The AIDS Crisis:
The Other Side

(Reprint from Townsend Letter for Doctors, January 1995 issue)

In April 1984, U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Margaret Heckler announced to the world at a press conference that an American scientist, Dr. Robert Gallo, had discovered the "probable cause" of Acquired Immune Deficiency (AIDS):

the retrovirus subsequently named Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV).

Since this announcement, the AIDS epidemic and our understanding of it has been fought on a politicized landscape.

Margaret Hockler, a politician, made this announcement before one single American study on HIV had been published. In addition, no discussion, review or debate of its merits occurred in any medical or scientific journals. This process of science by press release violated conventional scientific procedures and customs.

The political decision to credit Gallo with the discovery of HIV failed since subsequent investigations have established that HIV was discovered in 1983 by Dr. Lue Montagnier of France, who sent a sample of his discovery to Gallo! The retrovirus Gallo claimed to have discovered was the same retrovirus he had received from Montagnier.1

Immediately following Heckler's announcement, Gallo published four articles in Science (May 1984) that showed correlations between HIV and AIDS. These articles, which are the basis for the current hypothesis that HIV is the sole and direct cause of AIDS, were proved fraudulent on many counts critical to their scientific validity by recent investigations conducted by the National Institute of Health and the National Academy of Sciences.2

Since the April 1984 news conference, there has not been a single scientific research publication that purports to prove that HIV causes AIDS. In addition, there's been a lack of discussion and debate both outside and within the scientific community specifically addressing the contradictions and inconsistencies which the current HIV AIDS hypothesis and the epidemiological research on which it is based. To compound this, the current HIV-AIDS hypothesis has been entirely unproductive in terms of public health benefits, including AIDS prevention, treatment, and even in predicting the course of the disease within each individual or the course of the epidemic within the general population.

The following document is an overview of the viral and epidemiological contradictions and inconsistencies of the current HIV-AIDS hypothesis which have not been specifically addressed by the AIDS establishment.

This document hopes to show that the American government and scientific community need to seriously reassess the current HIV-AIDS hypothesis and their AIDS research priorities. We hope this reassessment will lead to a more productive AIDS hypothesis and investigations of the factors and/or causes of AIDS with or without HIV as a factor.

The current HIV-AIDS hypothesis states that the retrovirus, HIV, infects and kills CD4+T-Cells. Depletion of these T-Cells in the body is one of the hallmark conditions in People With AIDS (PWA's) and results in a weakened immune system, leaving the body susceptible to one or more of the 25 previously known diseases grouped together in a syndrome called AIDS.

In the last 8 + years of intensive HIV research it has been proven that only 1 in 10,000 T-cells are actively infected with HIV,3 even using the newly advanced technique of detection called PCR. This degree of T-cell loss is equivalent to losing a drop of blood a day. Anyone could afford to lose this quantity without developing any symptoms. The ongoing question in the scientific community is: What is killing the billions of T-cells and depleting other cells in the immune system such as Natural Killer (NK) cells, seen in PWA's if HIV is not solely responsible?

Even though we don't know the exact mechanisms by which viruses cause disease, the current HIV-AIDS hypothesis claims that HIV lies dormant in these T-cells for up to 15 years. Then, by way of some unknown mechanism, HIV is activated to destroy additional T-cells. This latency period is unexplainable by the scientific community since no known virus or retrovirus takes 10-15 years or more to cause disease,4 and contradicts other long established principles of virology.13

In spite of its political notoriety, HIV is scientifically a run of the mill retrovirus. It is genetically so similar to other non- pathogenic retroviruses that no one within the scientific community can explain or show that HIV exhibits any characteristics that would distinguish it from any of the other retroviruses.4 There are approximately 100 retroviruses in the human germ line. After over 20 years of intensive research on retroviruses, (Nixon's War on Cancer), none has ever proven to cause disease.4 To date, there has been no scientific evidence that explains why this retrovirus should be an exception.

HIV Virus vs. Antibodies to HIV
The primary function of any virus or retrovirus is to replicate itself in the cells of a host organism, such as a human body.

