London, 12 September 1995
widely publicised study in Nature (7/9/1995) which claims
to provide conclusive proof that HIV causes AIDS in people with
haemophilia, is deeply flawed, because the following points were
not taken into account:
1a. The age
at which the people with haemophilia received an AIDS diagnosis,
because this determines the total amount of Factor VIII they received.
Until a few years ago, Factor VIII was only 1% pure, ie. 99% of
it consisted of other people's proteins which are self-evidently
highly immuno-suppressive to the recipient.(1)
b. The data
concerning cause of death is not provided: how many died of AIDS
related diseases, how many of haemophilia itself, and how many of
natural causes. How many deaths were confirmed by autopsy/necropsy
c. The drug
regimens, intended to forestall the onset of AIDS (eg AZT and its
analogues, and pentamidine, Septrin), but known to be highly damaging
over time, are not adequately described.
2. No explanation
is given as to why deaths escalated between 1989-1992. We consider
this to be attributable to the use of AZT in asymptomatics, administered
in the completely mistaken belief it would slow down or arrest HIV
disease progression (cf Concorde study, 1993)
3. Given that
nobody in the study should have been infected after 1985 (because
of heat-treatment and donor screening), those infected before 1985
should by now all have died, if the 10-year latency for HIV is correct.
In fact, only 403 out of 1227 have died. This implies that the latency
period of HIV is about 30 years, or that HIV is not the cause of
AIDS. Which is it?
4. HIV has
never been detected or otherwise demonstrated to be present in the
Factor VIII used by haemophiliacs! It has only ever been assumed
to be present.(2)
5. In the course
of preparing Factor VIII from blood, it is freeze-dried. This procedure
effectively destroys any HIV that may have been present in the pooled
blood samples from which it is obtained. This, therefore, means
that the deaths attributed to HIV would have to have been caused
by a destroyed virus, or alternatively, the CDC is completely mistaken.(3)
Which is it?
6. Even if
viable cell-free HIV could have survived the process of freeze-drying,
it has been known since 1989 on no less an authority than the head
of the NIH that the virus particles would have spontaneously lost
the gp120 spikes, essential for it to attach itself on to the CD4
receptors of the cells which it is thought to infect.(4) This means
that the virus could never have been infective.
Far from apologising
as called for in an editorial in Nature accompanying the
present study, we "the obstinate community of the unconvinced"
have every reason to remain so, and consider that the study simply
supports the views held by Professor Duesberg (Berkeley), Dr. Papadopulos-Eleopulos
(Perth), Dr Harvey Bialy (New York) and others, that HIV is not
the cause of AIDS.
On the contrary,
we hereby request and require that the scientists involved re-adopt
proper scientific principles in this very important field of public
Genetica (1995), 95, 51.
et al, Genetica (1995), 95: 25
3. CDC Factsheet
4. Varmus (1989)
American Society for Microbiology