HIV = REALITY or
+ False le foto del
virus HIV - Continua in:
An error can never become
true however many times you repeat it.
The truth can never be wrong, even if no one ever hears about it.
the past 10 years or so it has been the accepted wisdom that the human immuno-deficiency
virus, HIV, causes AIDS.
It supposedly occurs in many body fluids, and its transmission
especially in semen and blood to a new host, triggers a slow but inexorable progression to
AIDS and ultimately death. To infect another cell, HIV must at some stage in its life
cycle exist as a separate and identifiable entity.
has been ignored and kept from public awareness is, that there has never been a workable
HIV test and that the definition of 'positive' has always changed according to the views
of different organisations dealing with it, changed also according to the kind of tests
used and changed from laboratory to laboratory performing the tests:
Its techniques have not been standardised, and the magnitude and consequences of
interlaboratory variations have not been measured. Its results require
the criteria for this interpretation vary not only from laboratory to laboratory but also
from month to month .."(1)
dispute over who discovered HIV (2), was a distraction from the question of whether the
virus actually exists at all.
The public was impressed that if a President and a Prime
Minister (3) had to meet to resolve attribution, then the thing they were negotiating
about must be real.
In 1993 a research group from
Australia succeeded in publishing a paper on the HIV test.(4) Since then anybody could
have read for him or herself that no AIDS test could ever work, because HIV has never been
isolated nor even shown to exist. Since AIDS research and the media have largely ignored
any critique of HIV=AIDS, especially the essential question of whether HIV really does
exist, it is time to call again for a reappraisal of the whole HIV/AIDS
going back to the origins of HIV virology and telling the HIV story, a view will be
presented which will make clear that HIV itself, the very object of this Manhattan Project
of modern medicine, AIDS research, does not exist.(5)
L'Aids e' realmente
causato da un virus ?
HIV Virus inventato ?
Papadopoulos e l'aids
l'aids e' stato inventato in USA ?
I Postulati di Koch +
L'altra storia dell'Aids +
PDF di Luc Montagnier su AIDS ed HIV...
PDF di Gallo e lo HIV... +
Hiv virus inventato
FINE della BUGIA sull'AIDS
Imperatore ? - La prova scientifica che
l'HIV non è un virus.
Ecco il primo 1° video di sette 7°
(consequenziali) che trovate in Youtube.com
Ricercatore smaschera e rende pubblica la
L'ipotetico virus HIV (mai fotografato) NON
CAUSA AIDS - 2016:
A little virology
are essentially just packages of genetic information enclosed in a coat which consists of
proteins. They can reproduce themselves only by infecting a suitable host cell and
appropriating the chemical machinery they find there. The proteins making up the viruses
are characteristic for each species of virus. Apart from enveloping and transporting the
genetic information intact, the composition of proteins for a given virus results in a
specific shape for the virus particle.
much is generally known. Less well-known is the existence of other particles which look
like viruses but aren't, and are nonchalantly referred to as "virus-like"
particles. Such particles are far from rare, found, for example, always in
very frequently in the artificial environment of laboratory cell cultures. They have
served to muddy the waters considerably as far as AIDS research is concerned, because
particles just like these have been called HIV. To date, none of these has been
characterised and shown to exist as an entity which one may justifiably call a virus.
One root of the belief in the AIDS virus
classical theory DNA encodes the genetic material of heredity, which is then transcribed
into messenger RNA which in turn specifies the assembly of amino-acids to construct the
proteins of all living beings. In 1970 an enzyme (biological catalyst) was discovered in
extracts of certain cells which was capable of converting a molecule of RNA into DNA. This
was a revolutionary discovery, because it overturned a fundamental tenet of molecular
genetics, namely, that the flow of information was strictly one-way and never
had hitherto always been thought that DNA was transcribed (converted) into messenger RNA
and that the reverse process from RNA to DNA was impossible. The enzyme responsible became
known as reverse transcriptase (6) and a lot of new myths arose.
An error of the past: cancer caused by viruses.
was believed that the new enzyme was a marker for a virus, because the cells in which it
was detected, and which were used to study cancer (7), were thought to have become
cancerous through being infected by a virus. New to the idea of cancer viruses (8) was
that nucleic acid, when in the form of RNA could be converted into DNA by the
providing a mechanism for viral nucleic acid to be inserted anywhere in the chromosome of
the cells.(9) These "new" viruses became known as retroviruses.(10)
The insertion of certain retroviral genes was thought to trigger cancer.
idea that these postulated viruses caused cancer quickly became "hot news" the
world over, but did not survive investigation (11) and other explanations were
The theory did not predict or explain the dramatic increase in cancer cases, cancer could
not be shown to be transmissible, nor could it suggest any remedy in the form of a
vaccine.(13) Interestingly, the spread of cancer viruses was blamed on
prostitutes and black people, just as AIDS came to be 13 years later.(14)
and wherever reverse transcriptase activity was detected it was rashly assumed that
retroviruses were at work.
This turned out to be a grave error, because it was later found
that the enzyme occurred in all living matter, proving that reverse transcriptase activity
had nothing to do with retroviruses per se.(15)
research showed that at least 10% of mammalian DNA was composed of repetitive sequences
which were referred to as "nonsense genes", parts of which,
described as "retroviral genes". They exist in their hundreds if not
Some of them can even replicate independently and jump within and between
for this reason became known as retrotransposons.
the laboratory they can be made to migrate, and when this happens reverse transcriptase is
invariably detected, which underlines the fact that reverse transcriptase activity has
nothing to do with retroviruses as such.(16)
LAV, HTLV-III, HIV and all that
all this was already well known in 1983 it is incomprehensible that Francoise
Barre-Sinoussi, a member of Montagnier's group, as well as Gallo's group itself in 1984,
claimed to have discovered a new virus, when all they did was to demonstrate reverse
transcriptase activity, and to publish photographs of cellular particles without proof
that they were viruses. They could neither isolate them nor show that they were
responsible for creating the observed reverse transcriptase activity nor the tissue
abnormalities from which they were obtained.(17) They concluded: "the role of the
virus in the aetiology of AIDS remains to be determined".(18)
What makes a virus new?
isolation and purification of a real virus is a straightforward matter, because unlike
cells, viruses of one species are always of the same size and
shape, and can be readily
separated from other cell components by standard techniques. A control experiment is to
try an isolation with putative non-infected material in exactly the same way as the
supposedly infected material. Nothing should be isolated in this case.
identify a virus definitively, a first and simple step is to photograph isolated particles
of it in an electron microscope, and they must look like the viral particles observed in
cells, body fluids or cell cultures to distinguish them from other cellular particles
which look like viruses, but are not. Proteins making up the viral coat must then be
separated from each other and photographed.
This produces a pattern which is
characteristic of the species of virus. A similar separation and identification procedure
must be gone through for the DNA or RNA of the virus. Only after the viral proteins and
nucleic acid components have been properly identified, is it legitimate to speak of a new
No evidence for the existence of HIV
evidence has up till now never been produced for HIV. No photograph of an isolated HIV
particle has ever been published nor of any of its proteins or nucleic acids. No control
experiments as mentioned above have been published to date. What has been shown are
photographs of virus-like particles in cell cultures, but none of isolated
alone of a structure within the human body having the shape ascribed to HIV. What the
whole world has seen are models representing HIV with dish aerials, said to be receptors
with which the virus attaches itself to cells.
existence of HIV is inferred from an antibody test, but how this is supposed to work, when
the virus has never been shown to exist and obtained free of contaminants, remains a
The AIDS Test
us recall that the AIDS test is supposed to detect antibodies produced by the immune
system in response to infection by the virus. This is routinely done by layering proteins
ostensibly from the virus in the wells of a plastic rack and adding blood serum to be
tested to each. If antibodies are present, they bind to the proteins, and when this
happens sophisticated staining procedures can make this visible. But, because no proteins
which are viral and free from contaminants, have ever been obtained, one cannot be sure
what the antibodies are that bind to the proteins.
is the crux of the problem facing all HIV (AIDS) tests. The inability to isolate a viral
entity, and to characterise its constituent proteins unambiguously means that the evidence
for the existence of HIV using antibodies is just arguing in a circle. Antibodies that are
detected, are due to other causes.
