INTERVIEW STEFAN LANKA
Challenging BOTH Mainstream and Alternative
By Mark Gabrish Conlan
Zenger's Dec. 1998
While most people in the U.S. and Western Europe go right on
believing that the so-called Human Immunodeficiency Virus [HIV] is
the sole cause of AIDS, debate rages even within the alternative
AIDS community over whether HIV exists at all. Though Peter
Duesberg, Ph.D. -- virtually the only alternative AIDS theorist with
any significant public reputation -- continues to insist that HIV
exists but is harmless, other alternative AIDS researchers and
activists are coming to the conclusion that the virus doesn't
exist. The main proponents of this view are Australian researcher
Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos and her colleagues, who argue that HIV
has never been isolated according to the Pasteur Institute criteria
of 1973, and therefore it's probably what's called an "endogenous
retrovirus" -- a creation of the body's own genetic material that
looks and functions partly like a virus, but is not an infection
because it comes from the body's own cells.
Stefan Lanka, Ph.D. takes the challenge to HIV's existence even
further. A German researcher, Dr. Lanka is usually referred to as a
virologist. But that hardly begins to describe his wide-ranging
fields of study. Based on experiences in marine biology, biochemistry, evolutionary biology and virology, he's worked out a
whole new view of HIV and AIDS. He believes that all so-called
retroviruses are actually the body's own creations; that hepatitis is
an autoimmune disorder (a disease in which the body is attacked by
components of its own immune system) rather than a viral disease;
that AIDS has nothing to do with immune suppression; and that it
should really be called Acquired Energy Deficiency Syndrome --
AEDS -- because its true cause is a breakdown in the delivery of
oxygen to the blood and/or body tissues. Dr. Lanka did a West Coast
tour in October and spoke to H.E.A.L.- San Diego on October 20.
Zenger's interviewed him hours before that event.
Zenger's: I'd like a little about your background, what your training
is, when you studied, what you specialized in, and essentially how
you came to these ideas about AIDS.
Stefan Lanka, Ph.D.: I started studying molecular biology in 1984, and
I soon got bored because I learned that all that you have to learn in
order to pass the exams is already old, out-of-date dogmatic
thinking. So I went into ecology because I realized, while being
abroad in different countries, that you can carry out very important
research without big machines or big money. I was looking for an
opportunity to do molecular genetics in the field of biology, so I
chose to move into marine biology and did a lot of electron
A marine biology professor was willing to let me work for him, and
while doing this I found a stable virus-host relationship by accident.
In that very moment, I knew that was it. The best way to do
meaningful genetic research is to have a stable virus-host
relationship, in which a virus is produced in the host but does not
kill the host. So you can really study how they interact, how the
genetic material of the virus is produced and how it interacts with
the host, without manipulating it. That's still the only stable
virus-host relationship in virology, other than in bacteria.
I was glad to be able to carry out this study, but first I had to
convince my professor so he would agree to finance my new studies.
He said he was a classical biologist and he could not sponsor me as a
researcher in virology. I needed to find another professor who was
willing to guide me, and the very day I found one I got a lab of my
own. I could buy all the tools and big machines on my own overtime,
so I had the best conditions to start my studies. After one year, I
had isolated a virus and characterized it.
When I started doing viral research, it was already 1986, 1987, just
when the public in Germany and Europe was starting to become
aware of AIDS. Because AIDS was supposedly caused by a virus, I
was automatically considered a specialist in the AIDS field. In the
beginning, this was a nice feeling. I was telling people what I heard
from the mass media and the TV, and I was not checking the evidence
because everybody was convinced AIDS was a viral disease. Then I
heard about the things that Robert Gallo [American cancer
researcher who first identified HIV as the cause of AIDS] was doing
wrong, and that he was misleading the public about his first
retrovirus [HTLV-I, which Gallo claimed to be the cause of AIDS in
1982, before his alleged discovery of HIV] and he had stolen the
virus from Montagnier, and all this kind of gossip.
