THE DRUG-AIDS HYPOTHESIS
Peter Duesberg and David Rasnick
8. A possible solution at last
It is concluded that the HIV hypothesis has been unproductive and nonpredictive
because AIDS is neither an infectious epidemic nor caused by HIV. Thus,
far from solving AIDS, the HIV hypothesis has actually escalated the epidemic
by monopolizing AIDS reasearch and therapy, and by delivering harmful medications.
As the theoretical basis of all anti-AIDS treatments the HIV hypothesis
is solely responsible for over 1 million year-long prescriptions of AZT
and all other toxic antiviral drugs that have never cured an AIDS patient.
On the contrary, AZT and other anti-HIV/AIDS drugs have been shown to accelerate
The HIV hypothesis is also responsible for the promotion of recreational
drug use. By ignoring, obscuring and even directly refuting in the professional
literature, the possibility that nitrites, cocaine and heroin could cause
diseases, the medical orthodoxy misinforms a vulnerable and trusting public
about the medical consequences of recreational drug use (16, 80, 339).
The long arm of the international AIDS establishment even reaches out specifically
to the public with targeted press releases to convince everybody that drugs
are harmless as long as they are taken with clean needles and condoms to
protect against HIV infection (333, 334, 348). This misinformation campaign
and the campaign that clean needles for unsterile street drugs (!) and
condoms protect against all medical consequences of drug use encourage
rather than discourage recreational drug use by the unsuspecting public
(7, 11, 97).
By contrast, our independent analysis of the AIDS epidemic reveals that
AIDS is simply the clinical consequence of the American/European drug epidemic.
The drug hypothesis resolves all long-standing paradoxes and contradictions
of the HIV-hypothesis and predicts AIDS exactly, the hallmark of a good
hypothesis. Therefore, it should have a very high priority in AIDS research.
Drug toxicity could be tested experimentally in animals, and in human cells
in tissue culture. In addition, drug toxicity could be tested epidemiologically
in humans who are addicted to recreational drugs or are prescribed AZT.
Such tests could be conducted at a microscopic fraction of the cost that
is now invested in the HIV hypothesis.
According to the drug hypothesis AIDS would be entirely preventable
and at least partially curable, if:
1) AZT and all other anti-HIV drugs were banned,
2) illicit recreational drug use was terminated,
3) AIDS patients were treated for their specific diseases with proved
medications, e.g. tuberculosis with antibiotics, Kaposiís sarcoma with
conventional cancer therapy, and weight loss with good nutrition.
In addition to saving about 50,000 to 75,000 lives per year from AIDS,
the drug hypothesis could save the American tax payer up to $23 billion
annually. Eight of the $23 billion are spent on AIDS treatment, research
and education based on the unproductive HIV hypotheasis (349, 350), and
$15 billion are spent on the War on Drugs (51, 53, 62, 349, 350). The War
on Drugs is "primarily focused on supply control efforts" (51,
53), but has failed completely to stop the American drug epidemic.
But if the wars on AIDS and drugs were based on the health consequences
of long-term drug use, they could be just as successful as the federal
anti-smoking program. Based on education that smoking causes lung cancer,
emphysema and heart disease, smoking has dropped in the US from 42% of
the adult population in 1965 to 25% in 1995 (247). And only 15.5% of Californians
smoked regularly in 1995, down from 26% in 1984. In view of this the CDCís
director of the Office of Smoking and Health proudly announced, "Not
only are these states [California and others] doing something right, but
other states are looking at them and seeing that this works" (351).
Thus by adopting the drug-AIDS hypothesis the CDC could also win the war
However, there are a number of monumental obstacles, 15 years in the
making, that block the possible solution of AIDS based on the drug hypothesis:
1) The HIV/AIDS orthodoxyís annual budget of $8 billion from the US
2) The thousands of AIDS organizations, including countless public health
and activist careers and the tens of thousands of scientific reputations
that are exclusively built on HIV (7, 11),
3) The numerous medical and social benefits available to HIV-positive
activists and patients (352),
4) The staggering commercial interests in HIV-tests, over 20 million
tests per year at $ 50 or more in the US alone, HIV-vaccines and anti-HIV
5) The prospects of numerous complaints and malpratice suits against
the HIV/AIDS orthodoxy from those who were told they are destined to die
based on HIV tests or were helped to die with AZT,
6) The prospect of a profound loss of confidence of the American public
in its medical and scientific elite (7, 11).
Thus the current HIV/AIDS orthodoxy cannot afford the drug hypothesis,
and must do everything in its power to keep it from being presented to
the American people.
Likewise, the $15 billion federal establishment that conducts the War
on Drugs would risk its large budget and thousands of career positions
if the War on Drugs were won in the name of the hypothesis that drugs cause
In sum, the drug hypothesis is testable and predicts that AIDS is entirely
preventable and treatable by controling drug use. The solution of AIDS
and significant progress in the War on Drugs are as close as a very testable
and affordable non-HIV/AIDS hypothesis.