the AIDS Virus, Peter H. Duesberg
1996, 720 pages, ISBN 0-89526-470-6.
to Book Review- By Peter Duesberg to the New York Times
To the Editor:
In her review of my "Inventing the AIDS Virus"
(April 7), June E. Osborn writes: "This book is destructive
of personal morale, prevention efforts and public understanding
both of H.I.V./AIDS and of biomedical science in general. It has
the potential to wreak serious harm at a crucial point in the AIDS
epidemic." At the same time, Dr. Osborn faithfully defends
the H.I.V.-AIDS orthodoxy with "enormous bodies of evidence...
that firmly implicate H.I.V. in AIDS" but without being able
to provide the one paper that proves that H.I.V. causes AIDS.
Yet 12 years and $35 billion after starting the war on AIDS in
the name of the hypothesis that H.I.V. causes AIDS, America has
no vaccine and no drug, has lost over 300,000 lives to AIDS and
has yet to save the first AIDS patient. This is a sad testimony
to the inability of the scientific and medical community to deal
with AIDS properly.
In such a situation the scientific method calls for new, alternative
hypotheses to compete with the unproductive H.I.V.-AIDS hypothesis.
The scientific method functions very much like the free market economy:
it provides the taxpayer and the patient with the most competitive
and productive scientific theory.
"Inventing the AIDS Virus" has done exactly this. It
provides a coherent and extensively documented alternative AIDS
hypothesis. It is proposing that American and European AIDS is the
medical consequence of the long-term consumption of recreational
drugs and of antiviral drugs like AZT. This hypothesis is a synthesis
and extension of the Centers for Disease Control's very own pre-1984
"life style" hypothesis of AIDS, and of many recent studies
that document the toxicity of AZT. The drug-AIDS hypothesis is very
testable and could prevent, even cure, AIDS at a fraction of the
annual $7.5 billion Federal AIDS budget currently invested in the
unproductive H.I.V. hypothesis. In the light of the drug hypothesis,
H.I.V. is a harmless passenger virus, and AIDS is an entirely preventable,
and in part curable, consequence of the drug epidemic.
One would expect Dr. Osborn to give an alternative to the failed
H.I.V. hypothesis some serious consideration. Yet there is not a
single complimentary sentence in her review. Wearing her H.I.V.-AIDS
blinkers, she not only misunderstands but also misrepresents the
For example, contrary to Dr. Osborn's assertion, "Inventing
the AIDS Virus" does not assert that "gay men in whom
AIDS was diagnosed in the early years... were not being truthful
if they denied drug use." The book documents with dozens of
references that if asked, gay men with AIDS all reported abundant
recreational drug use.
Also, contrary to Dr. Osborn, I do not "dismiss" AIDS
in other countries. Both Chapter 6 and Chapter 8 and an appended
scientific paper deal extensively with AIDS in other countries and
its causes, which are malnutrition, parasitic infection and poor
In the face of our AIDS epidemic and in the name of science, I
object to a partial and political review of my book. Isn't our common
enemy AIDS rather than Peter Duesberg and other H.I.V. dissidents?
Should AIDS be the winner of this debate because dissidents must
be losers? Wouldn't it be prudent to divert a few million dollars
from the annual $7.5 billion AIDS budget into just one alternative
Source: The New York Times, 19 May 1996