I already had a somewhat critical attitude when I started studying
molecular genetics, so I went to the library to look up the literature
on HIV. To my big surprise, I found that when they are speaking
about HIV they are not speaking about a virus. They are speaking
about cellular characteristics and activities of cells under very
special conditions. I was so deeply shocked. I was thinking, "Well,
I'm not experienced enough. I have overlooked something. On the
other side, those people are absolutely sure." Then I was afraid that
speaking about this with my friends, or even my family, they would
think is absolutely mad and crazy. So for a long time I studied
virology, from the end to the beginning, from the beginning to the
end, to be absolutely sure that there was no such thing as HIV. And
it was easy for me to be sure about this because I realized that the
whole group of viruses to which HIV is said to belong, the
retroviruses -- as well as other viruses which are claimed to be very
dangerous -- in fact do not exist at all.
Zenger's: So it was just on the basis of this reading that you
concluded that what is called HIV, what is considered to be the "HIV
virus" and is supposed to be infectious like other viruses that are
acknowledged pathogens, really represented a phenomenon within
the body. How did you figure that out, and why are you so sure about
Dr. Lanka: I was wondering what viruses are for in evolution, because
they didn't seem to have any function other than to be very
dangerous and killing other cells. So I went into evolutionary
biology and found that the first genetic molecule of life was RNA,
and only later in evolution did DNA come into existence. Every one of
our genomes, and that of higher plants and animals, is the product of
so-called reverse transcription: RNA transcribed into DNA.
But I had already realized already by then that the thinking about
molecular genetics was very dogmatic. In the early 1960's they
came up with the central dogma of molecular genetics, which try to
uphold even today, and which is ridiculous. The dogma says that DNA
behaves in a static way; DNA makes RNA; RNA cannot be
transcribed back into DNA; RNA comes into existence only on the
basis of DNA. That was and is the basis, of the central dogma of
I found that this kind of thought came from research funded by the
seed-producing industry of the United States, and that a whole body
of existing knowledge -- namely, that of cytogenetics, before World
War II -- was just suppressed or even slandered as "lazy science"
because it had been carried out mostly in Europe. This kind of
science well established that the genetic material is not stable.
It is subject to change, and this means the genetic material is
reverse-transcribed. It goes in both directions.
This earlier research also established that inside the cell we have a
huge amount of genetic material other than that of the nucleus.
But because molecular genetics and molecular biology were actually
founded by physicists, who thought they could explain the whole
structure of the atom just by focusing on the nucleus, when they
went into biology they carried over that same mistake. They focused
only on the nucleus of the cell and claimed it was responsible for
all of how life comes into existence, how it's controlled, etc.
This is ridiculous, because they have overlooked the essential of
life: the production of energy.
While studying the evolutionary aspects of biology, I quickly
realized that reverse transcription is common to all forms of life, and in fact is the basis of all higher living. Later I learned that
reverse transcription is a repair mechanism for chromosomal DNA.
But the mainstream of molecular genetics is still committed to the
central dogma: "There is no such thing as reverse transcription from
RNA to DNA." In 1970, when they detected biochemically that there
is a reverse flow of genetic material, they didn't give up the
dogma or even try to change it. Instead, they called it an
exception to the central dogma of molecular genetics, and
explained it by postulating the existence of retroviruses.
Zenger's: Excuse me, but I thought that the field of retrovirology had
started as far back as 1911, with Peyton Rous and his experiments
with chickens. [Rous surgically removed cancerous tumors from
chickens in his lab, ground up the tumors, fed them to healthy
chickens and observed that the healthy chickens who ate ground-up
tumors grew tumors themselves. He concluded that the tumors may
have been caused by an infectious agent being transmitted from the
sick chickens to the healthy ones.]
Dr. Lanka: No, it was only in retrospect that he was cited as the one
who was dealing with retroviruses. What Peyton Rous actually did
was he inbred his animals so heavily that the genetic material from
the different strains he used to breed became more and more
similar. When the animals' genetic materials become too similar to
each other, then even more genetic material is interchanged between
the chromosomes than happens normally. Often, in inbred animals or
plants, on two places of the chromosomes genetic material in
between got lost. Then you will see the characteristic chromosomal
damages in inbred animals, plants or human beings, resulting in
disabilities which are well studied. So, because Rous's chickens
were so heavily inbred, they had a high rate of spontaneous cancer
The results from this research were not cited for more than 20
years. Later, some people tried to speculate about them. In the late
1960's and early 1970's they started to think about this because
molecular biology took over modern medicine, and argued -- against
the existing body of knowledge, of facts -- that cancer is caused by
infectious entities: by viruses, or mutations, or viruses causing
mutations. They ignored the fact that cancer has something to do
with oxygen deficiencies, which had already been established by
Otto Warburg's research. Warburg had received his first Nobel Prize
demonstrating how a cell is able to produce much more energy than
in the process of fermentation, using oxidative respiration. And he
had received his second Nobel for proving that cancer is
characterized by the process of fermentation; that oxidative
respiration is not taking place in cancer. And this has been just
So in 1970, when they proved that reverse transcription does
happen and they discovered the enzyme, reverse transcriptase, which
does it, they wouldn't give up the dogma. They changed it slightly
and said there is an exception; and that it was associated with the
existence of a new class of viruses called retroviruses, which they
cannot prove exist in other ways.
