[Letter to Colleagues from Peter Duesberg]

Peter Duesberg - 5/21/91
page -2 -answered this reviewer's request to discuss the Fischl et al. papers on AZT
(ref. 101, 102).
Reviewer #2 reveals his/her bias for the HIV-AIDS hypothesis in
statements such as this: "Drug use does not explain AIDS occurring in
children or AIDS in health care workers who are stuck with a needle from an
HIV-infected patient." Yet he/she does not provide a single reference for
these claims. Instead, my paper documents that most children with AIDS in
the U.S. are born to drug-addicted mothers, and that children of drug addicted
mothers have AIDS diseases with and without HIV (see refs 44 and 50).
Further, there is, as yet, no documented case in the literature of a health care
worker in the U.S. who got AIDS from a needle stick. Indeed, the absence of
needle-stick AIDS among the 5 million American health care workers who -
have treated over 100,000 AIDS patients over the last 10 years - but are not
vaccinated against HIV - is the most telling example of the bankruptcy of the
virus-AIDS hypothesis. Further, this reviewer's opinion that "This
manuscript does not represent a scientific article but appears to be a loose
collection of facts marshalled to support a hypothesis..." is not consistent
with my 26-year experience in the field. It would help if this reviewer would
provide his/her definition of a "scientific article".
Reviewer #3 also expresses a strong bias for Gallo's HIV-AIDS
hypothesis - "Stop the drugs... and the patient without HIV will
recover...". Obviously, he/she did not read my paper carefully enough to
pick up the study of Weber et al. (ref 47) which reported that among HIVinfected intravenous drug users those who stopped injecting drugs did not
develop AIDS diseases despite HIV, while those who continued did. Further,
he/she failed to read that I described HIV-free drug users who developed
AIDS diseases (refs. 43, 48, 49). Although this reviewer did not check the facts
referenced in my paper very carefully, he/she voices a disparaging general
opinion about its logic and bibliography, and says "the paper is replete with
sophis try and supported by numerous journals and books lacking credibility."
Yet he/she does not point out which "numerous" journals and books are not
credible, neither does he/she provide a single reference of his/her own.
Reviewer #4 also explains a strong preference for the virus-AIDS
hypothesis, stating that my "paper is filled with selective use of data. Dr.
Duesberg ignores evidence which links AIDS to an infectious agent(s)...
Obviously, all papers are "selective". Contrary to this reviewer's opinion, my
paper, as well as two previous ones from me, deal exclusively with "evidence

which links AIDS to an infectious agent" - but the evidence fails to