Important paper on AIDS Risk

californ at netcom.com californ at netcom.com
Sun Jun 11 11:03:32 EST 1995



[This article may be copied and distributed freely, provided that it not be
changed or cut in any way.  This message and the closing copyright notice
must be included.  It may not be published commercially without express
permission from the author.]

                                              The Risk-AIDS Hypothesis
                                                     by John Lauritsen

     For a decade and a half we have been subjected to AIDS propaganda.  We
have been indoctrinated into ever-changing and ever-more-elaborate AIDS
mythologies.  Over 100,000 papers have been written on "AIDS."  The jargon,
the technobabble must run to hundreds of words by now.  It all seems
hopelessly complicated--far beyond the comprehension of a mere layman, a
non-specialist.
     And yet, at bottom, "AIDS" is really rather simple.  My goal in this
talk is to cut through the trappings and mystifications of "AIDS," to lay
bare and articulate its fundamental assumptions and contradictions.  I want
to bring us back to the Reality Principle:  to see things as they really are.
 My entire message can be expressed in three brief points:


 1.   There is no such thing as "AIDS."

 2.   HIV is not harmful.

 3.   People with "AIDS" diagnoses became sick in the ways
       that they did because of health risks in their lives --
       especially drugs.



1. There is no such thing as "AIDS."

     The so-called Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome or "AIDS" is not a
coherent, single disease entity.  It has neither symptoms nor diagnostic
criteria of its own.  Other diseases, such as mumps, measles, polio, chicken
pox, rabies, gonorrhea, malaria, salmonella, the common cold, or bubonic
plague, can readily be described and diagnosed.  Not "AIDS," which is defined
entirely in terms of other, old diseases, in conjunction with dubious test
results and even more dubious assumptions. Although people are undeniably
sick, "AIDS" itself does not really exist; it is a phoney construct.
     The AIDS surveillance definition of the Centers for Disease Control
(CDC) has changed several times, and it contains its own contradiction.
 Nevertheless, the core definition of "AIDS" can be expressed by the
following formula (for which I am indebted to Peter Duesberg):

      INDICATOR DISEASE + HIV = AIDS

     In conjunction with HIV, an "AIDS-indicator disease" becomes "AIDS."  In
the absence of HIV, the "AIDS-indicator disease" is called by its old name.

      INDICATOR DISEASE - HIV = INDICATOR DISEASE

     Let's try a couple of examples:

      TB + HIV = AIDS
      TB - HIV = TB

      DEMENTIA + HIV = AIDS
      DEMENTIA - HIV = CRAZY

     At last count there are 29 "AIDS-indicator diseases," not one
of which is new.  All of them have causes other than HIV.  

1.   Bacterial infections, multiple or recurrent (applies only to children)
2.   Candidiasis of bronchi, trachea, or lungs
3.   Candidiasis of esophagus (either a "definitive diagnosis" or a
     "presumptive diagnosis")
4.   Coccidioidomycosis, disseminated or extrapulmonary
5.   Cryptococcosis, extrapulmonary
6.   Cryptococcosis, chronic intestinal
7.   Cytomegalovirus disease other than retinitis
8.   Cytomegalovirus retinitis (either a "definitive diagnosis" or a
      "presumptive diagnosis")
9.   HIV encephalopathy (dementia)
10.  Herpes simplex, with esophagitis, pneumonia, or chronic mucocutaneous
      ulcers
11.  Histoplasmosis, disseminated or extrapulmonary
12.  Isosporiasis, chronic intestinal
13.  Kaposi's sarcoma (either a "definitive diagnosis" or a "presumptive  
      diagnosis")
14.  Lymphoid interstitial pneumonia and/or pulmonary lymphoid hyperplasia  
      (either a "definitive diagnosis" or a "presumptive diagnosis")
15.  Lymphoma, Burkitt's (or equivalent term)
16.  Lymphoma, immunoblastic (or equivalent term)
17.  Lymphoma, primary in brain
18.  Mycobacterium avium or M. kansasii, disseminated or extrapulmonary
      (either a "definitive diagnosis" or a "presumptive diagnosis")
19.  M. tuberculosis, disseminated or extrapulmonary (either a "definitive  
      diagnosis" or a "presumptive diagnosis")
20.  Mycobacterial diseases, other disseminated or extrapulmonary (either a  
      "definitive diagnosis" or a "presumptive diagnosis")
21.  Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia (either a "definitive diagnosis" or a   
      "presumptive diagnosis")
22.  Progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy
23.  Salmonella septicemia, recurrent
24.  Toxoplasmosis of brain (either a "definitive diagnosis" or a
      "presumptive diagnosis")
25.  HIV wasting syndrome

