AIDS REALISM VERSUS THE HIV HYPOTHESIS
By John Lauritsen
Gay Today May 2000
A hornet's nest of vituperation was stirred up when South
African President Thabo Mbeki announced that AIDS-dissident, as
well as AIDS-orthodox, voices will be heard at the XIII
International AIDS Conference, to be held this July in Durban,
From all sides "AIDS experts", journalists, and
"treatment activists" joined in a chorus of denunciation directed
at those nefarious infidels who blaspheme against the sacred
doctrines and commodities of the AIDS Industry.
Normally, open debate and free enquiry are regarded as
fundamental components of Science. Not in the AIDS arena. Dr.
Mark Wainberg, president of the International AIDS Society, called
for jailing AIDS dissidents, whom he called "HIV deniers" (his
explicit analogy to "Holocaust deniers").
Said Wainberg: "If we could succeed and lock a couple of these guys up,
I guarantee you the HIV-denier movement would die pretty darn quickly."
Wainberg's label was picked up by such flacks as John S. James
and Bruce Mirken. To me, the "HIV denier" or "HIV denialists"
terminology is not only absurd, but revealing as well. This is
Those of us who are skeptical of the HIV-AIDS
hypothesis (and it has never been more than a hypothesis) are
apparently in the same camp as those who deny that the Jews are
the chosen people of G-d, or deny the divinity of Jesus, or deny
the Trinity or the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.
It is time to defend the men and women who have challenged
the prevailing AIDS mythologies. We have been around since the
early '80s: critics of the various, frequently changing, and
contradictory models and dogmas of the AIDS Establishment.
We call ourselves "AIDS dissidents", and sometimes "AIDS critics" or
"AIDS realists". We have also been called heretics, rebels, and a
lot of other things. Our ranks have been growing steadily, and
include top scientists (including three Nobel Prize winners),
journalists, and other professionals.
The impression was given, in recent attacks on us, that AIDS
dissidents are bad people, who in some unspecified but sinister
way are profiting from the stands we have taken. This is the
opposite of the truth.
The AIDS dissidents I know have acted on
principle, motivated by a concern for truth and a desire to save
lives. All have taken hard knocks; all have suffered losses:
socially, professionally, and financially. AIDS dissidents have
been ostracized and slandered; fired or had grants canceled;
driven into bankruptcy; physically attacked.
Profits of the AIDS Industry run into billions of dollars
every year. This is where the money is. People with meager
qualifications have become rich as "AIDS experts", heads of AIDS
organizations, or "treatment activists".
But there are no financial rewards for attacking the sacred AIDS cash cow.
Speaking for myself, I have lost hundreds of thousands of dollars
in income, and my financial future is uncertain; I make a lot less
now, as a full-time politically incorrect writer, than I did as a
highly paid market research executive.
Our ideas have been subjected to an intensity of censorship
in the mainstream media, which would normally be found in a
totalitarian country in the midst of war--especially in the
United States, the epicenter of the AIDS epidemic.
The censorship has taken many forms, from voluntary censorship to preserve
advertising revenues to the surreptitious activities of public
relations firms employed by pharmaceutical companies.
The former kind of censorship, practiced by gay publications over the past
two decades, is documented in a recent article of mine, "Queer
Advertising: From Poppers to Protease Inhibitors".
also has many images of perniciously sexy poppers ads of the '70s
and early '80s.
Meditel Productions, based in London, made several
television documentaries that were critical of the orthodox AIDS
paradigm. The most important are: "The AIDS Catch" (1990), "AZT:
Cause For Concern" (1992), and "AIDS in Africa" (1993).
These were first broadcast to the UK over Channel Four Television, and
were subsequently broadcast in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and
several European countries. Although the documentaries have been
viewed by tens of millions of people around the world, not one has
ever been allowed to air in the US.
In England there have only been about ten thousand "AIDS" deaths in
the entire course of the epidemic, as opposed to over a third of a million in the US.
The main reason for this huge disparity may be that, thanks to the
Meditel documentaries, far fewer gay men in England took AZT or
other nucleoside analogue drugs. (Over 94% of all AIDS deaths in
the US occurred after AZT was approved for marketing in 1987.)
Fortunately, the Internet has provided an end-run around
censorship. I strongly urge everyone to find out what our ideas
are -- and in our own words, not the travesties put forward by our
opponents. The best place to begin is the Rethinking AIDS web
On the home page click Front News, which has many recent articles on the controversy in
South Africa. Or click FIND for listings of subjects and authors.
On the Find page click AZT for a lowdown on that drug (labeled as
a poison by chemical supply houses, approved for marketing by the
FDA on the basis of fraudulent research). Click on HIV Tests for
articles debunking the Elisa, Western Blot and Viral Load tests.
Click on my name for my major AIDS articles. The Rethinking AIDS
web site has links to 51 other AIDS dissident web sites, of which
the HEAL Toronto, Duesberg, Sumeria, and Reappraising AIDS are
AIDS discourse has been unnecessarily technical and
abstruse. This is a consequence of the untenable and bizarre
hypothesis that a retrovirus is responsible for causing the 29 (at
last count) "AIDS-indicator diseases".
If "AIDS" were seen for what it is -- different groups of people, who are sick in
different ways and for different reasons -- then much simpler
language could be used; the appropriate "experts" would no longer
be molecular biologists, virologists, etc., but widely educated
people with good common sense.
For the remainder of this essay, I'll try to present AIDS criticism in
a nutshell, as simply and directly as possible. For those of you who are
enamored of AIDS molecular-biologico-retrovirologico-babble, I suggest you
thoroughly explore the AIDS dissident web sites; you'll find
enough of it there.