Why no HIV test is ever able to work
is consequently quite illogical to claim that a positive test results from prior contact
with the virus.(19)
Because various ill-characterised proteins are involved, every test
kit manufacturer applies his own arbitrary criteria, and no two kits ever give the same
result. It makes no difference that learned committees set standards to decide which tests
should be regarded as "positive" and which not, because this merely skirts round
the problem, namely, to what are antibodies actually being detected in the AIDS test ?
is of no help that nowadays "second" and "third" generation tests
exist using synthetic proteins which give greater consistency and
only by an unscientific stretch of the imagination are they viral proteins!
fudging the true identity of the proteins, nor advocating two kinds of test - reassuringly
but mistakenly described as "search" and "confirmatory" tests -
resolves this difficulty.
ELISA test is used to screen for antibodies, which is "confirmed" by the more
specific Western Blot. The dilemma cannot be stated more poignantly than by quoting from
the leaflet accompanying one such test kit:
test for the existence of antibodies against AIDS-associated virus is not diagnostic for
AIDS and AIDS-like diseases. Negative test results do not exclude the possibility of
contact or infection with the AIDS-associated virus. Positive test results do not prove
that someone has an AIDS or pre-AIDS disease status nor that he will acquire it".(20)
The direct proof of HIV
HIV researchers have tried to circumvent the problem by pointing to something called
"direct" evidence for the virus.
All that this meant, though, was arbitrarily
selecting a protein of a certain size which happened to coincide with that shown in HIV
models. The delusion of such "evidence" was illustrated when the protein later
turned out to be of human origin! (21)
the genetic information of HIV was manufactured through ...
this deplorable state of affairs the majority of AIDS researchers still cling to the
authenticity of HIV, because a genetic sequence for it has been published.
genetic procedures now exist, which, unlike antibody tests, attempt to identify the
presence of HIV more or less immediately, instead of only weeks later when antibodies are
formed. The fact that the genetic tests (PCR)(22) do not give the same results as the
antibody tests is simply ignored.
no virus has been isolated, it follows that no nucleic acid has been isolated from it
either. Complicated procedures are even so described in the
literature, at the end of
which something is produced which is called the nucleic acid of HIV.(23)
and its DNA can allegedly be made by the "bucketful" (24), but under very
surprising conditions which, inter alia, entail the use of extracts from plants and other
oxidising chemicals, which could not possibly exist in vivo. Immortalised cell lines
devised (and later patented) by the Montagnier and Gallo groups are co-cultured with
extracts from human cells or the cells themselves.
At the end of it all HIV itself is not
actually obtained - only reverse transcriptase activity is shown to occur - which is taken
to imply that the DNA that is found, must have been viral in origin.
real explanation of what happens is as follows. In the mixture of cell cultures and
stressed human cells, RNA and reverse transcriptase come to be produced in large
because the cells have been specially selected and treated to do this.
The RNA is
transcribed into DNA by reverse transcriptase, and long pieces of DNA are produced which
are said to be viral DNA.
In fact they are composed of unrelated pieces of expressed
cellular RNA, transcribed into DNA and linked together by a process of "template
switching" (a well-characterised property of reverse transcriptase).(25) This
misleads ordinary researchers into believing that they have actually produced viral DNA.
is said that this linear DNA is the free or the non-integrated form of HIV, which
furthermore is said to be a unique feature of HIV, because a lot of detectable free linear
DNA has not been suggested in any other models of retroviruses.
a selecting process
resulting pieces of DNA too, are necessarily both shorter and longer than the
"correct" length of HIV. Pieces corresponding to the "correct" length
of HIV must be selected for size, because otherwise the purported DNA preparation would be
a mixture of various lengths, which would violate a cardinal rule of virology that all
nucleic acid of a particular virus be identical in size.
a detecting process
artificially prepared DNA pieces of uniform length, they are still not ready for
presentation, because they consist of a mixture of all kinds of RNA fragments transcribed
into DNA and thus cannot be shown to represent unique viral DNA. Accordingly, the mixture
is subjected to a kind of lock-and-key detection process called
pieces of DNA are detected which complement more or less a probe of that which it is
desired to be shown to have been prepared.
choosing a desired probe
no DNA from HIV existed to hybridise with the prepared DNA, Gallo and Montagnier simply
used stretches of DNA from what they said was specific to HTLV-I, a retrovirus Gallo had
earlier claimed to have discovered, and which they deemed suitable for this
DNA detected in this way was replicated and certain stretches of it cloned and declared to
be the DNA of HTLV-III (later to be called HIV).
summarise, the purpose of the exercise is to grow HIV, but it actually produces a mixture
of different lengths of DNA, contrary to theory which says they should all be
and no virus at all. It is then claimed that the "correct" DNA has been prepared
by finding certain strands in this heterogeneous mix by hybridising them with an HTLV-I
DNA probe whose sequence is known and defined to be similar to HIV. However,
non-hybridising strands of DNA should not be there at all, and the fact that they are,
proves that a complete rag-bag of DNA has been prepared, without any indication of what it
is made up of.
follows that "HIV" DNA must just be a laboratory artefact constructed to a
preconceived idea of what retroviral DNA should be, and this assessment does not even
raise the question why no virus can be obtained, whatever the experimental
Gallo and Montagnier's cloned HIV DNA
cannot help asking why no-one had not long ago spotted the flaw in the techniques employed
by the Gallo and Montagnier groups. After defining some segments of DNA to be
"HIV"-specific, every researcher in the field worked exclusively with short,
cloned sequences (never the whole strand) on the reasonable assumption that the original
characterisation had been correctly performed. From the isolation and identification
procedure described above, it follows that the resultant sequences vary widely from one
preparation to the next, which sequence analysts misinterpreted as the legendary capacity
of HIV to mutate. A computer simulated phylogenetic tree was constructed, which
established precisely what its designer sought to prove.(26)
Perhaps one reason for this calamitous state of affairs is that HTLV-III was presented to
the world as the cause of AIDS at a historic press conference on April 23, 1984 (a patent
for an antibody test was applied for on the same day!), instead of making the evidence for
it available beforehand, as correct science demands. The undue haste may be explained by
the fact that both the National Cancer Institute and the Centers for Disease Control
had actually one day earlier in a lengthy front page article in The New York Times on
April 22 come out in favour of the French claim for priority.(27)
Even so, one must admire Gallo's audacity, because using the same technique he claimed in
1975 to have discovered the first human retrovirus (HL23), but which turned out to be
nothing more than pieces of DNA from three different sources of
contamination.(28) Nowadays, even an undergraduate would know that if you added DNA to a cell culture, part
of the DNA would be incorporated into the cells without any virus being
What does the AIDS test actually test for?
"HIV" has been shown to be a laboratory artefact it must be assumed
not just cross-reacting with other known antibodies, the "AIDS" test detects
antibodies against proteins produced in the procedure itself. They must be of human origin
because the cells used originated from leukaemic patients. Test positivity,
results from immunological contact with them. However, since positivity actually
correlates with otherwise unrelated factors such as rheumatism and sun
specificity can be ascribed to the test.(29) Whether antibody positivity really correlates
with disease as is commonly supposed, remains to be determined by a critical re-evaluation
of the data. Condoms, therefore, serve only to protect against venereal diseases and as
contraceptives, and worse lull the user into a false sense of security by ignoring real
dangers he may be exposing himself to.
Re-direction of AIDS research
research is therefore back at square one and not at Basic Science as suggested
elsewhere.(30) The main players have since 1993 begun to slink off, arguing that the virus
having mutated so much is now no longer detectable. AIDS has therefore to be explained
"in the absence of further whole virus".(31) Apart from the shortcomings of the
antibody test, other misconceptions such as T-cell counting exist, which mean that the
whole concept of AIDS needs to be completely revised.(32) It must be shown that there is
any point in renaming a collection of known diseases as AIDS, just because someone is
positive in the antibody or genetic (PCR) tests. Leaving HIV out of the picture explains
why the epidemiological projections, which years ago had forecast a world-wide
have been a complete failure. Africa in 1986 was held up as a dire warning of what would
befall the Western world.
