Læknaneminn - 01.04.1997, Page 113

The drug-AIDS hypothesis •
HIV hypothesis by the Secretary of HHS and the press
in April 1984, the drug hypothesis has been suppressed
and discredited by the medical and scientific establish-
ment, by the public press and by AIDS activists, and all
federal funding for the drug hypothesis has been ter-
minated s. n, í2, 96,221 (see y j Asked in 1996 about the
CDC’s negligence in considering the drug-AIDS con-
nection, Curran, now dean of the School of public
Health at Emory University in Atlanta, told the Wall
Street Journal, “treating drug addiction wasn’t directly
part of the CDC’s mandate, stopping the spread of
AIDS among needle-sharing addicts ‘fell between the
cracks’” 28. In the preceeding paragraph the article
reports that, “the CDC’s biggest single prevention pro-
gram, AIDS prevention ... accounted for $589 mill-
ion“. But that was all spent on HIV, not a nickel was
left for drugs.
In view of the popularity of the national HIV-AIDS
dogma, five of the six early American proponents of the
drug hypothesis, Blattner, Curran, Friedman-Kien,
Goedert and Jaffe converted to the HIV hypothesis,
without even offering a scientific refutation of the drug
hypothesis. Haverkos survived as a semi-proponent of
the drug hypothesis by adopting HIV as a cofactor 7S.
But despite its poor press the drug hypothesis stands
scientifically unrefuted. Indeed, the efforts to refute
the drug hypothesis have instead provided new data to
SUppOrt Ít "‘tl‘5.222,223 (see yj
6. PREDICTIONS ARE PROVING
THE DRUG-HYPOTHESIS
A good hypothesis must predict and explain the out-
come of man’s or nature’s experiments. According to
Feynman, “nature’s phenomena will agree or disagree
with your theory”. The following examples document
that the drug hypothesis predicts and explains the
American and European AIDS epidemic exactly.
6.1. American and European AIDS restricted to recre-
ational drugs and AZT. The drug hypothesis predicts
that all AIDS-defining diseases that exceed their long-
established normal background (i.e. >95%) are restrict-
ed to recreational and anti-HIV drug users. The rare
AIDS cases from the general population, including
hemophiliacs and transfusion recipients 224, represent
the spontaneous and AZT-induced incidence of AIDS
defining diseases in these groups under the new name
AIDS 23‘24'26 (see 5.).
Indeed, the following positive and negative evidence
confirms this prediction. Even the CDC acknowledges
that a third of the over 500,000 American AIDS
patients are intravenous drug users 3. Prior to 1984 the
CDC had also confirmed that the remaining two thirds
of American AIDS patients were male homosexuals
who had all used a multiplicity of recreational drugs,
above all nitrite inhalants, amphetamines and cocaine
m (Table 5). After 1984, by which time the CDC
had adopted the HIV hypothesis, independent publi-
cations continued to document illicit recreational drug
use by American and European homosexual AIDS
patients (see 3. and Table 5). Since 1987 a large per-
centage of HlV-positive male homosexuals also took
anti-HIV drugs, above all AZT, as AIDS prophylaxis or
therapy (see 4. and 7. and Table 7).
Furthermore, negative evidence supports this assess-
ment. Despite the over 100,000 papers published on
HIV and AIDS, the AIDS establishment has never
been able to demonstrate that even a small group of
healthy HlV-positive Americans or Europeans, who
had neither used recreational drugs nor antiviral drugs
such as AZT ever developed AIDS 225. No controlled
study in the medical literature has found any HIV-pos-
itives any sicker or dying sooner than matched HIV-
negative controls 11,26. Yet, such groups could be easi-
ly recruited from the US Army that annually rejects 1
out of 1000 healthy applicants just for having antibod-
ies against HIV 225. All studies linking HIV to AIDS
investigate people with life-threatening health risks
such as drug addiction, hemophilia or exotic lifestyles.
Although the CDC offers rare, anecdotal AIDS cases
outside the drug risk groups as examples for drug-free
AIDS, that institution has never been able to provide
the control statistics to prove that these cases exceed the
normal low background in the drug-free population 3|
", If matched groups — that only differ in HIV — are
ever compared, the mortality of the HlV-positives is
exactly the same as that of the HlV-negatives, as for
example American transfusion recipients 226, sub-
Saharan Africans 42, and intravenous drug users 39.‘íl.8<!'
Thus drugs explain the restriction of AIDS to risk
groups, precisely.
LÆKNANEMINN
'111 1. tbl. 1997, 50. árg.