     On 8 December 1992 a letter was mailed by the CDC to State Health
Officers, informing them: "On January 1, 1993, an expanded surveillance
definition for AIDS will be effective." The following AIDS-indicator
conditions were added to the list:

26.  A CD4+ T-lymphocyte count <200 cells/microliter (or a CD4+ percent <14)
27.  Pulmonary tuberculosis
28.  Recurrent pneumonia (within a 12-month period)
29.  Invasive cervical cancer

     The AIDS-indicator diseases are extremely heterogeneous. Many of the
diseases are caused by funguses, for example, candidiasis,
coccidioidomycosis, cryptto- coccosis, histoplasmosis, and pneumocystis
carinii.  Others are caused by bacteria, like salmonella.  Others, by
mycobacteria, like tuberculosis.  Still others, by viruses, like
cytomegalovirus or herpes.  And still others, like the various cancers and
neoplasms, including lymphoma and Kaposi's sarcoma, have no established
etiology.  And still others, like dementia or wasting, are poorly defined and
can have many different causes.
     Both components of the AIDS-defining formula are absurd.  The
AIDS-indicator disease part is absurd because the diseases have nothing in
common.  Although the central idea of "AIDS" is immune deficiency, some of
the AIDS-indicator diseases -- like the cancers, wasting, and dementia --
have nothing whatever to do with immune deficiency.  
     The HIV part of the formula is also absurd, because it is almost always
based on invalidated and unreliable antibody tests; because it is sometimes
based on "presumptive" diagnoses (in other words, on guesses); and above all,
because HIV is not pathogenic. 
     Since the very definition of "AIDS" is absurd, it necessarily follows:
"There is no such thing as 'AIDS.'"


2. HIV is not harmful.

     Molecular biologist Peter Duesberg has argued that it is not in the
nature of retroviruses to cause serious illness, and HIV is a completely
typical retrovirus.
     HIV's consistent lack of biochemical activity is a salient reason for
rejecting the HIV-AIDS hypothesis.  There are different ways of evaluating
the activity of a microbe, just as there are different ways of evaluating the
activity of a human being (such things as motion, heartbeat, breathing, body
temperature, etc.). Right now I'm giving a talk.  If I were running the 100
meter race, I would be much more active; if I were asleep, I would be much
less active; and so on.  HIV is consistently inactive, even in patients who
are dying from so-called "AIDS."  It therefore cannot cause disease, any more
than a human being could rob a bank at the same time he was lying in a coma.

3. People with "AIDS" diagnoses became sick in the ways that they
   did because of health risks in their lives -- especially drugs.

     The basic idea here is that different "risk groups" and different
individuals are getting sick in different ways and for different reasons. We
need to find out what factors have affected their health in ways that caused
them to develop one or more of the 29 old illnesses that qualify for a
diagnosis of "AIDS."
     With regard to any specific risk group, the question is not, "Why have
these people developed AIDS?", but rather, "Why are these people sick?".
 Let's take the risk groups one at a time:

*Why Are Intravenous Drug Users Getting Sick?*
     Intravenous drug users (IVDUs) are the second largest risk group for
"AIDS" in the U.S., and their illnesses are the easiest to explain.  They
have acquired AIDS-illnesses as a toxicological consequence of the heroin,
cocaine, and other drugs that they have put into their bodies. According to
the prevailing AIDS paradigm, they got sick because they shared needles,
thereby acquiring HIV infection, which caused their illnesses.  There are
three problems with this hypothesis: 1) No study has ever been done to
determine if all, or even most, IVDUs with "AIDS" diagnoses ever did share
needles (most IVDUs, in fact, do not share needles), 2) the hypothesis
ignores the harmful consequences of putting chemicals into the body, and 3)
HIV is not pathogenic.
     The clinical profile of an IVDU with "AIDS" is emaciation (wasting) and
one or more lung diseases.  And yet, for a hundred years, the classic profile
of a chronic heroin user has been emaciation and lung disease.  Heroin is bad
for the health and bad for the immune system; on top of that, it suppresses
the respiratory system.  The consequences are tuberculosis or one or another
form of pneumonia: emaciation and lung disease.
     More than a decade before the first cases of "AIDS" were reported, the
distinguished British epidemiologist, Gordon Stewart, was studying drug
addicts in the United States.  His team made the following observations:

          They were often extremely emaciated, suffering from
     wasting diseases, various weird blood-borne infections with
     skin bacteria,  Candida and Cryptococci, which would not
     ordinarily be regarded as pathogenic in their own right....
     We didn't find Kaposi's sarcoma and we didn't find
     Pneumocystis (carinii pneumonia) but, then, we weren't
     looking for it.  [Quoted by Jad Adams in AIDS: The HIV Myth,
     New York, 1989.]

     In his paper, "AIDS Acquired by Drug Consumption and Other Noncontagious
Risk Factors," Peter Duesberg cites many medical references that indicate:
"From as early as 1909 evidence has accumulated that addiction to
psychoactive drugs leads to immune suppression and clinical abnormalities
similar to AIDS."
     So then, IVDUs are getting sick in 1995 in the same ways and for the
same reasons they were getting sick 86 years ago.  The only difference is
that now their illnesses are called "AIDS."

*Why Are Gay Men Getting Sick?*
     Although "gay men" (homosexual men) comprise 63% of "AIDS" cases, as a
whole they are not at risk for developing "AIDS." All across America are tens
of millions of males who have had sex with each other, and who remain
healthy.  It is only a very small, particular subset of gay men who are
getting sick, and they are getting sick for reasons that are all too obvious
once the right questions are asked.
     Before going into greater detail, let me simply list the major health
risks impinging on those gay men who are getting sick:

-   "Recreational drugs" (drugs used for intoxication,
      rather than for medical purposes)

-    Venereal diseases + antibiotics

-    Psychological factors 

-    AZT and other nucleoside analogues

     On the surface it would seem that these particular health risks do not
affect only gay men. However, a closer examination shows that within each of
these risk categories there are elements peculiar to a subset of gay men, in
terms of both intensity and specificity.
     The following profile fits most gay men who developed "AIDS":  In the
decade preceding their diagnosis they contracted venereal diseases (VD) many
times, treated with ever stronger doses of antibiotics; they took antibiotics
prophyl- actically, to avoid getting VD again.  They drank too much; they
used "recreational" drugs; they smoked heavily.  They experienced terror,
owing to a war waged against gay men by the Moral Majority (an American
coalition of fundamentalist Christians); they experienced loneliness,
alienation, and depression; they experienced shame and self-hatred, 
which, in a vicious circle, they acted out in ways that degraded
themselves -- and, as the epidemic developed, they experienced grief: they
were in perpetual mourning, their hearts broken by the loss of their closest
friends.
     I have devoted thirteen pages of my book, The AIDS War, to describing
the health risks in the lives of those particular gay men who became sick
with AIDS-illnesses.  Some of the drugs they used -- like the nitrite
inhalants (or "poppers") -- were hardly used at all by anyone who was not a
gay man.  Certain "designer drugs" that were popular in the gay disco scene
were virtually unknown outside the gay scene.
     It would appear that this subset of gay men became sick primarily
because of drugs, both medical and "recreational." At any rate, there were
abundant health risks in their lives, and it would have been surprising if
any of them had remained healthy.

*Iatrogenic AIDS:*
     We must also take note of "Iatrogenic AIDS", which is "AIDS" caused by
medical practice.  This mainly consists of treatment with AZT or other
nucleoside analogues.  Most of the victims are gay men, given these drugs on
the basis of an HIV-antibody-positive diagnosis. I'll discuss this later.

*Hemophiliacs, Transfusion Cases, Other Risk Groups:*
     Because of time, I'll not go into the other risk groups: the
hemophiliacs, the transfusion cases, and the others.  I'll just say that all
of these groups combined account for less than 10% of the total U.S. AIDS
cases, and that there are good reasons to explain why these people became
sick with one or more of the AIDS-indicator diseases.