There, AIDS was diagnosed by a combination of clinical
conditions (33) such as chronic fevers, diarrhoeas, coughs and weight loss, all symptoms
of the diseases of poverty, without testing for HIV antibodies.(34) It should hardly come
as a surprise that an entirely different definition produced a different
the effect of a positive test result on mental and physical health needs to be considered
happens, the use of AZT and other "anti-virals" which are supposed to target HIV
replication, but actually kill cells indiscriminately (and ultimately the whole body),
must be stopped immediately. It is especially distressing to note that AZT and its
analogues preferentially attack those cells which divide most rapidly,
namely, cells in
the intestines causing diarrhoea and malabsorption of food, and in bone
marrow, ironically, the primary production site for cells of the immune system.(36)
The people who need enlightenment
most important and delicate task is to convince HIV positives that their test result is
not a death sentence, to be generally supportive of them, to assuage their
anxiety, and to
help them understand that with appropriate treatment of any specific disease, they have a
good chance to retain or regain their health. The large number of long-term
whose condition cannot be explained by conventional AIDS theory, as well as the phenomenon
of sero-reversion (return to negative test status), provide eloquent testimony to
HIV/AIDS researchers and health officials are herewith called upon to debate the whole
subject of HIV/AIDS openly and humanely, and to recognise the mistake that immune
deficiency was acquired by an infectious agent.
be able to live a fuller life we have first to regain and then retain autonomy over our
bodies and health from self-appointed experts, who have dispossessed us of
we refuse to learn from what has happened in AIDS research and related medical
then worse is on the way, some of it is, indeed, here already.(38) The genetics agenda
begun in the 1860's (39) and a primitive genetic determinism have become established
through the availability of genetic sequences and the ability to manipulate them
which are, in fact, pure fantasy.(40) Furthermore, all models of genetics and associated
technologies, e.g. genome therapy, are based on a
one-dimensional, static model of
genetics which is a crass oversimplification, not defensible even when Mendel first
proposed it.(41) *
Health as a Virtue (Ivan Illich):
designates a process of adaptation. It is not the result of instinct, but of an autonomous
yet culturally shaped reaction to socially created reality. It designates the ability to
adapt to changing environments, to growing up and to ageing, to healing when
damaged, to suffering, and to the peaceful expectation of
death. Health embraces the future as well,
and therefore includes anguish and the inner resources to live with it.
designates a process by which each person is responsible, but only in part responsible to
others. To be responsible may mean two things. A man is responsible for what he has
and responsible to another person or group. Only when he feels subjectively responsible or
answerable to another person will the consequences of his failure be not
censure, or punishment but regret, remorse, and true repentance. The consequent states of
grief and distress are marks of recovery and healing, and are phenomenologically something
entirely different from guilt feelings. Health is a task, and as such is not comparable to
the physiological balance of beasts. Success in this personal task is in large part the
result of the self-awareness, self-discipline, and inner resources by which each person
regulates his own daily rhythm and actions, his diet, and his sexual
encompassing desirable activities, competent performance, the commitment to enhance health
in others - these are all learned from the example of peers or elders. These personal
activities are shaped and conditioned by the culture in which the individual grows up:
patterns of work and leisure, of celebration and sleep, of production and preparation of
food and drink, of family relations and politics. Long-tested health patterns that fit a
geographic area and a certain technical situation depend to a large extent on long-lasting
political autonomy. They depend on the spread of responsibility for health habits and for
the socio-biological environment. That is, they depend on the dynamic stability of a
culture. The level of public health corresponds to the degree to which the means
andresponsibility for coping with illness are distributed among the total
ability to cope can be enhanced but never replaced by medical intervention or by the
hygienic characterisitcs of the environment. That society which can reduce professional
intervention to the minimum will provide the best conditions for health. The greater the
potential for autonomous adaptation to self, to others, and to the
environment, the less
management of adaptation will be needed or tolerated.
world of optimal and widespread health is obviously a world of minimal and only occasional
medical intervention. Healthy people are those who live in healthy homes on a healthy diet
in an environment equally fit for birth, growth, work, healing, and dying; they are
sustained by a culture that enhances the conscious acceptance of limits to
population, of ageing, of incomplete recovery and ever-imminent
death. Healthy people need minimal
bureaucratic interference to mate, give birth, share the human condition, and
consciously lived fragility, individuality, and relatedness make the experience of
of sickness, and of death an integral part of his life. The ability to cope with this trio
autonomously is fundamental to his health. As he becomes dependent on the management of
his intimacy, he renounces his autonomy and his health must decline. The true miracle of
modern medicine is diabolical.
It consists in making not only individuals but whole
populations survive on inhumanly low levels of personal health.
Medical nemesis is the
negative feedback of a social organization that set out to improve and equalize the
opportunity for each man to cope in autonomy and ended by destroying it.
article is dedicated to Ivan Illich and Thomas McKeown: had their writings been taken more
seriously the world would have been spared the AIDS panic as well as other
would also like to thank Volker Gildemeister (Meditel, London) for translation and
constructive criticism, and of course, my family, Hans-Walter Wiegand and other friends
too numerous to list, for all their support.
Klemens B. Meyer and Stephen G. Pauker. 1987. Screening for HIV: Can we afford the false
positive rate? NEJM 317: 238-241. See also: Marsha F. Goldsmith. 1985. HTLV-III testing of
donor blood imminent; complex issues remain. JAMA 253: 81-86, 173-175, 179-181.
John Crewdson. The Great AIDS Quest. Special report. Nov. 19. 1989. Chicago Tribune.
Frankel, Mark; Mary Hager, Theodore Stanger. July 25 1994. The End of a Scientific
Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos, Valendar F. Turner, John M. Papadimitriou. 1993. Is a
positive Western Blot proof of HIV infection? Bio/Technology 11: 696-707.
A similar article was published in a German monthly: Stefan Lanka. 1994. Fehldiagnose
AIDS? Wechselwirkung, Aachen, December, 48-53.
Temin H.M. and Mizutani. 1970. Viral RNA-dependent DNA-polymerase. Nature 226: 1211-1213.
Temin H.M. and Baltimore D. 1972. RNA-directed DNA synthesis and RNA tumor
Vir Res 17: 129-186.
Gerald B. Dermer. 1994. The Immortal Cell: Why Cancer Research Fails. Avery Publishing
Group, Garden City Park, NY. Gerald B. Dermer. 1994. Another Anniversary for the war on
Cancer. Bio/Technology 12: 320.
Gye W.E. and W.J. Purdy. 1931. The cause of Cancer. Cassell, London.
Weiss R. et al. 1982. RNA Tumor Viruses. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. Cold Spring
Harbor, New York.
Bishop J.M. 1978. Retroviruses. Ann. Rev. Biochem. 47: 35-88. Bishop J.M. 1983. Cellular
oncogenes and retroviruses. Ann. Rev. Biochem. 52: 301-354. Doolittle R.F. et al. 1989.
Origins and evolutionary relationships of retroviruses. The Quarterly Review of Biology
64: 1-30. Varmus H. and Brown P. 1989. Retroviruses. In: Mobile DNA: 53-108,
eds.: Berg E.
and Howe M.M. American Society for Microbiology. Washington D.C. Coffin J.M. 1990.
Retroviridae and their replication. In: Virology. Fields B.N. ed., New York. Doolittle
D.F. et al. 1990. Retrovirus Phylogeny and Evolution. Current Topics in Microbiology and
Immunology 157: 1-18.
Why we will never win the war on AIDS. Ellison B.J. & Duesberg P.H. 1994 Inside Story
Communications, El Cerrito CA
John Higginson, Calum S. Muir, Nubia Munoz. Human cancer: epidemiology and environmental
causes. Cambridge University Press. Samuel S. Epstein. 1992. Profiting from
Interests and the Cancer Epidemic. The Ecologist 22: 233-240. Samuel S.