When I was absolutely sure about everything I've told you so far, I
went public. I was invited to a lot of conferences on marine biology
and biology, and at every conference I presented my own data. I used
every opportunity to speak out against HIV, and I quickly learned
that because I was taking away HIV as an explanation for AIDS and
was not able to replace it with something else, and not being able to
explain what's going on under the label "HIV," it forced me to watch
out and find those people who were able to explain what's going on.
In the beginning, of course, some of the publications of Peter
Duesberg helped me a lot, because he was an authority who
questioned a lot of things, and that helped me. I translated some of
this articles into German and published them in a small publishing
house. But then, with time, I learned about other specialists, among
them Heinrich Kremer, the well-known German medical doctor,
former medical director of the Federal German Drug Abuser Clinics,
who helped me to understand what was really going on.
Because he was in charge of the introduction of hepatitis B vaccine
into Germany, and used it in his patients, Dr. Kremer checked out the
hepatitis B vaccines on the market. He found that the American
vaccine, hepatitis B vaccine, was produced with the sera donated by
men in the Gay scene in New York City between 1978 and 1980. So,
as he knew, there was a lot of sex going on in a minority of these
men, and therefore they had had a lot of sexually transmitted
diseases. So he was afraid of using this vaccine, and instead he used
the French vaccine, which was produced from blood donations by the
general population in France.
But in 1983 the German government forced him not to use this
vaccine anymore. They said the French vaccine is poisoned by the
"AIDS virus" -- at the time when nobody was positively speaking
about an "AIDS virus" -- but the American vaccine was O.K. He knew,
or he was warned, that this had nothing to do with the science, but
it had to do with the fact that the German medical system, in parts
of Germany, is virtually a colony of the American system.
Soon after, in 1984, he was told to deliver frozen blood samples of
his patients to Berlin, to the newly founded AIDS Center, to be
tested for the "AIDS virus." Before he let his blood out, he checked
what's the evidence for the accuracy and reliability of the HIV
antibody test, and he realized that this test is not able to detect
the virus. It is not able to say yes or no, you are or are not infected.
It is only able to say that you have a higher or lower amount of
antibodies. That's how the HIV antibody test was and is designed.
Zenger's: It's my understanding that when you have an antibody test
that is actually useful, like the antibody test for syphilis, you get a
high or a low antibody reaction, and it's a certain multiple of how
many times you dilute the original sample and still have the
reaction. Therefore you know not only that the infection is present,
but also how well the immune system is responding to it.
Dr. Lanka: I'm absolutely sure that no antibody test in medicine
has any absolute meaning. Especially in HIV antibody testing, it is
clear that the antibodies that are detected in the test are present in
everybody. Some people have them in higher concentrations, and
some in lower concentrations, but only when you reach a very high
level of antibodies -- much higher than in any other antibody
testing -- are you considered to be "positive." This is a contradiction
in terms because in other antibody tests, the lower your level of
antibodies, the higher your risk for a symptomatic infection. But
with HIV they say you are "positive" only when you have reached a
very high level of antibodies. Below this level, you are said to
Zenger's: So this is what Dr. Roberto Giraldo was talking about
when he spoke to H.E.A.L. in San Diego. He said that when they do the
HIV antibody test they dilute the sample to 1/400 of its original
strength, and if they didn't do that all the samples would test
Dr. Lanka: That's it. How ridiculous. Dr. Kremer knew this already
by 1984. He was very worried about the fate of his patients,
because in 1984 the politicians asked him to put these already
stigmatized "HIV-positive" patients into quarantine, which means
to separate them from the other ones. He said no, because there's no
infectious entity out there. He knew everybody who went through
chronic active hepatitis or had the hepatitis B vaccine would test
"HIV-positive." So he knew that there is no infection in his
He informed the mass media, who went to his hospital to inform
themselves, in great detail. He told them all the evidence. And
the very same journalists, in talk shows, in Der Spiegel [one of
Germany's largest and most popular magazines] for example,
published just the contrary. So he knew that it was intentional from
the very beginning. They played war. They all wanted to have a
blood and sex plague, contrary to the evidence which he presented to
them. So he knew that AIDS was built up on misconceptions. He was
dealing at the top political level. They told him, off the record, that
they knew, they didn't care, it was about how to deal with the drug
problem and with the homosexuals.
