Why There is Still an HIV Controversy

NOV 10 '93 01: 46FM ADPRC F.6

5
HIV theory depends almost entirely on correlation, these are
very pertinent questions it is irresponsible to ignore. We
endorse the remark of Rio/Technology editor Douglas
McCormick: Duesberg's opponents "have been quick to question
his sanity, his manner, and his motives, but very slow to
answer his science [23].'
Of course, if HIV can really cause AIDS even when there
is no evidence of its presence in the body, then the HIV
theory could not be falsified no matter how many cases of
AIDS without HIV research might discover. On the assumption
that the greater part of the scientific community insists
that HIV research should stay within the boundaries of
empirical science, there are some concrete steps that could
be taken to settle the controversy. Here are examples of
what needs to be done:
1. Genuinely controlled epidemiological studies must be
performed in all the major risk groups: homosexuals, drug
users, transfusion recipients, and hemophiliacs. These must
employ an unbiased definition of "AIDS." Too often we have
been told that HIV always accompanies AIDS only to learn
that this is so because AIDS without HIV is named something
else. The studies must be performed by persons who are
committed to investigating the HIV theory rather than
defending it. There is reason to suspect that properly
controlled studies of transfusion recipients and
hemophiliacs in particular will show that the incidence of
AIDS-defining diseases is independent of HIV positivity
118, 19].
2. The CDC statistics should be audited to remove HIV bias
and thus to allow unprejudiced testing of the critical
epidemiological evidence for the theory. Every effort
should be made to determine how many AIDS patients were
actually tested for antibodies and the testing method that
was employed. Because published research has shown that
even the most reliable (Western Blot) antibody test
generates many false-positive results [22], efforts should
be made to validate the antibody tests by examining random
samples of AIDS patients to determine whether replicating
1 'aV can be found in quantity in their bodies. Statistics
have been kept as if the purpose were to protect the HI2V
theory rather than to learn the truth (211.
3. Research should focus upon the cause of particular
diseases rather than solely upon the politically defined
hodgepodge of diseases we now call AIDS- Here is one
example. Several years ago in Nature Robin weiss and Harold
Jafte conceded in a reply to Duesberg that there are cases
of Kaposi's sarcoma in young gay males who are 1IV negative,
and that some agent other than FIN must be responsible [131 -
(KS is rare in AIDS risk groups other than homosexuals, a
circumstance which in itself casts doubt on HIV as the