Evaluation of the National Cancer Program and proposed reforms. International J. Health
Services 23: 15-44.
Tim Beardsley. 1/1994. A war not won. Scientific American 70: 118.
see ref 11
Malcolm A. Martin et al. 1981. Identification and cloning of endogenous retroviral
sequences present in human DNA. PNAS 78: 4892-4896. T.I. Bonner et al. 1982. Cloned
endogenous retroviral sequences from human DNA PNAS 79: 4709-4713. Callahan R. et al.
1982. Detection and cloning of human DNA sequences related to the mouse mammary tumor
virus genome. PNAS 79: 5503-5507. Temin H.M. 1985. Review: Reverse Transcription in the
Eukaryotic Genome: Retroviruses, Pararetroviruses, Retrotransposons, and
Retrotranscripts. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2: 455-468. Harold Varmus. 9/1993. Reverse
Dixie L. Mager and Paula S. Henthorn. 1984. Identification of a retrovirus-like repetitive
element in human DNA. PNAS 81: 7510-7514. Catherine O'Connell et al. 1984. ERV3, a
full-length human endogenous provirus: chromosomal localization and evolutionary
relationships. Virology 138: 225-235. Baltimore D. 1985. Retroviruses and
The Role of Reverse Transcription in Shaping the Eukaryotic
40: 481-482. Paulson K.E. et al. 1985. A transposon-like element in human DNA. Nature 316:
359-361. Callahan R. et al. 1985. A new class of endogenous human retroviral
Science 228: 1208-1211. Weiner A.M. et al. 1986. Nonviral retrotransposons:
Genes, pseudogenes, and transposable elements generated by the reverse flow of genetic
information. Ann. Rev. Biochem. 55: 631-61. Dixie L. Mager and Douglas
Human endogenous retroviruslike genome with Type C pol sequences and gag sequences related
to human T-Cell Lymphotropic viruses. J Virol. 61: 4060-4066. Shih A. et al. 1989.
Detection of multiple, novel reverse transcriptase coding sequences in human nucleic
acids: relation to primate retroviruses. J Virol. 63: 64-75. Krause H. et al. 1989.
Molecular Cloning of a Type D Retrovirus from Human Cells (PMFV) and its Homology to
Simian Acquired Immunodeficiency Type D Retroviruses. Virology 173: 214-222.
Wilkinson D.A. et al. 1990. Autonomous expression of RTVL-H endogenous retroviruslike elements in
human cells. J Virol. 64: 2157-2167. Banki K. et al. 1992. Human T-cell lymphotropic virus
(HTLV)-related endogenous sequence, HRES-1, encodes a 28-kDa
protein: A possible
autoantigen for HTLV-I gag-reactive autoantibodies. PNAS 89: 1939-1943. Horwitz M.S. et
al. 1992. Novel Human Endogenous Sequences Related to Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1.
J Virol. 66: 2170-2179. Maizels N. and Weiner A.M. 1993. The Genomic Tag
Modern Viruses as Molecular Fossils of Ancient Strategies for Genomic
RNA World. Gesteland F. and Atkins J.F. eds. Cold Spring Harbor.
Robert C. Gallo et al. 1984. Frequent detection and isolation of cytopathic retroviruses
(HTLV-III) from patients with AIDS and at risk for AIDS. Science 224: 500-503
Francoise Barre-Sinoussi et al. (including. L. Montagnier). 1983. Isolation of a
T-lymphotropic retrovirus from a patient at risk for Aquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome
(AIDS). Science 220: 868-871. Robert C. Gallo et al. 1983. Isolation of Human T-Cell
Leukemia Virus in Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS). Science 220: 865-867.
see ref 4
see ref 4
22 Just how little confidence is placed in the validity of such
tests is revealed by the caveats in the leaflet accompanying one of them: "The
Amplicor HIV-1 PCR test has been tested using whole blood specimens only. Performance with
other specimens has not been evaluated and may result in false negative or false positive
results... Detection of HIV-1 may be dependent on the amount of proviral DNA in the
specimen. This may be affected by specimen collection methods and patient factors such as
age, disease status and risk factors etc. As in any diagnostic test, results from Amplicor
HIV-1 test should be interpreted with consideration of clinical and laboratory
findings." It will become clear later why whole blood rather than serum is used for
this test, all the more so as the purpose of the test is to detect transmissible virus
particles which should not have anything to do with the presence or absence of blood
cells. This all the more significant, since a major form of HIV transmission is supposed
to be via Factor 8 given to haemophiliacs, where blood cells are absent. The implication
is that without blood cells no "viral" DNA would be detected!
Beatrice H. Hahn et al. (incl. Robert C. Gallo). 1984. Molecular cloning and
characterization of the HTLV-III virus associated with AIDS. Nature 312: 166-169. Shaw
G.M. et al. (incl. Robert C. Gallo). 1984. Molecular Characterization of Human T-Cell
Leukemia (Lymphotropic) Virus Type III in Acquired Immune Deficiency
226: 1165-1171. Marc Alizon et al. (including. Luc Montagnier). 1984. Molecular cloning of
lymphadenopathy-associated virus. Nature 312: 757-760. Wain-Hobson S. et al. 1985.
Nucleotide Sequence of the AIDS Virus, LAV. Cell 40: 9-17. Ratner L. et al. 1985. Complete
nucleotide sequence of the AIDS virus, HTLV-III. Nature 313: 277-284.
Tedder R.S. UCL Medical School London, 1994 personal communication
Guangxiang Luo and John Taylor. 1990. Template Switching by Reverse Transcriptase during
DNA Synthesis. J Virol 64, 4321-4328. Goodrich D.W. and Duesberg P.H. 1990. Retroviral
recombination during reverse transcription. PNAS 87: 2052-2056.
Hahn B.H. et al. 1986. Genetic Variation in HTLV-III/LAV Over Time in Patients with AIDS
or at Risk for AIDS. Science 232: 1548-1553. Alizon M. et al. 1986. Genetic Variability of
the AIDS Virus: Nucleotide Sequence Analysis of Two Isolates from African
46: 63-74. Yasuo Ina and Takashi Gojobori. 1990. Molecular Evolution of Human T-Cell
Leukemia Virus. J Mol Evol 31: 493-499. Balfe P. et al. 1990. Concurrent Evolution of
Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 in Patients Infected from the Same
Source: Rate of
Sequence Change and Low Frequency of Inactivating Mutations. J Virol 64: 6221-6233.
Barbara J. Culliton. 1990. I: Inside the Gallo Probe. Science 248: 1494-1498. Ellis
Rubinstein. 1990. II: The Untold Story of HUT78. Science 248: 1499-1507. Barbara J.
Culliton. 1992. NIH report vindicates Gallo on conduct of AIDS
research. Nature 357: 3-4.
John Maddox. 1992. More on Gallo and Popovic. Nature 357: 107-109. Jon Cohen. 1993.
Gallo Guilty of Misconduct. Science 259: 168-170.
Steve Connor. 1987. AIDS: Science stands on trial. New Scientist 12.2., 49-58.
see ref 4
Fields B.N. 1994. AIDS: Back to Basic Science. Nature 369: 95.
Laurie Garrett. 1993. Seeing the Light; AIDS scientists shift their focus.
September 6. Charles A. Thomas, Jr., Kary B. Mullis, Bryan J. Ellison, and Phillip E.
Johnson.Why there is still an HIV controversy . October 20, 1993. Cited as reference 72 in
Richard Strohman (37). Nature, submitted in November 1993; rejected December 1993,
manuscript available upon request (RS).
J.S. Goodwin, 1981. A Piece of My Mind: OKT3, OKT4, and All That. This article is a
diatribe against the measurement of T-cell subsets in human diseases. JAMA 246: 947-948.
Caspar G. Schmidt, 1984. The group fantasy origins of AIDS. J. Psychohistory 12: 37-78.