They even tried to kill him, and this didn't succeed. He had a good
intuition and got out of his car before the tire blew out. Then he
learned from a minister who had a deep respect for him, because of
his work with prisoners and drug abusers, that the German
government was carrying out a secret psychological investigation,
trying to prove that he was mentally ill and being kept in his job
only because they considered him in danger of committing suicide.
So when he learned this, he left his very highly-ranked position
because he was not able to be silent on this. That would not fit his
I also met Professor Alfred Hässig of Switzerland. He founded
Swiss blood-donation system and was one of the first to take out
products from the blood in order to make plasma to treat chronic
disease. By becoming a colleague and a very close friend of his by
now, I learned a great deal about the whole blood-producing industry
and the criminal energy behind it. In March of 1996 in Berne [capital
of Switzerland], Hässig, Kremer and I met for the first time.
It became clear, also, what's happening in the field of hepatitis.
They are not dealing with a virus. Of course, there's a possibility
to enrich certain kinds of proteins in blood products, which then
cause severe autoimmune reactions, but only in very stressed-out
people, never in non-stressed people. When they learned to take out
these proteins from the blood products, or dilute them, there are not
hepatic problems anymore. I learned this through him.
Zenger's: Are you saying that all forms of hepatitis are non-
infectious, or just some of them?
Dr. Lanka: No, there's no such thing as infectious hepatitis.
Zenger's: So there are no hepatitis viruses, either.
Dr. Lanka: Yes. Hässig was always fighting to make sure that blood
products were produced only on the basis of a small pool of donors
who were young and healthy. The industry started to produce blood
products on the basis of commercial blood donations, using a huge
amount of blood samples, pooling them all together in a large pool,
because then it was much cheaper to get out all the various kinds of
Zenger's: In this country, it gets even worse because blood
donations are one of the principal ways homeless people have of
staying alive. As a result, we're taking a lot of our blood supply
from people in society who have the least healthy lifestyles.
Dr. Lanka: I know all the details. This what I'm going to tell you.
Professor Hässig once met the person responsible for the industry
to produce industrial blood products, and once, when this person was
drunk while visiting the Fiji Islands after a conference in Australia,
this person told Professor Hässig that soon they are going to smash
the state-owned blood producing units, based on voluntary blood
donations, because they're much cheaper producing their blood
products because they go into the Third World countries, and they
are already there in all the prisons of the dictators in South America
When Hässig heard about this, he rang some of his friends -- and, of
course, Hässig was the leading person in the blood business -- and
at this time there were some non-corrupted people in the WHO
(World Health Organization). So, in an emergency meeting, on short
notice so the industry had not time to corrupt the members who
decided on these issues, they decided that the position of the WHO
would be that it isn't allowed to produce plasma in the Third World,
because they would bleed them out.
Now they are bleeding out the poorest of the poor, and they are going
to Mexico, near where we are sitting right now. In order to help the
commercial blood products industry, the FDA [U.S. Food and Drug
Administration] has approved that a single person may give up to 50
units of plasma a year. That means he may drop in two times a week
to give blood and liver plasma. And an elephant wouldn't possibly
survive that, right? So that's the background, and what they did
when all that was in place was they changed the way they were
treating hemophiliacs. It started in California.
Up to the year 1969 it was forbidden to give the clotting factors to
hemophiliacs unless they had internal bleeding. If they would give
them prophylactically, antibodies would be produced because these
blood products are highly contaminated. In 1969 the industry
started to convince some medical doctors -- and the first one was a
woman doctor in California -- to treat hemophiliac patients
prophylactically with those clotting factors, and this is how the
industry made a lot of money. And, of course, the bodies of these
hemophiliacs made a lot of antibodies against those products, which
had been foreseen. They've had to use higher doses of clotting
factors ever since, in order to compete with those antibodies, so
that those clotting factors actually work. They gradually have to
increase the amount they are injecting.