One AIDS dissident, Kary Mullis, who won the Nobel Prize in
Science for inventing the Polymerase Chain Reaction, was asked to
state which argument most strongly convinced him that HIV was not
the cause of AIDS. Mullis replied: "The fact that there's no
evidence for it."
When I was on a debate team, our coach told us that we must
master the arguments of our opponents -- be able to present them
better than they could themselves. Over the years I have thought
long and hard about what arguments could be used in favor of the
I have been able to come up with only one:
"Everyone says that it is." This is a variant of the classic
argument: "Eighty million Frenchmen can't be wrong." Certainly,
if everyone says that something is true, then there's a
possibility that it might be.
But sometimes almost everyone can
be wrong. In the case of AIDS, the apparent unanimity is a
facade: in 1984 only a very few "experts" asserted that HIV (then
known as HTLV-III or LAV) was the cause, and all the other
"scientists" followed their lead.
Once the AIDS Industry
developed, and billions of dollars in profits were at stake, the
public relations industry reinforced the consensus monolith.
AIDS does not, and never did, behave like an infectious
disease. As Casper Schmidt expressed it in an interview,
"Infectious epidemics do not follow fault lines that are cultural
or sociological, which is what we find in this epidemic."
Since the very beginning in the early '80s, AIDS has remained tightly
compartmentalized, confined almost entirely in the US to gay men
and intravenous drug users. (Whatever is happening in Africa is
an entirely different matter: different diseases and a different
"AIDS" has never been defined rationally, and the definition
has changed radically several times. Originally, those with an
"AIDS" diagnosis were close to death; now one can obtain the
diagnosis without even being sick.
To illustrate the flaws in the various definitions of
"AIDS", let's consider Kaposi's sarcoma (KS), which for years was
the hallmark AIDS disease.
It was believed that an infectious
agent, later declared to be HIV (aka HTLV-III/LAV) caused a
condition of "immune deficiency" (gauged not by the traditional
tests of immune function, but rather by newly developed tests
which counted CD4 cells), and that the immune deficiency in turn
caused KS. Unfortunately for this model, many gay men with KS
tested negative on all the HIV tests, and did not have immune
Further, use of the recreational drug poppers
(nitrite inhalants) closely fits the epidemiology of KS. And so,
in May 1994 the National Institute of Drug Abuse (NIDA) convened a
meeting in Gaithersburg, Maryland to examine the connection
between poppers and KS.
Top "AIDS experts" including Robert Gallo
were present. Their conclusions: 1) there may be as many as four
different kinds of KS, 2) KS is not a form of cancer, 3) KS is not
caused by, or associated with, immune deficiency, 4) HIV is not
the cause of KS.
Some of the participants presented data
indicating that KS is not infectious, though others believed that
it might be caused by a virus other than HIV. All participants,
including Gallo, agreed that the nitrites-KS hypothesis is
tenable. See my report, "NIDA Meeting Calls For Research Into The
Poppers-Kaposi's Sarcoma Connection".
So then, KS is no longer considered "AIDS" by the "experts".
During the '80s gay men with KS were given chemotherapy to attack
cancer, even though KS is not a form of cancer. Gays with KS were
given toxic anti-HIV drugs, even though KS is not caused by HIV.
They died, by the tens of thousands, not from HIV or KS, but from
the drugs they were prescribed.
If HIV were the cause of "AIDS", or indeed, any other form
of illness, then there would be HIV infection in every case of the
disease. This is the logic of Koch's First Postulate, a standard
test of whether an infectious agent causes a disease.
Not only does HIV flunk Koch's First Postulate, it has never been properly
isolated; it has never been seen through the electron microscope.
All this leads into a highly technical discussion, on which there
are many articles and images on the Rethinking AIDS web site.
To me the most striking thing is that no one has ever demonstrated
HIV infection, even in a single case, using "infection" in the
ordinary sense of the word. "Infection" implies a large amount of
virus or microbe, and a high level of biochemical activity.
If there were HIV infection, there would be what's known as
"viremia": the blood would be teeming with whole, cell-free,
infectious viruses, hundreds of thousands to millions of them in
every milliliter of blood. In fact, attempts to purify HIV and
then photograph it, using standard techniques, have been total
Many people believe that the so-called "viral load" tests
actually count whole viruses in the blood. This is not true, and
the tests have been denounced by Kary Mullis, who invented the
technology on which they are based. According to Mullis:
"Quantitative PCR is an oxymoron."
Neither of the "HIV-antibody" tests -- the Elisa or the
Western Blot -- has ever been properly validated, which means that
no one knows exactly what their results mean. The tests are
chemical reactions to antigens, which are substances that provoke
an immune response. Many dozens of conditions can produce a
positive result on these tests, including drug abuse, flu
vaccinations, past infection with malaria, pregnancy, and liver
The various AIDS drugs are, without exception, toxic and
worthless. It is not true that the protease inhibitor "cocktails"
have caused AIDS deaths to drop; on the contrary, they are causing
death and deformity in people who would otherwise be healthy.
I'm afraid that I have barely scratched the surface of the
AIDS-dissident arguments, but this is not intended to be a long
article. There are hundreds of articles and millions of words on
the AIDS-dissident web sites. I hope I've motivated at least some
of you to learn more.
It's time to wake up, to put an end to the sacrificial
ritual of AIDS, the sacrifice of gay men. We didn't deserve this,
and we should no longer go along with it.