Peter H. Duesberg, 1987. Retroviruses as Carcinogens and Pathogens: Expectations and
Reality. Cancer Research 47: 1199-1220. AIDS - A different
View. Abstracts. International
Symposium 14.-16. May (Amsterdam). Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos, Valendar F. Turner and
John M. Papadimitriou, 1992. Kaposi's sarcoma and HIV. Med. Hypotheses 39: 22-29. Peter H.
Duesberg and Jody R. Schwarz, 1992. Latent viruses and mutated oncogenes: no evidence for
pathogenicity. Prog. Nucleic Acid Res. Molec. Biol. 43: 135-204. Peter H.
AIDS acquired by drug consumption and other noncontagious risk factors.
Pharmac. Ther. 55:
201-277. Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos, Valendar F. Turner and John M.
Oxidative stress, HIV and AIDS. Res. Immunol. 143: 145-148. John Lauritsen, 1993. The AIDS
War. Propaganda, Profiteering and Genocide from the Medical-Industrial
New York. Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos, Valendar F. Turner and John M.
Has Gallo proven the role of HIV in AIDS? Emergency Medicine 5: 113-123. Serge
HIV and AIDS: Have we been misled? Questions of Scientific and Journalistic
Responsibility. Yale Scientific, New Haven. Neville
Hodgkinson, 1994. Paradigms Lost.
Continuum 2/5&6, London. Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos, Valendar F. Turner, John M.
Papadimitriou and David Causer, 1995. Factor VIII, HIV and AIDS in
analysis of their relationship. Genetica. Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos, Valendar F.
John M. Papadimitriou, David Causer, Bruce Hedland-Thomas and Barry A.P. Page, 1995. A
critical analysis of the HIV-T4-cell-AIDS hypothesis. Genetica.
Chirimuuta R.C and Rosalind J. Chirimuuta 1989. AIDS, Africa and Racism. Free Association
Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos, Valendar F. Turner, John M. Papadimitriou and Harvey
1995. AIDS in Africa. Distinguishing fact and fiction. World Journal of Microbiology and
Hassig A. Research paper, 1993. Study Group on Nutrition and Immunity. Neuroendocrine
causation of CD4/CD8 shift 3066 Stettlen, Switzerland.
John Lauritsen. 1990. Poison by Prescription. The AZT Story. Asklepios, New York. John
Lauritsen, 1993. The AIDS War. Propaganda, Profiteering and Genocide from the
Medical-Industrial Complex. Asklepios, New York.
Ivan Illich. 1990. Limits to Medicine. Medical Nemesis: The expropriation of
health. Penguin. Thomas McKeown The Role of Medicine - Dream,
Mirage, Nemesis 1979 Princeton
University Press. Robert S. Mendelsohn. 1979. Confessions of a Medical
Ruth Hubbard and Elijah Wald with Nicholas Hildyard. 1993. The Eugenics of
Politics of Gene Research. The Ecologist 23: 185-191. Ruth Hubbard and Elijah
Exploding the Gene Myth: How Genetic Information is Produced and Manipulated by
Scientists, Physicians; Employers; Insurance Companies,
Educators, and Law Enforcers. Beacon. R.C. Lewontin. 1994. Women Versus the
Biologists. The New York Review of Books,
April 7. Steven Rose. 1995. The rise of neurogenetic determinism. Nature 373: 380-382.
D.J. Weatherall. 1991. Ethical issues and related problems arising from the application of
the new genetics to clinical practice. In: The New Genetics and Clinical
Weatherall (ed.). Oxford University Press.
Theodore Friedmann. 1994. The promise and overpromise of human gene therapy. Gene Therapy
John Rennie. 3/1993.DNA's New Twists. Scientific American 260: 88. and most
Richard Strohmann. 1994. Epigenesis: The Missing Beat in Biotechnology? Bio/Technology 12:
L'AIDS c osi come e' stato descritto dalla
medicina ufficiale e' una FALSITA'
CONTROVERSY from Dr. Mullis
was awarded the 1993 Nobel Prize in Chemistry.
This article is excerpted from his forthcoming
book, Dancing Naked in the Mind Field, to be
published by Pantheon.
When I first heard
in 1984 that Luc Montagnier of France's Pasteur
Institute and Robert Gallo of America's National
Institutes of Health had independently
discovered that the retrovirus H.I.V. -- human
immunodeficiency virus -- caused AIDS, I
accepted it as just another scientific fact. It
was a little out of my field of biochemistry,
and these men were specialists in retroviruses.
Four years later I was working as a consultant
at Specialty Labs in Santa Monica. Specialty was
trying to develop a means of using P.C.R. [polymerase
chain reaction, a D.N.A.-amplification method
Mullis] to detect retroviruses in the thousands
of blood donations received per day by the Red
Cross. I was writing a report on our progress
for the project sponsor, and I began by stating,
"H.I.V. is the probable cause of AIDS."
I asked a virologist at Specialty where I could
find the reference for H.I.V. being the cause of
"You don't need a reference," he told me. "Everybody
"I'd like to quote a reference." I felt a little
funny about not knowing the source of such an
important discovery. Everyone else seemed to.
"Why don't you cite the C.D.C. report ?" he
suggested, giving me a copy of the Centers for
Disease Control's periodic report on morbidity
and mortality. I read it. It wasn't a scientific
article. It simply said that an organism had
been identified -- it did not say how. It
requested that doctors report any patients
showing certain symptoms and test them for
antibodies to this organism.
The report did not identify the original
scientific work, but that didn't surprise me. It
was intended for physicians, who didn't need to
know the source of the information. Physicians
assumed that if the C.D.C. was convinced, there
must exist real proof somewhere that H.I.V. was
the cause of AIDS.
A proper scientific reference is usually a
published article in a reliable scientific
These days the magazines are on slick glossy
paper with pictures on the front and lots of
advertisements, a lot of editorial material by
people who are professional journalists, and a
few pictures of girls selling you things you
might want to buy for your lab.
are the companies that make things for
scientists to buy and the companies that make
drugs for doctors to sell. Therefore there are
no major journals without corporate connections.
Scientists submit the articles in order to
report their work.
Preparing articles describing their work and
having them published is crucial to a
scientist's career, and without articles in
major journals they will lose their rank. The
articles may not be submitted until experiments
supporting the conclusions drawn are finished
and analyzed. In primary journals every single
experimental detail has to be there either
directly or by reference, so that somebody else
can repeat exactly what was done and find out
whether it comes out the same way in their hands.
If it doesn't, somebody will report that, and
the conflict eventually has to be resolved so
that when we go on from here we know where "here"
is. The most reliable primary journals are
refereed. After you send in your article, the
editors send copies of it to several of your
colleagues for review.
They become the referees.
The editors are paid for their work on the
journal; the colleagues are not. But what they
do gives them power, which most of them like.
I did computer searches. Neither Montagnier,
Gallo, nor anyone else had published papers
describing experiments which led to the
conclusion that H.I.V. probably caused AIDS. I
read the papers in Science for which they had
become well known as AIDS doctors, but all they
had said there was that they had found evidence
of a past infection by something which was
probably H.I.V. in some AIDS patients.
They found antibodies. Antibodies to viruses had
always been considered evidence of past disease,
not present disease.
Antibodies signaled that
the virus had been defeated. The patient had
saved himself. There was no indication in these
papers that this virus caused a disease. They
didn't show that everybody with the antibodies
had the disease. In fact they found some healthy
people with antibodies.
If Montagnier and Gallo hadn't really found this
evidence, why was their work published, and why
had they been fighting so hard to get credit for
the discovery ? There had been an international
incident wherein Robert Gallo of the N.I.H. had
claimed that his own lab had not been able to
grow the virus from the sample sent to him by
Luc Montagnier in Paris. The virus he was able
to grow, he said, came from samples collected at
his end from putatuive AIDS patients. Gallo had
patented the AIDS test based on these samples,
and the Pasteur Institute had sued. The Pasteur
eventually won, but back in 1989 it was a
standoff, and they were sharing the profits.
I was hesitant to write "H.I.V. is the probable
cause of AIDS" until I found published evidence
that would support it.