This has been the biggest business in the blood industry ever since.
Nobody's speaking about this, but that's why almost all
hemophiliacs have come down with hepatitis. If you inject such a
high amount of foreign proteins, and all the contaminants, then of
course the liver, as the central metabolic organ, is stressed out,
resulting in hepatic inflammations. A lot of hemophiliacs died from
hepatitis, and it was blames on nonexistent viruses.
Zenger's: One of the issues that's raised in groups whenever we're
talking about the theories that HIV doesn't exist, or that
retroviruses don't exist, or that this or that disease isn't infectious
at all, is we often get people saying they're having a hard enough
time just trying to get people to think that HIV might be
harmless. It would be way too much to try to convince them
that it doesn't exist at all, and even more difficult to try to
convince them that -- if I understand what you're saying correctly --
ever since the end of World War II virtually every scientist working
in this field has been absolutely committed to a totally wrong
theory and that all of that research is nonsense and has to be
Dr. Lanka: That's not true. Before AIDS, there were a lot of
discussions and papers about the role of viruses in evolution.
Evolutionary biologists were already arguing about the central
dogma of molecular genetics. But this was all silenced, because
they all experienced how rapidly that idea came into existence, and
how powerful it was. Even when some of my colleagues at the
university and everybody I reached was absolutely sure and clear and
convinced about what I was saying, they were silent. I never got
support from a lot of professors at my university. Some of them, of
course, liked me a lot and they tried to warn me when it was too
much, when I was in danger of being expelled from the university,
etc. But none of them went public on their own.
Zenger's: When would you date the beginnings of this mistake, what
you call the dogma? How long has it been the dominant paradigm?
Dr. Lanka: I think it really started in the 1960's, when the
retrovirologists were being supported by President Nixon in the
"War on Cancer." This was the first time incredible amounts of
money were poured into this kind of research. These elite schools of
thought came into existence, dominating everything, and of course
they had success with the mass media because they were dealing
with cancer. When they claimed that retroviruses were the cause of
cancer, of course they developed chemotherapy against it. But soon
they had to give up the idea of cancer being caused by viruses
because they saws that reverse transcriptase and reverse
transcription occur everywhere they're look for it. They found
it's a common characteristic of all forms of life, especially for
cancer cells, and in fact it's a repair mechanism.
So silently, slowly but surely, they stopped speaking about those
cancer-causing viruses anymore, but came up with a completely
new idea of what is causing cancer, saying it's a weak immune
system. When immunology, as its own biological discipline with is
own faculty came into existence, people claimed that they were able
to measure the strength of the immune system by measuring
lymphocytes in the bloodstream. Of course, thousands of studies had
been carried out in the '70's saying that the white blood cell count
never correlated with any disease or with any age.
But, even so, they claimed that cancers come to existence by
accidental mutations everywhere in the body, and the immune
system is suppressing cancer. And when the T4 cells are out of
order with something else in the immune system, the immune
system cannot suppress cancer anymore. And this was the immune
surveillance theory of cancer, which was wrong already at the
moment they announced it; because they knew already by then that
cancer cells have no specific markers on their surface. They have
the same protein markers on their surface as embryonic cells.
Zenger's: One wouldn't expect the immune system to recognize a
cancer cell because it's self.
Dr. Lanka: That's it. We have a lot of embryonic cells in our body all
over. Those are the stem cells. When the nerve cells have got
broken, new nerve cells may regenerate out of the embryonic cells,
because those cells cannot be regenerated. So we have embryonic
tissues everywhere, and here comes evolutionary biology.
Now I have to tell you the basis of our lives. The fermentation
process was not producing enough energy to form multicellular
organisms or to enable the cell to differentiate. Bacterial cells are
not differentiated, not able to build multicellular organisms because
they don't have enough energy. Only the invention of photosynthesis -- using the energy of the sun to split down matter in order to get
electrons -- allowed life to go on. Life is driven by the force of
electrons, and with photosynthesis the electrons came out of the
splitting of the water, and the base product was oxygen.