Some viruses, like those responsible for Polio and Hepatitis, kill cells in the process and thus cause disease. If the Polio virus kills sufficient neurons, the human hose (body) becomes paralyzed. A vaccine like the Salk or Sabin polio vaccines stimulates the body to produce antibodies, which neutralize the virus and thus prevent disease.

The presence of antibodies, especially if live virus is absent or is present in low quantities, indicates that the body's immune system has succeeded in controlling the virus, thus preventing disease.

Shortly after HIV infects the body the virus multiplies rapidly, sometimes causing flu-like symptoms.(4) Thereafter the immune system goes to work producing antibodies which virtually eliminate the virus. Only very low levels of the live HIV remain - so low they can only be detected with great difficulty by advanced PCR techniques - but antibodies persist and are readily detectable. Presence of antibodies to HIV (HIV+) in the blood has become a prerequisite for AIDS. But longstanding principles of virology13 hold that when antibodies are present, from any virus or retrovirus, this indicated that the immune system has rendered the virus harmless and the body is protected from further symptoms or disease. This is the principle of anti-viral vaccination. A positive antibody test to HIV is the current clinical indicator for AIDS. There is no scientific precedent for an anti-viral antibody forecasting a viral disease.

Epidemiological Evidence
Because no one knows of a mechanism by which HIV could perform all the destructive activities associated with full-blown AIDS, the HIV-AIDS hypothesis has always depended solely upon epidemiological evidence.

Epidemiology is a branch of medicine studying the course a disease takes in a population. In short, epidemiology is a "soft science" based on survey research. The main reason for believing that HIV causes AIDS is statistical correlation: Most persons suffering from AIDS also test positive for antibodies to HIV. This correlation is much less impressive than at first appears. Indeed, to a large extent it is a product of the HIV hypothesis itself. AIDS is defined as prior HIV infection plus symptoms like T-cell depletion and diseases like Kaposi's sarcoma, pneumonia, candidiasis and so on. In many cases, HIV is presumed where the indicator diseases have been diagnosed, even though the HIV test has not been performed. The statistical correlation of HIV and AIDS is thus built into the definition of AIDS. If the epidemiological evidence is evaluated without a pre-existing bias in favor of the HIV hypothesis, however, many facts emerge which cast doubt on HIV as the sole and direct cause of AIDS. As for example...

  1. Predictions of the spread of AIDS based on the HIV hypothesis are continually being readjusted,9 AIDS has not significantly spread beyond the original risk groups and there are fewer cases of full-blown AIDS than anticipated.

    For this reason the "latency period" has continuously been extended. It is now up to 10-15 years and still growing.

    This "latency period" is a statistical product designed to reconcile the relatively low incidence of AIDS with the relatively high level of HIV infection.6

  2. The number of HIV carriers has remained relatively constant at about 1 million since 1985 when the antibody test was initiated.6

  3. There is not enough HIV in the bodies of PWA's to account for the billions of T-cells being killed.7

  4. HIV can hardly be isolated from patients with AIDS, suggesting that the body's natural vaccination process has occurred.7

  5. Kaposi's sarcoma has been found in many young male homosexuals who have never been infected by HIV. Even adherents of the HIV hypothesis not concede that KS is not caused by HIV. Nonetheless, this disease is diagnosed as "AIDS" - but only when the sufferer also has antibodies to HIV.8

  6. Other AIDS indicator diseases with T-cell depletion are found in individuals who do not have antibodies to HIV.

    In fact, all AIDS diseases have occurred in all risk groups in the absence of HIV or its antibodies since the beginning of the epidemic. HIV infection is thus not a necessary prerequisite for a diagnosis of AIDS - were it not for the biased definition.7,9

  7. Tests show that the number of HIV infected T-cells remains the same no matter if you are asymptomatic or have full blown AIDS. Any other viral infection would show a dramatic increase throughout the course of the disease.7

  8. Although sexually transmitted diseases infect males and females equally, more than 90% of American AIDS sufferers are male. This is true even of health care workers who develop AIDS, although two-thirds of all U.S. health care workers are female.6

  9. The risk of getting AIDS for HIV infected people varies ten-fold with gender or country. In America, the annual AIDS risk of an HIV infected person is currently 4%, in Africa it is 0.3%.6,7

  10. HIV is spread primarily through homosexuals in the U.S. and primarily through heterosexuals in Africa.7 This would suggest that AIDS is possibly a non-infectious disease.

