Russell to Morrell: regarding 'epiphenomena' and Duesberg's drug/AIDS hypothesis 21 February 2005
Previous Rapid Response Next Rapid Response Top
Alexander H Russell,

Send response to journal:
Re: Russell to Morrell: regarding 'epiphenomena' and Duesberg's drug/AIDS hypothesis

Regarding 'endogenous entities' and 'epiphenomena' Peter Morrell stated:

"I thank Alex Russell for explaining what 'epiphenomenon' and 'endogenous entity' mean in regard to HIV…However, he has not said if this theory proposes that ALL viruses should be regarded as 'epiphenomena,' 'disease markers' and 'endogenous entities,' or whether this idea should be confined solely to the so-called retroviruses?"

I thought it was blatantly obvious that not all 'viruses' are an 'epiphenomena,' 'disease markers' and 'endogenous entities'. I was writing specifically about 'HIV' and 'retroviruses' which are these 'epiphenomena', 'disease markers' and 'endogenous entities' - and which were wrongly classified as 'viruses'.

Peter Morrell concludes: "Can Alex Russell please therefore also explain what makes this theory of AIDS superior to the standard HIV theory? In particular, can he state what specific facts of the disease this theory explains better, more clearly and neatly than the standard HIV hypothesis? Or, to put it another way, what facts of the disease are not satisfactorily explained by the HIV hypothesis that the epiphenomenon idea explains better? I thank him in advance for these further clarifications."

All Peter Morrell's questions are best answered by Peter Duesberg's superior drug/AIDS hypothesis which better explains 'AIDS' than does the redundant 'HIV/AIDS' hypothesis. All the predictions based upon the 'HIV/AIDS' have been proven wrong. We have also had thousands of 'HIV' - free 'AIDS' cases therefore 'HIV' fails to meet Koch's first postulate.

Duesberg's first three parts to his theory rely on Koch's 1st, 2nd, 3rd postulates: (1) free virus is not detectable in most cases of AIDS; (2) virus can only be isolated by reactivating virus in vitro from a few latently infected lymphocytes among millions of uninfected ones; (3) pure HIV does not cause AIDS upon experimental infection of chimpanzees or accidental infection of healthy humans.

The standard and simplistic 'HIV' theory also does not explain why 'AIDS' is solely restricted to specific 'high-risk groups' proving also that 'HIV' is not an STD: there is no white heterosexual 'HIV' epidemic in the West.

We must go back just before 'AIDS' was invented to1981 when five young homosexuals, who were previously healthy, were diagnosed as having Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia (PCP). Soon after these cases another twenty-four young homosexuals were diagnosed as having Kaposi's sarcoma (KS) and these cases initiated the term 'Gay Related Immune Deficiency', or 'GRID'. In all these cases all the young homosexuals were heavy recreational drug users, particularly 'poppers' (amyl nitrites) and the correlation between KS and popper-use is 100%. Why is it that only homosexuals who use poppers get KS? It is as absurd as saying that they all drank cyanide but only died because they had 'HIV'.

To try and blame KS on a novel herpes virus is ludicrous because you cannot have a herpes virus restricted to one group of people. By the early 1980s it was not seen as 'politically correct' to state that recreational drugs cause immune damage and premature death so 'HIV' was soon invented to take the blame (and the heat off the homosexuals) and the dangers of recreational drug-use were tragically ignored and soon forgotten. Hence: 'HIV' was purely an invention of 'politcal correctness' and the social construction of an 'equal opportunities disease'.

It must be remembered that all the first 'GRID' and 'AIDS' cases were heavy consumers of recreational drugs and the 'AIDS' establishment at the time saw the 'drug/AIDS' hypothesis as a viable contributory explanation of these early cases.

Recreational drugs are known to cause endogenous 'HIV' expression. A recent 'scare story' from New York alleging a new 'super strain' of 'HIV' was (mis) 'diagnosed' from a man in his mid forties who took crystal methamphetamine. Crystal methamphetamine is oxidative, it depletes glutathione and induces apoptosis/cell death and depletes CD4's and cultures and activates endogenous 'HIV' expression.

Crystal methamphetamine, an addictive stimulant, itself depletes the immune system (not 'HIV'). Regarding this spurious 'super strain' of 'HIV', a cynical Dr. Robert Gallo stated: "The odds are enormous that it is not going to go anywhere."

Here is a summary of Peter Duesberg's drug/AIDS hypothesis which should answer Peter Morrell's questions neatly and eloquently.

The AIDS Dilemma: drug diseases blamed on a passenger virus, by Peter Duesberg & David Rasnick, Genetica 104: 85-132. 1998:

Almost two decades of unprecedented efforts in research costing US taxpayers over $50 billion have failed to defeat Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) and have failed to explain the chronology and epidemiology of AIDS in America and Europe. The failure to cure AIDS is so complete that the largest American AIDS foundation is even exploiting it for fundraising: 'Latest AIDS statistics 0,000,000 cured. Support a cure, support AMFAR.' The scientific basis of all these unsuccessful efforts has been the hypothesis that AIDS is caused by a sexually transmitted virus, termed Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), and that this viral immunodeficiency manifests in 30 previously known microbial and non- microbial AIDS diseases. In order to develop a hypothesis that explains AIDS we have considered ten relevant facts that American and European AIDS patients have, and do not have, in common:

(1) AIDS is not contagious. For example, not even one health care worker has contracted AIDS from over 800,000 AIDS patients in America and Europe.

(2) AIDS is highly non-random with regard to sex (86% male); sexual persuasion (over 60% homosexual); and age (85% are 25-49 years old).

(3) From its beginning in 1980, the AIDS epidemic progressed non- exponentially, just like lifestyle diseases.

(4) The epidemic is fragmented into distinct subepidemics with exclusive AIDS-defining diseases. For example, only homosexual males have Kaposi's sarcoma.

(5) Patients do not have any one of 30 AIDS-defining diseases, nor even immunodeficiency, in common. For example, Kaposi's sarcoma, dementia, and weight loss may occur without immunodeficiency. Thus, there is no AIDS -specific disease.

(6) AIDS patients have antibody against HIV in common only by definition-not by natural coincidence. AIDS-defining diseases of HIV-free patients are called by their old names.

(7) Recreational drug use is a common denominator for over 95% of all American and European AIDS patients, including male homosexuals.

(8) Lifetime prescriptions of inevitably toxic anti-HIV drugs, such as the DNA chain-terminator AZT, are another common denominator of AIDS patients.

(9) HIV proves to be an ideal surrogate marker for recreational and anti-HIV drug use. Since the virus is very rare (< 0.3%) in the US/European population and very hard to transmit sexually, only those who inject street drugs or, have over 1,000 typically drug-mediated sexual contacts are likely to become positive.

(10) The huge AIDS literature cannot offer even one statistically significant group of drug-free AIDS patients from America and Europe.

In view of this, we propose that the long-term consumption of recreational drugs (such as cocaine, heroin, nitrite inhalants, and amphetamines) and prescriptions of DNA chain-terminating and other anti- HIV drugs, cause all AIDS diseases in America and Europe that exceed their long-established, national backgrounds, i.e. >95%. Chemically distinct drugs cause distinct AIDS-defining diseases; for example, nitrite inhalants cause Kaposi's sarcoma, cocaine causes weight loss, and AZT causes immunodeficiency, lymphoma, muscle atrophy, and dementia. The drug hypothesis predicts that AIDS:

(1) is non-contagious;

(2) is non-random, because 85% of AIDS causing drugs are used by males, particularly sexually active homosexuals between 25 and 49 years of age, and

(3) would follow the drug epidemics chronologically

Competing interests: None declared