Frequently Asked Questions
Question and Answer #16
A1: Inventing the AIDS Virus (IAV) proposes that AIDS is caused by drugs. The decrease in new AIDS cases in the US in the last years confirms this proposal exactly, because thus decrease corresponds exactly to a steady decline in recreational drug consumption. For example, in the US spending for recreational drugs peaked at $91 billion in 1988 and steadily dropped to $53.7 billion in 1995.
Likewise the rapid increase of AIDS in the 1980s corresponded to the emergence of the explosive epidemics of recreational drug use in the US and Europe in the 1980s (see IAV).
(Where and when would I have said "there is no
real decrease in new AIDS cases"???)
Q2: You appear to think that Azt may be the cause of the disease in stead of a cure for it: how is that possible when the drug has been used since 1987 while the first cases of this strange immune syndrome were reported in 1981?
A2: Between 1981 and 1984 the Centers of Disease Control in Atlanta and many independent American and English scientists have proposed that AIDS is a lifestyle disease caused by recreational drugs. See for example an editorial in the famous New England Journal of Medicine (vol. 305, p1465) by D. Durack proposing in 1981 that "recreational drugs [are] immunosuppressive".
Based on the lifestyle hypothesis of the early 1980s and my own research I have proposed in IAV that drugs cause AIDS. The drug hypothesis holds that AIDS is caused either by recreational drugs, or by DNA chain terminators such as AZT prescribed as anti-HIV drugs, or by a combination of both.
Indeed, I have pointed out that DNA chain terminators
like AZT are muchmore toxic than recreational drugs such as cocaine and
heroin. This mayhave created the erroneous impression that the many anti-HIV
drugslicensed since 1987 are the only cause of AIDS.
Q3: If Azt is so toxic, how is it that the incidence of infected children has decreased from 25% to 8% (in Italy and in France) in babies born to mothers who had been treated with Azt during pregnancy?
A3: Treatment of HIV-positive, pregnant women with the DNA chain terminators has reduced the incidence of HIV in their babies from 25% to 8% in France and Italy as well as in the US. This is to be expected from a drug that was designed to kill cells including those in which HIV replicates. AZT was developed over 30 years ago to kill cells for cancer chemotherapy.
The first problem with this hypothetical triumph
of anti-HIV treatment is that HIV is not the cause of AIDS. The second
more serious problem that AZT induces abortion, and generates birth defects
in humans and causes cancer in animals born to AZT-treated mothers. For
example, a study published in 1994 found that among 104 AZT treated HIV
positive women, 8 aborted spontaneously, 8 had to be aborted "therapeutically",
and 8 had babies with birth defects such as cavities in the chest, heart
defects, extra fingers, misplaced ears, triangular faces, misformed spine,
and albinism (Kumar et al., J. AIDS, vol. 7, p1034 (1994), cited in IAV).
Q4: According to our leading experts the new cocktail (protease + transcriptase inhibitors) seems to work or at least to keep the disease at bay. How is that possible?
A4: Contrary to the assertions of your "leading experts", the anti-HIV drug cocktails are failing in the US. A front page article of the New York Times , showing dying AIDS patients, issued a first warning in August 1997: "Despite powerful new AIDS drugs many are still losing battle (NYT, August 22, 1997).
By September 1997 the American press already reported
that "AIDS drug cocktails fail 53%" (San Francisco Examiner, September
29, 1997). In view of this I wonder what your "leading experts" do to
make the cocktails "work". Where did they publish their success stories?
Q5: Statistics in western countries show that there are fewer deaths among people with Aids. If it is not because of the new treatment, what are the reasons?
A5: The reasons why the AIDS epidemic is declining were given in A1, the answer to Q1. Recreational drug consumption has recently declined and therefore AIDS.
However, there is no evidence to support the claim
that this is due to the new AIDS drug cocktails. Such evidence would have
to show, that those who still get AIDS are not treated, and those who
don't get AIDS are treated. But this is not the case in the US. Practically
all American AIDS patients are treated with the new drug cocktails, but
they continue to die.
Q6: In your book you envisage a possibile role of the 'poppers' as promoters of the syndrome because of their action on the immune system. In Italy, however, only ten percent of the gay community is estimated to use poppers. How do you explain then the Aids cases among the Italian gays?
A6: Since I do not have documentation on drug use by Italian male homosexuals, I cannot answer this question directly. Please provide a reference for your assertion that only 10% use poppers.
However, drug use by American, English, Dutch,
Canadian and Australian male homosexuals has been reported in the scientific
literature: They use batteries of recreational drugs as sexual stimulants,
including poppers (nitrite inhalants), amphetamines, ethyl chloride, cocaine,
speed, heroin, in addition to a "polypharmacy" of medical drugs. Many
of these, and particularly combinations of these drugs cause AIDS defining
diseases - regardless of the presence of HIV.
Q7: You mention studies reporting that a Hiv-positive person needs an average of 1000 unprotected sexual intercourses to transmit the Hiv virus. How was it possible to establish such an average? Does that mean that condoms are useless to prevent the spreading of the disease?
A7: The Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta were the first to publish in 1989 in the New England Journal of Medicine (see IAV) that it takes about 1,000 unprotected sexual contacts with an HIV-positive person to become positive. The CDC's numbers are based on thousands of "discordant" hemophilia couples, in which the husband was positive from a transfusion and some of their wives became positive over time. Recent studies on homosexual couples, other heterosexual couples and singles have confirmed the CDC's original number (see IAV).