Mine was the most minimal
statement possible. In my progress report I wasn't
trying to say that it absolutely did cause AIDS,
I was just trying to say that it was likely to
cause it for some known reasons. Tens of
thousands of scientists and researchers were
spending billions of dollars a year doing
research based on this idea. The reason had to
be there somewhere; otherwise these people would
not have allowed their research to settle into
one narrow channel of investigation.
I lectured about P.C.R. at innumerable meetings.
Always there were people there talking about
I asked them how it was that we knew H.I.V. was
the cause of AIDS. Everyone said something.
Everyone had the answer at home, in the office,
in some drawer. They all knew, and they would
send me the papers as soon as they got back. But
I never got any papers. Nobody ever sent me the
news about how AIDS was caused by H.I.V.
I finally had the opportunity to ask Dr.
Montagnier about the reference when he lectured
in San Diego at the grand opening of the
U.C.S.D. AIDS Research Center, which is still
run by Bob Gallo's former consort, Dr. Flossie
Wong-Staal. This would be the last time I would
ask my question without showing anger. In
response Dr. Montagnier suggested, "Why don't
you reference the C.D.C. report ?"
"I read it," I said. "That doesn't really
address the issue of whether or not H.I.V. is
the probable cause of AIDS, does it ?"
He agreed with me. It was damned irritating. If
Montagnier didn't know the answer, who the hell
One night I was driving from Berkeley to La
Jolla and I heard an interview on National
Public Radio with Peter Duesberg, a prominent
virologist at Berkeley. I finally understood why
I was having so much trouble finding the
references that linked H.I.V. to AIDS.
weren't any, Duesberg said. No one had ever
proved that H.I.V. causes AIDS. The interview
lasted about an hour. I pulled over so as not to
miss any of it.
I had known of Peter when I was a graduate
student at Berkeley. He had been described as a
truly brilliant scientist who had mapped a
particular mutation to a single nucleotide in
what was to become known eventually as an
oncogene. In the 1960s that was a real feat.
Peter went on to develop the theory that
oncogenes might be introduced by viruses into
humans and cause cancer.
The idea caught on and
became a serious theoretical driving force
behind the research that was funded under the
unfortunate name "War on Cancer." Peter was
named California Scientist of the Year.
Not satisfied resting on his laurels, Peter
torched them. He found flaws in his own theory
and announced to his surprised colleagues who
were working on demonstrating it that it was
highly unlikely. If they wanted to cure cancer,
their research should be directed elsewhere.
Whether it was because they were more interested
in curing their own poverty than cancer or that
they just couldn't come to grips with their
mistake, they continued to work fruitlessly on
viral-oncogene hypothesis for ten years. And
they didn't seem to notice the irony: The more
frustrated they got, the more they chastised
Peter Duesberg for questioning his own theory
and their folly. Most of them had been trained
to obtain grants from the government, hire
people to do research, and write papers that
usually ended with the notion that further
research should be done along these same lines
-- preferably by them and paid for by someone
else. One of them was Bob Gallo.
Gallo had been a friend of Peter's. They had
worked in the same department at the National
Cancer Institute. Of the thousands of scientists
who had worked fruitlessly to assign a causal
role in cancer to a virus, Bob was the only one
who had been overzealous enough to announce that
he had. No one paid any attention because all he
had demonstrated was an anecdotal and very weak
correlation between antibodies to a harmless
retrovirus, which he called H.T.L.V. I, and an
unusual type of cancer found mainly on two of
the southern islands of Japan.
In spite of his lack of luster as a scientist,
Gallo worked his way up in the power structure.
Peter Duesberg, despite his brilliance, worked
his way down. By the time AIDS came along, it
was Bob Gallo whom Margaret Heckler approached
when President Reagan decided that enough
homosexuals picketing the White House was
enough. Margaret was the Secretary of Health,
Education, and Welfare, and thereby the top dog
at the N.I.H. Bob Gallo had a sample of a virus
that Luc Montagnier had found in the lymph node
of a gay decorator in Paris with AIDS.
Montagnier had sent it to Gallo for evaluation,
and Bob had appropriated it in the pursuit of
his own career.
Margaret called a press conference and
introduced Dr. Robert Gallo, who suavely pulled
off his wraparound sunglasses and announced to
the world press, "Gentlemen, we have found the
cause of AIDS!" And that was it. Gallo and
Heckler predicted that a vaccine and a cure
would be available within a couple of years.
That was 1984.
All the old virus hunters from the National
Cancer Institute put new signs on their doors
and became AIDS researchers. Reagan sent up
about a billion dollars just for starters, and
suddenly everybody who could claim to be any
kind of medical scientist and who hadn't had
anything much to do lately was fully employed.
They still are.
It was named human immunodeficiency virus by an
international committee in an attempt to settle
the ownership dispute between Gallo and
Montagnier, who had given it different names. To
call it H.I.V. was a shortsighted mistake that
preempted any thought of investigation into the
causal relationship between
acquired-immune-deficiency syndrome and the
human immunodeficiency virus.
Duesberg pointed out wisely from the sidelines
in the Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences that there was no good evidence
implicating the new virus. He was ignored.
Editors rejected his manuscripts, and committees
of his colleagues began to question his need for
having his research funds continued. Finally, in
what must rank as one of the great acts of
arrogant disregard for scientific propriety, a
committee including Flossie Wong-Staal, who was
feuding openly with Duesberg, voted not to renew
Peter's Distinguished Investigator Award. He was
cut off from research funds. Thus disarmed, he
was less of a threat to the growing AIDS
establishment. He would not be invited back to
speak at meetings of his former colleagues.
We live with an uncountable number of
retroviruses. They're everywhere -- and they
probably have been here as long as the human
race. We have them in our genome. We get some of
them from our mothers in the form of new viruses
-- infectious viral particles that can move from
mother to fetus. We get others from both parents
along with our genes. We have resident sequences
in our genome that are retroviral. That means
that we can and do make our own retroviral
particles some of the time.
Some of them may look like H.I.V. No one has
shown that they've ever killed anyone before.
There's got to be a purpose for them; a sizable
fraction of our genome is comprised of human
endogenous retroviral sequences.
There are those
who claim that we carry useless D.N.A., but
they're wrong. If there is something in our
genes, there's a reason for it. We don't let
things grow on us. I have tried to put
irrelevant gene sequences into things as simple
as bacteria. If it doesn't serve some purpose,
the bacteria get rid of it right away. I assume
that my body is at least as smart as bacteria
when it comes to things like D.N.A.
H.I.V. didn't suddenly pop out of the rain
forest or Haiti. It just popped into Bob Gallo's
hands at a time when he needed a new career. It
has been here all along. Once you stop looking
for it only on the streets of big cities, you
notice that it is thinly distributed everywhere.
If H.I.V. has been here all along and it can be
passed from mother to child, wouldn't it make
sense to test for the antibodies in the mothers
of anyone who is positive for H.I.V., especially
if that individual is not showing any signs of
Picture a kid in the heartland of America. His
lifelong goal has been to join the Air Force
when he graduates and become a jet pilot. He's
never used drugs and he's had the same sweet
girlfriend, whom he plans to marry, all through
Unbeknownst to him, or anyone else,
he also has antibodies to H.I.V., which he
inherited from his mother, who is still alive,
when he was in her womb. He's a healthy kid, it
doesn't bother him in any way, but when he is
routinely tested for H.I.V. by the Air Force,
his hopes and dreams are destroyed. Not only is
he barred from the Air Force, but he has a death
sentence over his head.
The C.D.C. has defined AIDS as one of more than
30 diseases accompanied by a positive result on
a test that detects antibodies to H.I.V. But
those same diseases are not defined as AIDS
cases when the antibodies are not detected. If
an H.I.V.-positive woman develops uterine
cancer, for example, she is considered to have
AIDS. If she is not H.I.V.-positive, she simply
has uterine cancer.