RECOVERY FROM "AIDS"
     When it comes to treatment, the prevailing AIDS-paradigm, including the
HIV-AIDS hypothesis, has led nowhere.  The mood among AIDS researchers is one
of pessimism, gloom, and confusion.
     In contrast, we who advocate the Risk-AIDS hypothesis have a very
optimistic outlook.  We believe that there is no reason why individuals who
are HIV-antibody- positive should not remain perfectly healthy, provided they
take care of themselves.  And we believe that most people with "AIDS"
diagnoses ought to be able to recover fully, if they take the right steps.
     The one thing people with "AIDS" diagnoses must not do, if they want to
get better, is to take toxic drugs that they don't need. At the top of the
list is AZT, about which I have written a great deal since 1987.  AZT is the
greatest iatrogenic disaster in medical history:

          -   The theory behind AZT therapy is wrong:

                    HIV is not the cause of "AIDS." Even when HIV
                    can be detected, it is not replicating.       

          -   AZT's toxicities are severe:

                    AZT is the most toxic drug ever prescribed for
                    long-term use. AZT causes severe anemia, head-
                    aches, nausea, muscular pain, and cachexia. It 
                    damages the nerves and every organ in the
                    body.  It is a known carcinogen.

          -   AZT was approved by the FDA on the basis of fraudulent
               research:

                    I have examined hundreds of pages of documents
                    that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
                    was forced to release under the Freedom of Infor-
                    mation Act.  It is clear from these documents that 
                    the Phase II AZT trials were fraudulent: that all kinds 
                    of cheating took place, and that the investigators 
                    deliberately used data which they knew were false.  
                    (The Phase II AZT trials, conducted in 1986, formed
                    the basis of AZT's approval in the U.S. and 31 other 
                    countries.)

          -   There is no scientifically credible evidence AZT has benefits
               of any kind:


                    The studies that have been used to claim benefits 
                    for AZT were all paid for and controlled by Well-
                    come, the manufacturer of AZT. They are there-
                    fore unworthy of credence, in light of the fraud 
                    that was committed in the Phase II AZT trials.

     Peter Duesberg has claimed that AZT is now the single greatest cause of
"AIDS," and I agree.  Since AZT can cause several of the AIDS-indicator
diseases, and since patients given AZT are already HIV-positive, it's clear
that AZT can cause "AIDS," according to the formula: AIDS - Indicator Disease
+ HIV = AIDS.
     What people with "AIDS" should do is identify the health risks that made
them sick in the first place, and then eliminate those health risks from
their lives.  It's as simple as that.  In most cases these health risks are
toxins: medical as well as
"recreational" drugs.  But psychological factors, infectious diseases (and
the con-comitant treatments with antibiotics), and genetic factors
undoubtedly also play a role in causing particular AIDS-indicator illnesses.
     In simple outline form, a program of recovery may look something like
this:

   -   Take charge of your own recovery.
   -   Break away from the AIDS death messages.
   -   Adopt a holistic concept of health: mens sana in
        corpore sano (a sound mind in a sound body).
   -   Identify and eliminate all health risks.
   -   Detoxify both mind and body:
        - no "recreational" drugs.
        - no cigarettes.
        - no toxic medical drugs (like AZT).
   -   Observe good nutrition:
        - Avoid sugar.
   -   Exercise.
   -   Reduce stress.
   -   Get enough rest.
   -   Have faith that good health will return.

     If this looks like a program for healthy living, that's what it is.
 Illness is usually multifactorial in origin, and good health is always
multifactorial.  Good health doesn't depend on any one panacea, but on a
number of elements: freedom from toxins; nutritious food (in moderation);
vigorous, balanced exercise; pure water; pure air; freedom from hostile
stress, including noise; satisfying friend- ships; satisfying sex; satisfying
work; an intellectual life; and enough sleep and rest.


RECOVERY FROM DRUG ABUSE
     In most cases recovery from "AIDS" will involve recovery from substance
abuse, so I want to say a few words about this.  Despite a lot of
misinformation, the following points are solidly established:


     1.   The substance abuse itself is the primary problem; it is
           not merely a symptom of another, underlying problem
           (psychological, sociological, or whatever).

     2.   The substance abuser must want to stop.

     3.   Total abstinence from drugs and alcohol is necessary.
                                  
           This means that every day, for the rest of his life, the
           substance abuser will stay away from the first drink and
           the first drug.

