Steven B. Harris, M.D.
Department of Pathology
UCLA School of Medicine
Los Angeles, CA
(Footnotes to Dr. Harris's letter are available upon request. Please send a stamped, self-addressed envelope to REASON's Los Angeles office. --The Editors)
Charles Thomas, Kary Mullis, and Phillip Johnson reply: To
evaluate Dr. Harris's specific points, one must have in mind what
the HIV hypothesis is and why it is in question. The hypothesis
attributes extraordinary powers to the retrovirus HIV, powers that
no other organism has ever been suspected of possessing. This virus
multiplies rapidly after the initial infection until the immune
system does its job and neutralizes the infection. HIV does no
damage to the immune system while it is active in the body; rather,
it is supposed to cause immune system damage years later, when it
is latent and often very difficult even to find. HIV is also
supposed
to cause disease conditions, such as dementia, that are not a
result of immune system damage, and is even held responsible for
diseases like Kaposi's sarcoma which have been linked to other
causes and occur in men who are HIV-infected and non-infected
alike. Researchers have no idea how HIV accomplishes all these
feats. The initial assumption that HIV directly attacks and kills
T-cells has been discarded by many since HIV infects only a
fraction of the cells it is supposed to be killing, but the
direct-killing scenario is still pursued because all alternatives
are speculative.
The proof that HIV causes AIDS is said to be correlation, but the correlation is mainly an artifact of the definition. AIDS is defined as one of 29 different disease conditions, or low T-cell counts, when accompanied by real or suspected HIV infection. The correlation is to antibodies and not to active virus, and the antibody tests generate many false positives.
In short, there are many problems with the HIV theory, and the problems have never been fairly investigated. Persons who are disposed to question the official theory have been treated as enemies to be ridiculed and punished. There are no truly independent researchers, since to question the HIV theory is to lose all research funding.
Papers dealing with all of Dr. Harris's points and many others will appear in the February issue of Genetica devoted to questions about the HIV/AIDS theory and its difficulties. For present purposes we can give only brief responses to his specific points, as follows:
1) As to gay men: The original AIDS-defining disease in gay men was Kaposi's sarcoma (KS). It is now known, however, that KS is found in many persons who have never been HIV-positive, and just about everybody agrees now that KS is not caused by HIV. A herpes virus is suspected by many, but drugs (especially poppers) are very much under study as a causative factor despite a press blackout on the subject. Even in cohorts of gay men with multiple health risks, authorities now admit that at least 5 percent (some say 10 percent or more) of antibody-positive subjects are AIDS-free 15 years after infection and show no signs of ever developing AIDS. Among persons who are otherwise healthy, the percentage of so-called non-progressors is undoubtedly much higher. The claimed perfect correlation between HIV and AIDS was established by biased studies that failed adequately to investigate alternatives. What is needed are unbiased studies that compare otherwise similar HIV-positive and HIV-negative persons from the general population; this has never been done.
2) Hemophiliacs: In the upcoming issue of Genetica, Peter Duesberg reviews all the studies on the subject and shows persuasively that the data do not support HIV causation. Life expectancy for hemophiliacs went up steadily following the HIV infection that occurred with the use of Factor VIII, and began to decline in the late 1980s when hemophiliacs began being "treated" with the toxic drug AZT.
3) Transfusion recipients: There are no studies comparing otherwise similar groups of HIV-positive and HIV-negative transfusion recipients. There is no "firm statistical link," only anecdotal evidence.
4) So-called SIV disease: After chimps infected with HIV failed to develop AIDS, HIV researchers turned to claims that a different virus (SIV) causes a different pattern of disease in monkeys. SIV is harmless in these animals in the wild but sometimes causes disease under laboratory conditions. The condition is unlike AIDS in the most important respect: HIV is supposed to destroy the immune system years after neutralization by antibodies, often when viral activity in the body is undetectable. SIV causes disease when it is present in quantity and active.
5) HIV-2: This virus has not been shown to cause AIDS. Most persons infected with it are healthy.
6) New definition: We heartily endorse Dr. Harris's proposal of a new definition of AIDS not presupposing HIV causation, and predict that use of proper definition would cause the claims of correlation to disappear. Incidentally, the KS sufferers originally diagnosed with AIDS in the early 1980s were not "otherwise healthy." They were mainly highly promiscuous, drug-using, bathhouse-frequenting gay men with a multitude of diseases.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time.
nfl jerseys|11.17.10 @ 1:22AM|#
xdthd
سهمي|12.11.10 @ 4:35PM|#
asfasasgasg