This photosynthesis was so successful that it polluted the whole
planet. The water, and eventually the atmosphere, became saturated
with oxygen. Only when bacteria began to learn to use oxygen to
produce much more energy out of organic material, out of a sugar
molecule, did we have the next step in evolution. Life dealt with the
oxygen catastrophe, and since then we have had a perfect
equilibrium of oxygen-producing bacteria and oxygen-using bacteria,
so that they keep the atmosphere at a constant level of 20 percent
oxygen. This is exactly the level at which life is able to persist.
At a lower level, or a higher level, it is impossible. We are living in
the equilibrium. That's the principle of Gaia, by the way.
Those bacteria which learned to use oxygen were able to produce
20 to 30 times more energy per sugar molecule, because the oxygen
at the end was sucking so many electrons that many more electrons
could be taken out of the sugar, to produce much more energy than
was possible without the potent oxidative substance at the end of
the energy-producing chain. This revolution in energy formation was
the basis for all higher cells and all higher organisms. Of course,
with this excess of energy, cells could eventually differentiate and
form multicellular organisms. And these bacteria, which sere using
the oxygen, are part of every one of our cells, called mitochondria.
So very higher cell is a product of the fusion of several different
kinds of bacteria: the spirochetes, which brought mobility into life;
and the mitochondria, which produced much more energy than before.
This excess energy is the basis of all higher life, and if you violate
it -- if you don't let the oxygen come into the organism; if the blood
is oxidized by poppers [nitrites] or sulfinamides [including sulfa
drugs like Bactrim and Septra]; or if the transit way between the
blood and the cells is poisoned by heavy metals, or the lack of
essential fatty acids; or when the mitochondria are destroyed in the
cells, due to the lack of nutrition, or antibiotics -- the oxygen cannot
be transported from the blood to the cells. Then the cell is not able
to produce enough energy. It either may die, resulting in
inflammation; or when it's possible for a cell to survive, it will
become cancerous. When the cell is producing only fermentation,
then that's cancer, as Otto Warburg already detected in the 1940's.
They knew from the very beginning that cancer cells have only
embryonic markers on their surface. From a biological,
evolutionary point of view it makes sense that a cancer cell is a
reduction to an embryonic stage. It de-differentiates due to the
lack of energy, and it waits until the lack of energy is over in order
to differentiate again. Of course, if the lack of energy persists, it
loses genetic material; and these were the old criteria to define
cancer, when cells lost a lot of genetic material, because then they
lost the ability to differentiate again.
Zenger's: In other words, cancer occurs when the cell is programmed
to behave like a cell very early in fetal development and just divide
Dr. Lanka: That's it. An embryonic cell goes into a unicellular state.
It behaves like a unicellular organism, like a bacterium. It loses the
ability to stop replication when coming into contact with other
cells. So knowing about evolutionary biology, you are able to explain
In order to explain failure to find a retrovirus that directly caused
cancer, they claimed to be able to measure the immune system. But
this is ridiculous. In the Journal of the American Medical
Association, August 28, 1981, it was published that it makes no
sense to measure lymphocytes in the blood because only a few of
them are in the blood. The immune system is carried out, not in the
blood, but in the tissues. Only rarely and accidentally do we see
some of them in the blood. We've already carried out thousands of
studies which have proven no correlation between disease or
health, in old or young, in T-cells; and even less, of course, in T-cell
But, even though they knew that these T-cell tests had not
meaning, they were selling them to the market. Beginning in 1977,
starting in the United States, it was possible to patent biological
entities or biological techniques, so people started to make money
out of biological ideas.
This is the definite turning point when modern medicine and modern
biology lost their 'Unschuld', their innocence. That's it. The immune
surveillance theory of cancer -- the belief that if you measure the
strength of the immune system, then you could see when you are
going to develop cancer -- was the basis of AIDS, the thinking about
AIDS. They said if your immune functions are weak, you are going to
develop all viral forms of opportunistic infections and all
forms of cancer. And this never happened, as a matter of fact. In
AIDS we never have seen opportunistic infections. We have never
seen all viral forms of cancer; only one form of cancer, KS
Zenger's: When you say, "In AIDS we have never seen any
opportunistic infections," what do you mean by that? Because
virtually everything associated with AIDS is considered an
Dr. Lanka: That's not true. An opportunistic infection is a bacterial
infection which takes over when the immune functions are down,
when you have an immune defect or an immune deficiency. This was
and is the definition of an immune defect, and an immune deficiency:
when bacterial infections are taking over in your body,
generalized bacterial infections.