     4.   Although professional treatment may sometimes be useful,
          or even necessary, nothing has ever been so successful
          as the self-help programs of Alcoholics Anonymous (AA)
          and Narcotics Anonymous (NA), in which recovering
          alcoholics or drug addicts "share experience, strength
          and hope with each other," in order to stay "clean and
          dry." AA and NA are entirely self-supporting, depending
          upon small, voluntary contributions from their members. 
          If a recovering alcoholic or drug addict has no money,
          then he pays nothing.  And, I might add, not a cent of
          our tax money is spent on either AA or NA.


CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM OF ALTERNATIVE HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS
     We critics of the orthodox AIDS model are grateful for the support we
have received from people in alternative health care.  However, the time has
come for us to offer constructive criticism of some alternative health
approaches to "AIDS," just as we have already made strong criticisms of
orthodox medical approaches.
     My main criticism is that many alternative health practitioners fail to
deal with the real reasons people with "AIDS" became sick.  Some of them have
only a single commodity to promote; others have a whole line of goods --
either way, they
perceive recovery from "AIDS" in terms of what they have to offer.
Acupuncturists want to treat "AIDS" with acupuncture; hypnotherapists, with
hypnotism; aromatherapists with therapeutic aromas; homeopaths, with
homeopathic remedies; Chinese herbalists, with Chinese herbs; food supplement
advocates, with food supplements; diet zealots, with weird and unappealing
diets; distributors of electromagnetic gadgets, with electro-magnetic
radiation; and so on.
     Some of these treatments represent outright charlatanism.  Most of them
are, at best, inappropriate.  To give just one example: A man was in the
terminal stage of alcoholism.  He had come close to death more than once.  In
desperation he consulted a homeopath, whose treatment consisted of nothing
but a homeopathic remedy.  The man continued to drink, and nearly died a
couple of months later.  Fortunately, his friends got him to a detoxification
center, where he was introduced to Alcoholics Anonymous.  He is now sober and
much better, no thanks to homeopathy.

     Many alternative health practitioners simply accept the premises of the
official AIDS paradigm.  They claim that their remedies or "protocols" are
active against 
viruses, or cause t-cells to go up, or cause patients to go from
HIV-antibody- positive to HIV-antibody-negative status.  Since our task as
AIDS-critics is to deconstruct and demolish the prevailing AIDS-paradigm, we
cannot look kindly upon attempts to reinforce that paradigm from the
alternative health camp.
     Our most severe criticism should go to those alternative health
practitioners who accept and even promote therapy with AZT and the other
nucleoside analogues.  There are three alternative health books on AIDS,
which advocate AZT therapy along with the usual vitamin pills.  One of the
authors idiotically advocates taking warm baths to offset the toxicities of
AZT; he was too stupid and too cowardly to warn against taking AZT in the
first place.  We should condemn these quacks in the strongest possible terms.
 They are traitors to the ideal of holistic health.


CONCLUSION:
     The AIDS organizations, including such pseudo-radical groups as Act Up,
are always demanding a "cure" for AIDS.  By "cure" they mean a new, high-tech
drug that will attack HIV.  This is all wrong.  
     What people living with an HIV or an "AIDS" diagnosis need, is not a new
drug, but a counselor with a clear mind and a warm heart.  They need someone
who will treat them as a whole person, not as a patient labeled with
particular diagnoses.  They need a friend, who will help them put their lives
in order, and who will
guide them back to the path of good health.
     I hope that when the "AIDS epidemic" is behind us, and the lessons have
been drawn, it will be seen as a vindication of the holistic view of health.

REFERENCES:
Peter H. Duesberg.
"AIDS Acquired by Drug Consumption and Other Noncontagious Risk Factors."
Pharmacology and Therapeutics.
Vol. 55, #3 (1992).

Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos, et al.
"Is a Western Blot Proof of HIV Infection?"
Bio/Technology, June 1993.

John Lauritsen.
Chapter XIX: "The Risk-AIDS Hypothesis."
Chapter XX: "Recovery From 'AIDS'."
The AIDS War., Asklepios, New York 1993.

  "Above all, do no harm." -- saying attributed to Hippocrates.

Copyright 1995 
(Talk to the International AIDS Symposium, Buenos Aires, 8 April 1995)


(The author can be reached at laurit at panix.com)





More information about the Immuno mailing list