HIV and AIDS: Questions of Scientific and Journalistic Responsibility

1 6

HIV AND AIDS

possibilities of passing on various viruses or microbes from one person to
another, whether these are pathogenic or not. Among these viruses is
HIV. Thus one explanation for the more extensive presence of HIV in
risk groups lies in these practices. On the other hand, the spread of the
HIV virus or other viruses in certain groups (for instance prostitutes) by
itself does not necessarily correlate with this group being at high risk
for AIDS-defining diseases. For instance, prostitutes who do get some
AIDS-defining diseases on the whole are also found to engage in other
practices besides sex, e.g. drug use. (See Duesberg's Pharmac. Ther.
paper, p. 238.)
(c) Although there is a correlation of lung cancer with smoking, there
is also a correlation of lung cancer with yellow fingers. This does not
imply that yellow fingers cause lung cancer. Even when a "correlation
of HIV with AIDS" is claimed, there may be another correlation
which is even stronger, namely between certain diseases and the use of
drugs of various sorts, ranging from recreational drugs such as "poppers"
to purportedly HIV-inhibiting drugs such as AZT (see ~4 and ~5 below).
It may simply be that HIV is an opportunistic virus which tends to be
present when some diseases are present. Thus HIV would be merely a
marker rather than a cause for whatever disease is involved.
A number of other points raise questions about the causal relationship
between HIV and various diseases, but I merely wanted to give a
sample here. Of course, none of the above points gives a conclusive
answer as to what causes AIDS, or what does not cause AIDS in human
beings, whatever AIDS is. I have no definitive answer. I merely
question the line upheld up to now by the biomedical establishment,
and repeated uncritically in the press, that "HIV is the virus that
causes AIDS".
The improper reporting in the press reflects defective statements from
many scientists who promote the establishment line about HIV being
the cause of AIDS. That "HIV is the cause of AIDS" is taken as a
postulate, and some scientists try to fit experimental data into this
postulate, actually without success. Sometimes they hedge by speaking
of "association" rather than "cause". Sometimes they state that they
are still looking for "the enigmatic mechanism of the pathogenesis of
HIV", which means they haven't found the way HIV causes any
disease and are still looking. So how come they assert without
qualification that "HIV is the cause of AIDS"?