This is the case in those children born with an immune defect, who
have to live under a plastic tent; or those people in the intensive-
care units, patients dying now like flies because they are having
immune deficiency after an operation, accident, transfusion or
transplantation, when immune functions are artificially
suppressed. Bacterial infections go everywhere in the body, and due
to the resistance catastrophe, which is the medical background of
why "AIDS" has been invented, definitely, they are dying like flies.
But all these internalized bacterial infections never have been
part of the definition of AIDS.
Zenger's: I remember that was a question the AIDS experts got asked
at some of the very early meetings, in the early 1980's: "Well, if it's
a breakdown of the immune system, why don't you get colds all the
time? Why don't you get flus all the time? Why don't you get these
common infectious diseases all the time? Why is it just these
really esoteric things like PCP and KS and CMV and MAI and
Dr. Lanka: That's it. The only diseases seen in people with AIDS are
the ones tropical disease specialists have specialized in, Those are
unicellular organisms which came into existence in evolutionary
times when there was not as much oxygen in the atmosphere as
there is today. So they can only grow in people who are depleted of
oxygen. And that's it, why they show up there, even when the
immune functions are absolutely perfect.
Especially in the case of fungi, their immunology, their immunity is
not known. They think they have the same immunity as bacterial
cells. But evolutionary biology answers these questions as well.
Fungi came into existence after animal beings. The fungi invented
enzymes which are even able to produce energy out of oxidizing.
They feed on dead organic matter, and that's their task in evolution,
in biology: to recycle. Without fungi, no plants would grow on earth,
outside the water.
Zenger's: Which is why, if you're growing mushrooms, you put them
in a warm, dark place and fill them full of pieces of wood and bits of
Dr. Lanka: That's it. It was already known by 1965, definitely, that
PCP is a fungus. And this was and is the most important AIDS-defining disease. If you look at who comes down with this disease,
you see people who are using poppers. What are poppers? Nitrites.
And check every dictionary in the bookstore, or the People's Medical
Dictionary: what do nitrites do in the body? They oxidize the blood.
That means the blood itself is not able to transport oxygen. So, of
course, the first cells to suffer are cells in the lung.
Nitrites are transformed immediately into nitric oxide in the
smallest capillars [capillaries?, F.C.] of the body. Nitric oxide is
produced by the body in very low concentrations in order to control
blood pressure, in order to control development. It has to be
detoxified by the body immediately, because in higher
concentrations it acts very aggressively, destroying everything.
This is why the "eating cells" of the immune system, the
macrophages, are releasing nitric oxide in high quantities in
inflammation reactions: to destroy and digest the bacterial cells.
So if you take up nitrites regularly, or from time to time -- which
means huge, excessive amounts of nitric oxide are produced -- it
means you start the self-destroying process in your own body,
especially in the lungs. You are destroying your lung tissue, and
fungal infections are growing on this dead organic matter. Even so,
immune functions are perfect, because these patients do suppress
bacterial infections. All those 60 different kinds of lung disease we
know by now, all caused by bacterial infections, do not appear
because the immune functions are still well.
So we have a direct toxic effect, which may happen even when your
detoxification system is not working on a cellular level, because you
will suffer malnutrition. PCP can also happen in people who suffer
extreme malnutrition, like we've had in Africa. This is the reason
why PCP is not part of the AIDS definition in Africa, because we
have it in the children who suffer starvation because the
detoxification system of the cells is very weak in children. This is
why, in the Middle Ages, when the wells had been poisoned by feces
or meat from the civil wars or wars, it was the children who
suffered, turning blue -- this was called "the disease of the blues" --
when they drank water, because there were a lot of nitrites and
nitrates inside, produced by nitrifying bacteria when the wells had
been poisoned, because the detoxification systems of children are
very low. This is why the children starving heavily in Africa come
down with PCP ever since.
I can foresee, here and now, that people regularly using Viagra will
be coming down with KS in two to three years because Viagra acts
by blocking the neutralization of nitric oxide. When you take Viagra,
nitric oxide accumulates, relaxing the smooth muscles, that blood is
flowing in, the penis is being erected, and our muscles are relaxed.
Poppers act by the same mode, because the nitrites are transformed
into nitric oxide in the smallest vessels, and so the smallest
vessels become relaxed. But whereas poppers directly produce
nitric oxide, Viagra works by preventing the neutralization of nitric
oxide which comes into existence normally in the process of blood
pressure regulation. It constantly persists at a very low level, but
if it accumulates, you are in a very big danger.
