as an antiretroviral or a DNA chain
terminator, is read our AZT monograph or Anthony Brink’s books.)
In a few
words, the only significant qualitative difference between the HIV
experts and the RA Board is that the latter claims HIV is neutralised by
its antibodies and sex plays no role in AIDS. Both claims have
repeatedly been proven wrong.
Not long after
Rethinking AIDS was formed we wrote a small summary of our work to date
and asked David Crowe to post it at the RA website. Our summary
“If anyone is
of the opinion that what we have stated is wrong we will be grateful for
any corrections using documented evidence. On the other hand, if what
we have stated is correct, then anyone who either discusses or writes
anything about the above stated topics must clearly state that we were
the first to put forward these ideas and that we presented detailed
basic scientific evidence to support our claims. This is not only for
ethical reasons. It is our view that when people read original
scientifically detailed papers they will get a much clearer picture
regarding the facts. Otherwise distortions, misinterpretations,
inconsistencies and superficial treatment of scientific facts result”.
declined our request on the basis we were asking for priority. The
AIDS Trapbrochure is as good an example as any of distortions,
misinterpretation, inconsistencies and superficial treatment of
In an email
sent to Janine Roberts on 26th July
2009, Peter Duesberg wrote:
think its an irony to focus a debate on the “contention that HIV has
been isolated” on me – Peter Duesberg?
focusing such a debate on Montagnier, Barré-Sinoussi, the 2008 Nobel
Committee, Gallo, Weiss, Fauci, Nature and
the over 5000 signatories of the Durban Declaration of 2000, and many
others, who are all ahead and above me in their “contention that HIV has
If we do not
take Peter Duesberg’s advice and act upon it, not even 1000 The
AIDS Trapbrochures will liberate patients
from the “HIV” test, AIDS or ARV drugs. So let us start at the
beginning—with Montagnier and Barré-Sinoussi.