With regard to your question about the usefulness
of condoms in preventing AIDS my answer is twofold: (1) Since AIDS is
caused by drugs, not by HIV, condoms do not prevent AIDS. (2) However,
since many doctors prescribe DNA chain terminators such as AZT as anti-HIV
drugs to healthy HIV-positives, and since DNA chain terminators cause
AIDS - condoms are useful after all. They protect people who have an average
of 1,000 sexual contacts with HIV-positives from infection, and thus from
AIDS caused by anti-HIV medication.
Q8: You state that any microbe that kills all his hosts would end up by committing suicide. So what? Do you believe in a 'survival finalism' in nature, in a sort of intelligence of the virus?
A8: Life is comparable to the law: it is based on logic and precedent. There >>>>is neither a precedent for a virus that consistently kills it's host, as is claimed for HIV, nor would it be logical for a virus to kill the host it needs for its survival.
The "intelligence of a virus" killing consistently
its host, would be the same as that of a car that consistently kills its
drivers because it does not have brakes.
HIV, like all other retroviruses in animals and humans, is perinatally
transmitted from mother to child. All viruses and microbes that are perinatally
transmitted in nature are harmless for the reasons stated in A8. Thus
those 17 million HIV positives who are healthy, are those who do not use
recreational and/or anti-HIV drugs.
A10: Contrary to your assertion, the new PCR test does not detect "the virus". Instead it detects a piece of the viral RNA or DNA genome, but not even the complete genome. Typically any virus, whose RNA or DNA must be detected by this method, is neutralized by antibody and is thus latent, and not infectious. It is for this reason that this very expensive method was introduced to detect "the virus" in AIDS patients. It would be much cheaper, and biologically much more relevant if infectious HIV could be detected. The difficulty in detecting infectious virus was reason for the fraud charges of the Pasteur Institute against leading AIDS researchers in the US (Gallo) and the UK (Weiss).
The PCR method was invented by Kary Mullis, who wrote the foreword for IAV, to detect a needle in a haystack. But a needle in a haystack does not cause a fatal disease. This is in fact one of the fatal flaws of the HIV-AIDS hypothesis.
The reason why "many people die of AIDS with no
trace of HIV" is simple. Since AIDS is caused by drugs, HIV must not be
present in AIDS patients - this is the hallmark of a passenger virus.
A11: This misrepresents what I state in IAV. I have stated that, according to the Centers for Disease Control and the World Health Organization, almost 9 out of 10 AIDS patients in America and Western Europe are males.
I did not say that they are "still men", because I am not a prophet, I am just a scientist.
A whole chapter of IAV explains why African AIDS
is different. The African AIDS epidemic has only one thing in common with
the American/European AIDS epidemic - the name. African AIDS is caused
by malnutrition, parasitic infection and poor sanitation. There are no
risk groups in Africa, like drug addicts and homosexuals. It is for this
reason that African AIDS is equally distributed between the sexes. Moreover,
practically no African AIDS patients have pneumocystis pneumonia, dementia
or Kaposi's sarcoma - the signal diseases of AIDS in the US and Europe.
Above all, African AIDS is diagnosed without even attempting an HIV test,
which is too expensive for Africa. Thus there is no scientific evidence
for the correlation between HIV and African AIDS, only guesses.
is a good question! I assume this would be so. But surprisingly neither
the US nor Europe has published how HIV- screening of blood supplies has
affected the incidence of HIV in the American and European hemophiliacs.
Please let me know if you have such publications.
non-funding of non-conformists has not changed in the US. Iassume it would
be fatal for the current AIDS establishment if they were proven wrong,
and that is why it will not change soon.
are some Italian scientists who have the same questions about the unproductive
HIV hypothesis as I do. For example Dr. Fabio Franchi in Trieste and Dr
Raffaele Cascone in Morlupo. Others like Prof. Leonida Santamaria and
Dr. Raul Vergini (Predappio) have organized conferences in 1993 in Pavia
and in 1994 in Bologna that have openly questioned the HIV-AIDS hypothesis.
Q16: The best way I know to prove the HIV hypothesis wrong is to infect otherwise perfectly healthy people with HIV, don't give them any treatment, and see what happens. I know this type of research has been done with animals. Since you can't experiment on other people, why don't you infect yourself? Maybe you can recruit some followers and have a "population" for a real experiment.
A16: I have considered, even offered, this directly. Here are the problems:
1) In the US, it is not possible to work with HIV without the approval of the National Institutes of Health and the university. Thus I would need an NIH peer-approved grant to do this. Without such a contract I would risk my lab and job.
2) In addition, if 10 years after injecting myself I would still be without symptoms, the HIV-AIDS orthodoxy would call me a bluff unless I had had a grant that allowed for appropriate controls. I have submitted 9 grant applications to study AIDS, including doing the study you mention, but none was approved.
3) In the US there are 1 million HIV-positive persons without any symptoms,
and in the world there are an estimated 34 million. Monitoring a few hundred
of these for AIDS and non-viral AIDS risks would be a statistically much
more relevant experiment than if one person injected himself. But surprisingly
such studies are not done. Why not? Guess!