  11. So-called "African AIDS" affects males and females equally, and also involves a different pattern of associated opportunistic infections. These differing patterns do not rescue the HIV hypothesis for American AIDS, but indicate that a single virus may not be responsible for the multitude of conditions diagnosed as AIDS in Africa and America.7

  12. About three-fourths of the 20,000 U.S. hemophiliacs were infected with HIV almost 10 years ago. According to the HIV hypothesis, at least half of those infected should have died by not - but the mortality rate among hemophiliacs has remained consistent at 2% over the last 15 years.10

  13. HIV is said to be a sexually transmitted virus, yet it is barely detectable in the semen of AIDS patients.11

    14) The same diseases are found in similar frequencies in HIV positive and HIV negative intravenous drug users, and the overall mortality in the two groups is the same.12

Current State of Affairs
> Currently 1 billion dollars is spent on AIDS research each year by the U.S. government alone. This money is devoted almost solely to projects based on an unproven and so far, entirely unproductive hypothesis with mounting inconsistencies and contradictions. Specifically, most of the research dollars are spent on vaccines and anti-virals which may be of little value considering; A) Antibodies to HIV have already vaccinated the blood of PWA's, and B) Such minuscule amounts of HIV are found in the blood of PWA's that anti-virals would have little efficacy.

In consideration of the evidence presented, The HIV Connection? calls on our AIDS establishment to immediately reassess the current HIV-AIDS hypothesis and to encourage research into other possible causes of AIDS. The group hopes this reassessment will lead to a more productive AIDS hypothesis in terms of public health benefits including AIDS prevention, treatment and prediction of the course of the epidemic within the population at large, and the course of illness within each individual.

References: Available upon request


Cure Now P.O. Box 29386, Los Angeles, CA 90029, Jerry Tarranova, (213) 660-7563, Quarterly Bulletin $4.

Project AIDS International, 8033 Sunset Blvd., #2640, Los Angeles, CA (213) 467-3352

The Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV/AIDS Hypothesis, Charles Thomas (619) 272-3884

Rethinking AIDS, Quarterly Bulletin, 2040 Polk Street, Suite 3221, San Francisco, CA 94109 (A. James Trabulsi, Publisher)


Inventing AIDS, Cindy Patton, Rutledge Books 1990

The Missing Diagnosis, Dr. C. Orian Truss, M.D., P.O. Box 26508, Birmingham, AL 35226 (1985)

AIDS, INC., Jon Rappoport, Human Energy Press 1988

AIDS: The Mystery and the Solution, A.R. Cantwell, Aries Rising Press 1984

The Making of a Chronic Disease, G.M. Oppenheimer, University of California Press, Berkeley 1992

AIDS: Hope, Hoax and Whoopla, M. Culbert

AIDS: What the Government Isn't Telling, Lorraine Day, M.D., Rockford Press, Palm Desert, CA 1991

Against the Odds, Peter S. Arno & Karyn Fiden, Harper Collins Press 1992

Rethinking AIDS, Root Bernstein, 1994

Deadly Deception, Robert E. Willner M.D., Ph.D., Peltic Publishing Co., Inc., 1994


AIDS: Why is Science Failing? B. Elswood, Dr. R. Striker & W. Neves, San Francisco Sentinel Newspaper, May 14-28, 1992, (415) 281-3745 ext.11, ask for Tina Louise, please.

AIDS & The Media, Spin Magazine, October 1992

Fatal Distraction, Celia Farber, Spin Magazine, May 1992

The Role of Drugs in the Origin of AIDS, P.H. Duesberg, Department of Molecular and Cell Biology, 229 Stanley Hall, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720, 1992

AIDS Criticism in Europe, John Lauritsen, New York Native, June 15, 1992


The HIV Connection?
1072 Folsom Street, Suite 321
San Francisco, CA 94102

The San Francisco Medical Research Foundation
20 Sunnyside Avenue, Suite A-156
Mill Valley, CA 94941

Copyright © 1996. The Light Party.

Top or Page

Health Directory