AIDS epidemiology: inconsistencies with human immunodeficiency virus and with infectious disease.

Abstract

The newly defined syndrome AIDS includes 25 unrelated parasitic, neoplastic, and noninfectious indicator diseases. Based on epidemiological correlations, the syndrome is thought to be due to a new, sexually or parenterally transmitted retrovirus termed human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). The following epidemiological data conflict with this hypothesis. (i) Noncorrelations exist between HIV and AIDS; for example, the AIDS risks of infected subjects vary greater than 10-fold with their gender or country. Abnormal health risks that are never controlled as independent AIDS causes by AIDS statistics, such as drug addiction and hemophilia, correlate directly with an abnormal incidence of AIDS diseases. Above all, the AIDS diseases occur in all risk groups in the absence of HIV. (ii) American AIDS is incompatible with infectious disease, because it is almost exclusively restricted to males (91%), because if it occurs, then only on average 10 years after transfusion of HIV, because specific AIDS diseases are not transmissible among different risk groups, and because unlike a new infectious disease, AIDS has not spread exponentially since the AIDS test was established and AIDS received its current definition in 1987. (iii) Epidemiological evidence indicates that HIV is a long-established, perinatally transmitted retrovirus. HIV acts as a marker for American AIDS risks, because it is rare and not transmissible by horizontal contacts other than frequent transfusions, intravenous drugs, and repeated or promiscuous sex. It is concluded that American AIDS is not infectious, and suggested that unidentified, mostly noninfectious pathogens cause AIDS.

Temporal analysis of the antibody response to HIV envelope protein in HIV-infected laboratory workers.

“…Declining CD4 counts in all the infected laboratory workers and outright AIDS in one demonstrate that this strain of HIV can indeed cause disease despite its long in vitro passage. Moreover, the development ofclinical features in the laboratory workers, in the absence of any other risk factors, clearly shows the Duesberg hypothesis, that HIV is not the cause of AIDS (25), to be untenable.…”

Foreign-protein-mediated immunodeficiency in hemophiliacs with and without HIV

“…weeks or months, but AZT is now prescribed to healthy HIV-positives indefinitely, despite its known toxicity (Nussbaum, 1990;Volberding et al, 1990). Indeed, AZT has been shown to be toxic in HIV-positives and proposed as a possible cause of AIDS diseases since 1991 (Duesberg, 1991(Duesberg, , 1992c(Duesberg, , 1992a(Duesberg, , 1992b. Recently, the European 'Concorde tri-57 al' (Seligmann et al, 1994) and several other studies have shown that, contrary to earlier claims, AZT does not prevent AIDS (Oddone et al, 1993;Tokars et al, 1993;Lenderking et al, 1994;Lundgren et al, 1994).…”

“…This hypothesis holds that AIDS in the major risk groups is caused by group-specific, recreational drugs and by anti-HIV therapy with cytocidal DNA chain terminators, like AZT, and is thus not infectious (Lauritsen & Wilson, 1986;Haverkos & Dougherty, 1988;Duesberg, 1991Duesberg, , 1992aOppenheimer, 1992). The drug-AIDS hypothesis was favored by many scientists, including some from the CDC, before the introduction of the HIV-AIDS hypothesis in 1984 (Marmor et al, 1982;Mathur-Wagh et al, 1984;Haverkos et al, 1985;Mathur-Wagh, Mildvan & Senie, 1985;Newell et al, 1985;Haverkos & Dougherty, 1988;Duesberg, 1992a;Oppenheimer, 1992).…”

AIDS Denialism and Public Health Practice

“…On the other hand, he also concedes that AIDS exists and offers causes [59], and seems unbothered by posing mutually exclusive arguments at the same time. In his earlier writings, he accepted that there is statistical association between HIV and AIDS (although he argued this was insufficient for causation) [60] and even considered the HIV-antibody test as useful surrogate to identify patients at risk of AIDS; [61] today, he denies that and argues that HIV is a passenger virus with no relationship whatsoever to AIDS [3]. In the same contradictory way, Duesberg has argued that HIV is not the cause of AIDS because ''in most individuals suffering from AIDS, no virus particles can be found anywhere in the body'' [62]; yet at about the same time that he published this, he was involved in a disagreement with other AIDS denialists who had challenged the very existence of HIV where he defended that ''HIV has been isolated by the most rigorous method science has to offer [63].'…”