An H.I.V.-positive man with
tuberculosis has AIDS; if he tests negative he
simply has tuberculosis. If he lives in Kenya or
Colombia, where the test for H.I.V. antibodies
is too expensive, he is simply presumed to have
the antibodies and therefore AIDS, and therefore
he can be treated in the World Health
Organization's clinic. It's the only medical
help available in some places. And it's free,
because the countries that support WHO are
worried about AIDS. From the point of view of
spreading medical facilities into areas where
poor people live, AIDS has been a boon. We don't
poison them with A.Z.T. like we do our own
people because it's too expensive. We supply
dressing for the machete cut on their left knee
and call it AIDS.
The C.D.C. continues to add new diseases to the
grand AIDS definition.
The C.D.C. has virtually doctored the books to
make it appear as if the disease continues to
spread. In 1993, for example, the C.D.C.
enormously broadened its AIDS definition. This
was happily accepted by county health
authorities, who receive $2,500 from the feds
per year under the Ryan White Act for every
reported AIDS case.
In 1634 Galileo was sentenced to house arrest
for the last eight years of his life for writing
that the Earth is not the center of the universe
but rather moves around the sun. Because he
insisted that scientific statements should not
be a matter of religious faith, he was accused
of heresy. Years from now, people looking back
at us will find our acceptance of the H.I.V.
theory of AIDS as silly as we find the leaders
who excommunicated Galileo. Science as it is
practiced today is largely not science at all.
What people call science is probably very
similar to what was called science in 1634.
Galileo was told to recant his beliefs or be
excommunicated. People who refuse to accept the
commandments of the AIDS establishment are
basically told the same thing: "If you don't
accept what we say, you're out."
It has been disappointing that so many
scientists have absolutely refused to examine
the available evidence in a neutral,
dispassionate way. Several respected scientific
journals have refused to print a statement
issued by the Group for the Scientific
Reappraisal of the H.I.V./AIDS Hypothesis simply
requesting "a thorough reappraisal of the
existing evidence for and against this
I spoke publicly about this issue for the first
time at a meeting of the American Association
for Clinical Chemists in San Diego.
I knew I
would be among friends there. It was a small
part of a much longer speech-at most I spoke for
15 minutes about AIDS. I told the audience how
my inability to find a simple reference had
sparked my curiosity.
The more I learned, the more outspoken I became.
As a responsible scientist convinced that people
were being killed by useless drugs, I could not
The responses I received from my colleagues
ranged from moderate acceptance to outright
venom. When I was invited to speak about P.C.R.
at the European Federation of Clinical
Investigation in Toledo, Spain,
I told them that I would like to speak about
H.I.V. and AIDS instead.
I don't think they understood exactly what they
were getting into when they agreed. Halfway
through my speech, the president of the society
cut me off. He suggested I answer some questions
from the audience.
I thought it was incredibly rude and totally out
of line that he cut me off, but what the hell, I
would answer questions. He opened the floor to
questions, and then decided that he would ask
the first one.
Did I understand that I was being irresponsible
? That people who listened to me might stop
using condoms ? I replied that fairly reliable
statistics from the C.D.C. showed that in the
United States, at least, the number of reported
cases of every known venereal disease was
increasing, meaning people were not using
condoms, while using the initial definition of
AIDS, the number of reported cases of AIDS was
decreasing. So, no, I didn't understand that I
was being irresponsible. He decided that that
was enough questions and ended the meeting
Whenever I speak on this issue the question
always comes up, "If H.I.V. isn't the cause of
AIDS, then what is ?" The answer to that is that
I don't know the answer to that, any more than
Gallo or Montagnier knows. Knowing that there is
no evidence that H.I.V. causes AIDS does not
make me an authority on what does. It is
indisputable that if an individual has extremely
close contacts with a lot of people, the number
of infectious organisms that this individual's
immune system is going to have to deal with will
be high. If a person having 300 contacts a year
- that's 90,000 times more opportunity for
infections than a person involved in an
Think of the immune system as a camel. If the
camel is overloaded, it collapses. In the 1970s
we had a significant number of highly mobile,
promiscuous men sharing bodily fluids and fast
lifestyles and drugs.
It was probable that a metropolitan homosexual
would be exposed to damn near every infectious
organism that has lived on humans. In fact if
you had to devise a strategy to collect every
infectious agent on the planet, you would build
bathhouses and encourage very gregarious people
to populate them. The immune system will fight,
but the numbers will wear it down.
The scientific issue gets tangled up with
morality. What I'm describing has nothing at all
to do with morality. This is not "God's wrath"
or any other absurdity. A segment of our society
was experimenting with a lifestyle, and it
didn't work. They got sick.
Another segment of our pluralistic society, call
them doctor/scientist refugees from the failed
War on Cancer, or just call them professional
jackals, discovered that it did work. It worked
for them. They are still making payments on
their new BMWs out of your pocket.
I was invited by the Glaxo Pharmaceutical
Company to speak at a conference. They sent me a
letter in December of 1993 asking me to be the
November 1994 symposium banquet speaker. If that
time was not convenient for me, they wanted me
to speak at the November 1995 banquet. Dr. John
Partridge, who was the director of the Chemical
Development Division, had not met me personally
but had heard about a lecture I had given in
1991 at the Gordon Research Conference that, in
his words, was "the most highly praised lecture
that I have ever heard about from my academic
and industrial colleagues."
He was looking for "particularly articulate
scientists who bridge the biochemical and
medical disciplines and routinely engage in 'out
of the box' thinking."
Well, that certainly was me.
Dr. Partridge wrote that he would be pleased to
pay all my travel and accommodations, as well as
an honorarium of $1,500.
I thought this sounded all right, but I figured
Glaxo could pay me a little more. What made this
invitation particularly interesting to me was
the fact that Glaxo was the largest drug company
in the world, and one of their profitable drugs
was the cellular poison being used against AIDS,
A.Z.T. It kills cells like a cancer
chemotherapeutic does. It keeps them from
reproducing by preventing them from making new
D.N.A. It also kills. In cancer, there is a
rationale at least for using them, although I
personally would never use chemotherapeutics on
myself, cancer or not. But here's the way the
I think it stinks of an old therapy they used to
use against syphilis: arsenic. The syphilis was
surely going to kill you, the arsenic might kill
you, but maybe it would kill the syphilis first
and you would live to fraternize again. The use
of poisonous chemotherapeutics in cancer follows
the same line. The cancer is surely going to
The chemotherapeutic surely will also, but maybe
it will kill the cancer cells before it kills
you. It's a gamble. We will give you almost
enough to kill you and hope it's sufficient to
kill the cancer.
I wouldn't go for it myself. I don't need to
take drugs that make my hair fall out. But what
the hell, if somebody wants to take this kind of
gamble, it does have a sort of logic to it.
Nothing fun. Nothing you would do for a
headache. But it's a chance somebody might want
to take when the alternative is to die too young
to watch their kids grow up. And some people do
recover from cancer even after they have taken
In the case of AIDS, the same strategy took a
diabolic trurn. AIDS might kill you, A.Z.T.
might also. It will surely make you sick. It
will prevent the proliferation of any rapidly
growing cells in your body, including the CD-4
immune cells that your doctor thinks you need
now more that anything. It may kill the H.I.V.
It kills it in petri dishes. But that may not
cure you. The damage to you may have already
been done, whatever it is. The complete absence
of all H.I.V. from your body, even if it is
accomplished, may not cure you of AIDS. No one
has ever recovered from AIDS, even though they
have recovered from H.I.V. And we are not going
to give it to you in a limited dose as we do in
the case of cancer chemotherapy, where we are
gambling that although we are hurting you, we
are hurting the cancer more and maybe you will
survive longer. Here we are not gambling. No one
has ever recovered from AIDS.
We cannot expect
that you might recover. We are going to ask you
to swallow this poison until you die.
About half a million people went for it. No one
has been cured. Most of them are dead. The ones
who are not are also taking another drug now, a
protease inhibitor. Who knows what it will do?
The manufacturers didn't know when they started
The FD.A. didn't require them to
show that it would cure AIDS and not kill the
patient, any more than they required them to
show that about A.Z.T.
They only required that a surrogate goal be met.