So, if the blood has oxidized itself and the lining of the smallest
vessels, the capillars (i.e. capillaries, F.C.] , is destroyed by nitric
oxide, what's going to happen? Those cells will turn into cancer
cells. There's a lack of oxygen, and the first cells to suffer this
oxygen deficiency are the lining of the epithelium, the smallest
vessels, where the nitrites are transformed into nitric oxide. And
this is, as a matter of fact, the definition of Kaposi' Sarcoma: when
the lining -- the interior of the smallest vessels -- develops into
cancerous form, growing bigger and multiplying. This is hyperplasia,
no a form of sarcoma, but a real form of cancer, and this is defined
as KS. It can also come into existence even if you are not
swallowing poppers, but when your cellular detoxification system is
not working anymore.
Zenger's: So that's your bottom-line answer to the question, "What
Dr. Lanka: Yes. AIDS is an energy deficiency problem. The "AIDS"
term is absolutely misleading because it has nothing to do with an
immune defect or immune deficiency. It is clear that se are dealing
with an energy deficiency. So the term "AIDS" has to be replaced
by the term "AEDS," "Acquired Energy Deficiency Syndrome," and
we would keep up the term "AIDS" only in the form of acquired
intelligence deficiency syndrome. AEDS has a rational basis, and
it is treatable. There are very potent treatment options available to
reverse those damages caused by intoxification or lack of oxygen, on
all various levels.
Here, also, evolutionary biology helps. Animal beings are not able to
produce three major classes of substances, because when they came
into existence in the water, these substances were available. This
is another aspect of evolution, because they have grown up or
developed in a constant milieu where all the essential molecules
have been available. Animal beings didn't bother to build up three
important groups of molecules on their own, so they have the
advantage to use their energy, and in order to develop even more or
Among these substances animals cannot produce on their own are the
polyphenols, which are vitamins. We are aware of 5,000 different
kinds of polyphenols produced in herbs -- in all plants, but especially
in herbs. The higher they grow, the higher they produce polyphenols.
You can detect plants in front of radiation. These polyphenols are
nature's own protease inhibitors, by the way. Animals are also not
able to produce the long-chain sugar molecules which make up the
basic tissues that form up to 80 percent of our body weight. These
tissues produce the constant milieu for the cells in the body -- and if
you don't have them you are going automatically into disease.
Every cell is surrounded by these basic tissues, long-chain sugar
molecules with proteins attached. All nerve cells end there,
activating and deactivating. All immunological reactions are carried
out there. These basic tissues have a quasi-crystalline structure
and they work by breaking, oscillating, very quickly, several
thousand times a second, with the speed all biochemical reactions
are triggered, etc. etc. If you don't know how life is working on the
cellular level, you're not able to understand cancer. If you don't
know how life is organized on the tissue level, you cannot
understand life either, right?
So if the cell lacks these substances, it cannot maintain its milieu.
The surfaces of the cells especially need those long-chain sugar
molecules in order to prevent calcium from flowing inside the cell.
If those products are not there, calcium is formed inside the cells,
killing the cells, resulting in controlled cell death, apoptosis: that
means inflammation. Normally you get these substances from
plants. In emergency cases, if you are depleted, you get them from
bovine cartilage or agar agar, two spoonfuls every morning, With
this you can stop all forms of arthritis, by the way, And those
molecules are potent protease inhibitors as well.
In any case of inflammation, or catabolic situation -- when you lose
more cells than the body's able to reproduce -- you go in with this and
it's going to help you. The artificial protease inhibitors only help
you for short periods. Then they intoxify the cells, because the
artificial protease inhibitors cannot be digested. The body cannot
get rid of them. They form crystals, and eventually they intoxify the
whole cell and the whole organism on all levels, because they
prevent the digestion of all the proteins.
We have reached the end, with the treatments, because not only are
we deconstructing AIDS and offering another term, which
everybody's able to handle and be happy with, especially cancer
specialists. We are also offering very potent treatment options to
replace these very dangerous protease inhibitors. I think that
completes the picture of what so-called "AIDS" really is and what
you can do about it.
Subscriptions to Zenger's are available by sending
$25 (in the U.S.) or $40 (anywhere else) in U.S. funds to Zenger's, P.
O. Box 50134, San Diego, CA 92165.