Læknaneminn - 01.04.1997, Page 91

The tlrug-AIDS hypothesis *
Abstract The war on the new AIDS epidemic has
been a complete failure in terms of public health bene-
fits: 50,000 to 75,000 Americans develop AIDS per
year and over $8 billion are spent annually on AIDS
research and treatment by the US taxpayer alone, but
there is no vaccine, and no effective drug, and not one
AIDS patient has been cured. It is proposed here that
this failure is the responsibility of the hypothesis that
AIDS is caused by a virus named HIV. This hypothe-
sis has monopolized AIDS research and treatment since
1984, but it neither explains nor predicts numerous
AIDS facts, nor has it produced any public health ben-
efits. In order to solve AIDS we propose here the drug-
AIDS hypothesis. The drug hypothesis holds that all
American AIDS diseases that exceed their normal low
background are caused by the long-term consumption
of recreational drugs, anti-HIV/AIDS drugs or both.
This hypothesis is based on the only new health risk to
emerge during the past 25 years in America and
Europe: the drug epidemic. In America the consumers
of recreational drugs such as cocaine, amphetamines,
nitrite inhalants, and heroin soared from negligible
numbers in the 1970s to currently 20 millions, or 8%
of the population. In addition, over 200,000 HIV-
positives take since 1987 daily prescriptions of
inevitably toxic DNA chain-terminators such as AZT
and simultaneously consume many other orthodox and
unorthodox, toxic anti-HIV/AIDS medications. All
AIDS facts confirm the drug hypothesis: 1) AIDS is
new because the drug epidemic is; 2) over 95% of
American AIDS patients are long-term users of recre-
ational and anti-viral drugs, because drugs cause AIDS;
3) 9 out of 10 AIDS cases are males because they con-
sume 90% of the drugs; 4) the age distributions of dis-
eases and deaths from drugs and AIDS are both 25 to
54 years because drugs cause AIDS; 5) babies develop
AIDS from sharing intravenous drugs with their
Peter Duesberg: Department of Molecular and Cell Biology, 229
Stanley Hall, UC Berkeley
Berkeley, CA 94720, phone (510) 642-6549, fax (510) 643-
6455, email: duesberg@uclink4. berkeley.edu
David Rasnick: Resident AIDS investigator at UC Berkeley, 229
Stanley Hall, UC Berkeley
Berkeley, CA 94720, phone (510) 642-6549, fax (415) 826-
1241, email: rasnick@mindspring.com
mothers during pregnancy; 6) Kaposi’s sarcoma as an
AIDS disease is restricted to male homosexuals because
they use carcinogenic nitrite inhalants as sexual stimu-
lants almost exclusively (98%); 7) termination of drug
use has prevented and has even cured pediatric, male
homosexual and intravenous drug-AIDS cases.
According to the drug-AIDS hypothesis AIDS is pre-
ventable by banning anti-HIV/AIDS drugs and by
advertising the medical consequences of recreational
drugs. Such a program could be as successful as the
campaign that has reduced smoking 40% by advertis-
ing the medical consequences of tobacco use. The
drug-AIDS hypothesis could save 50,000 to 75,000
lives per year, $8 billion that are annually spent unpro-
ductively on AIDS research and therapy based on the
virus hypothesis, and much of the $15 billion that is
annually spent on “supply control” in the failed War on
Drugs by lowering demand with advertisements that
drugs cause AIDS. The solution to AIDS and the drug
epidemic is as close as a very affordable and testable,
independent AIDS hypothesis.
Be hold in formulating hypotheses and hamble in the
presence offacts.
Oswald Avery '
1. RICHARD FEYNMAN 0N SCIENCE
According to Richard Feynman’s standards, current
AIDS research is “cult science”:
... I call these things cult science, because they follow
all the apparent precepts and forms of scientific inves-
tigation. ... But there is owefeature 1 notice that is gen-
erally missing in cult science. ... It’s a kind of scientific
integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corre-
sponds to a kind of utter honesty - a kind of leaning
over backwards. For example, if you’re doing an exper-
iment, you should report everything that you think
might make it invalid - not only what you think is
right about it. ... Ifyou make a theory, for example, and
advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down
all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that
agree with it. ...the idea is to try to give allof the infor-
mation to help others to judge the value of your con-
LÆKNANEMINN
89
1. tbl. 1997, 50. árg.