A surrogate goal means that something that we
think may be related to the disease in question
may be improved by the drug, like the level of
CD-4 cells, whatever the fuck they are. It's a
way to get around the notion that a drug ought
to be effective in curing the disease that it is
sold for before it can be sold. The
surrogate-goal bullshit is an indication that
our F.D.A. no longer serves our needs. Or at
least it does not serve our needs unless we own
stock in the pharmaceutical industry and don't
give a shit about health care.
I was interested in giving a seminar about
things like this to the scientists assembled in
North Carolina by Glaxo, formerly Burroughs
Wellcome, and by the University of North
Carolina in the name of Frontiers in Chemistry
and Medicine. I was thinking that this technique
of killing people with a drug that was going to
kill them in a way hardly distinguishable from
the disease they were already dying from, just
faster, was really out there on the edge of the
frontiers of medicine. In previous interviews
and seminars I had said that I thought A.Z.T.
was not only useless against AIDS, but in fact
it was poisoning people. There were large-scale
medical studies done in Europe, called the
Concorde Study, that indicated just this. A.Z.T
worthless against AIDS and harmful even to
healthy people. This conclusion was reached
despite the fact that the study was heavily
funded by Glaxo.
I wondered if these people knew how I felt about
their product when they issued the invitation. I
notified Dr. Partridge that I was pleased to
accept if they would raise the ante a little. On
January 26, 1994, I received a letter from M.
Ross Johnson, the vice president of the division
of chemistry They were very happy that I had
accepted, and wrote that they would send me
firstclass airfare for two, accommodation
expenses, and an honorarium of $3,000. In
closing, he asked me for the title of my banquet
So far, so good. I responded as requested,
explaining that I intended to speak to this
audience about a subject that should be of
tremendous concern to the entire scientific
community. I would speak about the fact that
there is no scientific evidence that H.I.V. is
the probable cause of AIDS and that I believed
people taking A.Z.T. were being poisoned.
On October 14, 1994, a month before the meeting,
I received another letter from Glaxo-this time
from Gardiner F. H. Smith. No title. He was
sincerely regretting having to inform me that
they could no longer accommodate my
presentation. He said that they would send me a
check for $1,000 to compensate me for any
I responded with the following letter:
Dear Mr. Johnson:
Enclosed please find a copy of a fairly
uninformative letter from a Mr Gardiner Smith,
with whom I have not been in contact or
As you know, my overall schedule is compact and
very difficult to rearrange on short notice. I
have declined, as a result of my commitment to
Glaxo, income from other potential engagements.
With Mr. Smith, I sincerely regret that your
company had been forced into the "changing of
the structuring," whatever that means to Mr.
Smith, of "the above referenced event."
Unfortunately, I have made arrangements to
attend several nonprofit institutional functions
in the Southeast in connection with this trip,
appearances which I will not cancel. Therefore,
your company's reluctance, as related
perfunctorily by Mr. Smith, to abide by the
terms of your (previous) correspondence
represents a considerable loss of income as well
as an unanticipated expense to me personally.
Mr. Smith's unexplained offer of $1,000
compensation for my "time and trouble" adds a
bit of mystery here as to who Mr. Smith is and
what he must misconceive to be the value of my
time and trouble.
I do not understand what Mr. Smith is exactly
apologizing for in his letter, but I will be
kindly expecting immediately, with or without an
explanation from some more cordial and informed
representative of Glaxo, a check for $6,048.00.
For Mr. Smith's information, round-trip airfare
between San Diego and RaleighDurham first class
for two is $3,048.
Addition of our agreed-on
honorarium of $3,000 results in the above
One more thing you might consider, Dr. Johnson.
A number of attendees at your meeting will
likely have something to say to me about my
failure to appear. You should be careful to
explain there publicly precisely why Mr. Smith
felt the need to inform me that your company has
taken the liberty of "restructuring" in such a
way as to be unable to "accommodate" my
I am not in the habit of canceling
public appearances at such short notice, and
would not care to gain such a reputation on your
account. I hope you understand that this is not'
for me or for Glaxo, a trivial matter.
Dr. Kary B. Mullis
On November 30, 1994, I received another letter
from Mr. Smith. It was quite brief, saying that
he had received a copy of my letter to Dr.
Johnson. Enclosed was a check from Glaxo in the
amount of $6,048.
This was the most money I had ever made
specifically for not doing something. And it
occurred to me that, with my growing reputation
for creating controversy, there might be many
groups or individuals who did not want to hear
me speak. Certainly that was their right, but if
people did not want to hear ideas that would
make them uncomfortable, they ought to be
willing to pay not to hear them. With that
thought in mind, I drafted the following offer:
HAVE SLIDES, WILL STAY HOME
Dr. Kary B. Mullis wants to talk to you and your
associates, your friends, your sons and
daughters. Is there anything you can do about
YES ... BUT YOU MUST ACT NOW ... SPECIAL OFFER
Dr Mullis won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in
1993 and promptly launched a worldwide lecture
tour Universities, research institutes,
conventions, high schools, businesses, community
groups, he even addressed "Connect"-a joint
project of U.C.S.D. and the San Diego biotech
industry-right on the beach in front of his very
own apartment, which has been described in the
national press as "rented rooms filled with his
tools of seduction. "
He is usually invited to lecture on the
Polymerase Chain Reaction, but when the lights
go down and the slides come on, well...
John Martin, President of the European Society
for Clinical Investigation, said in Nature, "His
[Dr. Mullis's] only slides (or what he has
called his art) were photographs he had taken of
naked women with colored lights projected upon
their bodies. He accused science of being
universally corrupt with widespread
falsification of data to obtain grants. Finally
he impugned the personal honesty of several
named scientists working in the H.I.V field....
The council of the European Society for Clinical
Investigation will not be inviting Dr Mullis to
further meetings. "
Really do you need this in your community? Of
And now, for a limited time only you can be
assured that Dr. Mullis will not ever lecture at
your society, school, research lab, etc.
You personally ... and confidentially ... can
Call now at (my phone number) and ask for (my
beautiful assistant). Have your Visa or
MasterCard ready. Prevention rates begin at $500
per year guaranteed, and are progressive with
the size and sensitivity of your organization.
You may request personal anonymity or for $79.95
plus shipping we will send you a Special Service
Award embossed with your name and a special
inscription commending your judgment,
foresight, and unselfish devotion to your
community. Custom inscriptions are a little
extra but can be especially commemorative.
Think about honoring your boss or one of your
associates by taking advantage of our special
"Help a Friend Stop Mullis" offer Call for
details. Don't delay Only one offer of complete
protection per year can be extended to any
single organization. Be first Be smart.
Recently, Glaxo Pharmaceuticals found it
necessary to send Dr Mullis a check for
$6,048.00 simply to prevent him from speaking at
their annual Chemistry and Medicine at the
Frontiers Conference in Chapel Hill, MC. No one
at Glaxo had seen fit to acquire protection from
a Mullis seminar, and, haplessly Dr. Ross
Johnson, now no longer with Glaxo, had invited
I must report that the response to this offer
has been underwhelming. Neiman Marcus has not
chosen to include it in their famed Christmas
catalog. So I have continued to speak out to any
forum when I have been given the opportunity.
It is not too late, however If you would like to
give the gift of my silence to an individual or
an organization, all reasonable offers will be
NOTE: This offer is not open to family members
or employees of Kary Mullis, who are doomed to
have to listen to what I say.
la farsa mondiale del 1 dicembre di ogni anno:
Giornata mondiale del virus inesistente
Gallo US, uno dei 2 “scopritori del virus HIV, l'altro
e' il francese Luc Montagier, smentisce se stesso in
tribunale in Australia…confermando tutte le affermazioni
di altri eminenti ricercatori che affermano che il virus
non crea-produce l’aids, anche perche’ non e’ stato mai
fotografato….vedi qui i documenti:
"Il paziente malato di
Aids NON muore a
causa del virus
per alterazioni dell'assorbimento intestinale
quindi per ipoalimentazione (malNutrizione),
dovuta a una grave
micosi." (By Dott.
Gerhard Orth, Leuthkirch) +
L'altra storia dell'Aids