"The Evidence That HIV Causes AIDS" - Rebuttal by HEAL Toronto

Compiled by Robert Johnston (Co-founder of HEAL Toronto),
Matthew Irwin, MD (Co-founder of HEAL Washington DC),
David Crowe (President of the Alberta Reappraising AIDS Society)

Original Publication
https://web.archive.org/web/20111105065014/http://healtoronto.com/nih/

File Attachment

"The Evidence That HIV Causes AIDS", is a document that was created by the Office of Communications and Public Liaison of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases/National Institutes of Health (NIAID/NIH): www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/evidhiv.htm (November 1994, updated on November 29, 2000). It is the most comprehensive document we know of to attempt to answer the many arguments that HIV does not cause AIDS. In the following rebuttal, we argue that the NIAID/NIH document is seriously flawed for both failing to respect the standards of scientific discourse and failing to provide credible evidence to support its fundamental claims.

Science is normally advanced through publications that:

• are signed by its authors;

• include a comprehensive list of citations;

• include contact information for at least one author;

• are modifiable only through additional publications (including errata);

• are open to rebuttal through published letters in the same journal;

• are peer reviewed;

• rely largely upon other peer-reviewed literature to back up their assumptions.

The NIAID web page has none of these characteristics. On the contrary:

• it is anonymous;

• citations are restricted to the protagonist case;

• it changes occasionally without warning or explanation;

• it has no forum for those who disagree with parts of it to respond;

• it gives no information about the review process, if any, used to validate it;

• prejudges the issue by labelling the dissident case as "myth" and the protagonist case as "fact";

• fails to detail the dissident case in the same details as the protagonist case.

This rebuttal limits itself to revealing the fallacy of the key assertions made in the NIAID/NIH document:

• (A) that "HIV fulfills Koch's postulates as the cause of AIDS";

• (B) that "modern culture techniques have allowed the isolation of HIV in virtually all AIDS patients, as well as in almost all HIV-seropositive individuals" and that a human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) has been clearly identified;

• (C) that so-called HIV antibody tests, when positive, indicate specific "antibodies that indicate HIV infection." That is, such antibodies are caused by HIV infection and nothing else.

Here we present evidence that all the various "HIV tests" (antibody, antigen, PCR (viral load) or by "modern culture techniques") have never been validated by the only possible standard of viral purification, nor has a unique AIDS-causing retrovirus ever been properly identified. Without the unequivocal gold standard of viral purification all the correlations put forward in the NIAID/NIH document as evidence that HIV causes AIDS have no solid foundation.

A point of clarification: This rebuttal draws largely on two major critics of the HIV/AIDS hypothesis: Papadopulos-Eleopulos et al. (known as the "Perth Group") and Peter Duesberg. On one essential point they hold fundamentally opposing views; Peter Duesberg accepts the isolation of HIV and the antibody tests as proof of infection (albeit with a harmless passenger virus) while the Perth Group does not. Readers might like to read The Last Debate (1999) which the Perth Group wrote to compare and contrast their views to those of Peter Duesberg. You can find Duesberg's defense of his position here.

A. CLAIMS THAT KOCH’S POSTULATES HAVE BEEN FULFILLED

NIAID: “HIV fulfills Koch’s postulates as the cause of AIDS.”
The following is a short summary showing how HIV fails Koch's Postulates:

#1. EPIDEMIOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION: Koch's Postulate #1. The microorganism must be found in all cases of the disease (NIAID/NIH).

NIAID: "…virtually all AIDS patients are HIV-seropositive; that is they carry antibodies that indicate HIV infection."

The assumption that a positive "HIV antibody" test indicates active HIV infection in every case is not supported by the scientific evidence. Also, the supposed correlation between a positive HIV antibody test and AIDS is extremely weak, based on circular logic and has been flawed from the very beginning.

On April 23, 1984 Dr. Robert Gallo filed a patent application for an antibody test, now generally referred to as the "AIDS test". The same day Gallo announced at an international press conference that he had discovered a new retrovirus that he called HTLV-III (now known as HIV), and that it was "the probable cause of AIDS". This announcement caught even the scientists in the audience by surprise. Gallo had circumvented an essential part of the scientific process; he had not published his research findings in any scientific or medical journal or subjected them to the normal process of peer review prior to being announced to the public.

When Gallo's "evidence" was finally published weeks later there were some serious problems. The laboratory procedure Gallo and his colleagues considered to prove isolation was positive in only 36% of his AIDS patients and only 88% were positive on the "HIV-antibody" test. Also, in order to ensure that only the AIDS patients and not the healthy control group came up positive on his antibody test, he had to dilute the blood an extraordinary 500-fold. At lesser dilutions too many healthy controls would also test positive. These facts alone should have been enough to cast serious doubt on Gallo's claim that he had discovered a new retrovirus or the "probable cause of AIDS" (Gallo, 1984; Papadopulos-Eleopulos, 1993a; Koliadin, 1998). An excellent summary of how corrupt, deceitful (and possibly even criminal) his research was can be found in the book Science Fictions by John Crewdson, a Chicago Tribune science writer (Crewdson, 2002)

There are tens of thousands of people who have been reported with AIDS to the CDC's HIV/AIDS Surveillance "without laboratory evidence regarding HIV infection":

There are thousands of people who have been diagnosed with AIDS even though they were found to be HIV negative on the antibody tests:

In addition, HIV antibody tests are rarely used in Africa and other poor nations where the majority of people with AIDS supposedly reside, so there is no way of knowing how many test positive on the HIV antibody tests. In these parts of the world AIDS case definitions like the Abidjan/WHO, Bangui/WHO (clinical), Caracas/PAHO and revised Caracas/PAHO leave the door wide open for AIDS surveillance "without laboratory evidence regarding HIV infection". Surveys indicate that more than half of Africans who qualify for an AIDS diagnosis test HIV-negative:

• 227 patients with "AIDS": 59% test HIV-negative (Hishida, 1992)

• 122 patients with "AIDS": 69% test HIV-negative (Brindle, 1993)

• 913 patients with "AIDS": 71% test HIV-negative (Songok, 1994)

Finally, since positive HIV tests are now required in most wealthy nations to diagnose AIDS, even people suffering from one of the 29 "AIDS indicator diseases", with symptoms exactly like those of AIDS, are not diagnosed with AIDS if they have a negative "HIV antibody" test. This creates a ridiculous artificial correlation in which the definition of AIDS requires an HIV positive test, and then the artificial correlation is used to try to show that HIV must be causing AIDS. (Note: Under a few exceptional circumstances the CDC does not require proof of HIV infection e.g.; PCP pneumonia with no other apparent cause.)

In summary: If HIV antibody positive = HIV infection, clearly HIV is not found in all cases; and the definition also allows HIV to be absent. so HIV fails Koch's Postulate #1.

#2. ISOLATION: Koch's Postulate #2. The pathogen must be isolated from the host and grown in pure culture (NIAID).

NIAID: "modern culture techniques have allowed the isolation of HIV in virtually all AIDS patients, as well as in almost all HIV-seropositive individuals..."

HIV has never been "isolated from the host and grown in pure culture." Proof of purification requires an electron micrograph showing [pure] viral particles with the morphology of retroviruses -- and nothing else. Such an electron micrograph has never been provided for HIV (Papadopulos, 1998b). Attempts to show the purity of so-called HIV isolates have been a complete failure (Gluschankof, 1997; Bess, 1997; De Harven, 1998a). Even Luc Montagnier, regarded as the discoverer of HIV, has admitted that his research team failed to purify a virus. He also said "analysis of the proteins of the virus demands mass production and purification. It is necessary to do that". His team "had not enough particles produced to purify and characterize the viral proteins" (Tahi, 1997). Since viruses and cells are made of proteins and nucleic acids, and especially since there are thousands of proteins and nucleic acids in cells, even if HIV did exist how is it possible to tell which constituents are viral and which are cellular? Attempts to show the purity of so-called HIV isolates have been a complete failure (Gluschankof, 1997; Bess, 1997; De Harven, 1998a). Even Luc Montagnier, regarded as the discoverer of HIV, has admitted that his research team failed to purify a virus. His team "had not enough particles produced to purify and characterize the viral proteins".

The word 'isolation' is commonly used in HIV research papers and, to most people, implies that the virus has been purified. Yet, in reality, the term has been degraded to utter meaninglessness because all that is looked for are surrogate markers (e.g. certain enzymes or proteins) which are believed to come from HIV. Not even one single intact viral particle is identified, and none of the surrogate markers that are used are actually specific to HIV (Eleopulos-Papadopulos et al, 1993). The process starts with unpurified extracts of body fluids being added to a culture of cancerous cells along with some stimulating chemicals. After several days or weeks, the culture is usually examined for one of the following signs: the reverse-transcriptase enzyme, the protein 'p24', retrovirus-like particles or proteins that bind with antibodies from AIDS patients. None of these are specific to retroviruses. Cultures are radically changed by being exposed to atmospheric oxygen levels (21%) rather than the 0.5-10% found within the body. It seems that this is just another indication that culture systems are unrepresentative of the real world: Roy S et al. Oxygen sensing by primary cardiac fibroblasts a k key role of p24. Circ Res. 2003; 92. ( Ranki, 1988; Roy; Papadopulos, 1993a).

See: Appendix A: The Origin of the "HIV" Proteins

The assumption that HIV can be isolated from "virtually all AIDS patients, as well as in almost all HIV-seropositive individuals" will be discussed in greater detail in sections B and C.

See: What "HIV" Researchers Mean by "Isolation" and "Cloning"

#3. TRANSMISSION PATHOGENESIS: Koch's Postulate #3. It must reproduce the original disease when introduced into a susceptible host (NIAID).

NIAID: "Postulate #3 has been fulfilled in tragic incidents involving three laboratory workers with no other risk factors who have developed AIDS or severe immunosuppression after accidental exposure to concentrated, cloned HIV in the laboratory."

Of the three people who supposedly got AIDS from 'purified' or 'concentrated' virus, only one has been discussed in any credible detail in the scientific journals. Duesberg is puzzled why these cases have not been written up in medical journals, as this would have been an opportunity to show that one of Koch's postulates of causation by a microbe has been fulfilled (Presidential AIDS Advisory Panel). There have been no scientific papers written about two of these three people and there have never been any further reports, even though these situations must have occurred no later than 1993 and since then millions of needlestick injuries have occurred.

NIAID: "In all three cases, HIV was isolated from the infected individual, sequenced and shown to be the infecting strain of virus."

Weiss et al report:

This sounds impressive, but what does Weiss mean when he claims "the isolates were indistinguishable"? Valendar Turner offers a good analogy:

To see the basic fallacy underlying these molecular analyses, consider the results of attempts at HIV isolation from a cell line like H9/HTLV-IIIB. Two papers in the leading science journal Virology in March 1997 provide astonishing data on the purification and isolation of HIV (Gluschankof et al, 1997; Bess et al, 1997). For the first time in the history of AIDS, elusive electron microscope images of 'HIV' collected or 'banded' at the official density required for purifying retroviruses, 1.16 gm/ml, were published. The electronmicrographs (EMs) disclosed "major contaminants" in "pure HIV" — an oxymoron to say the least. The authors of these studies conceded that their pictures reveal the vast majority of the material in the density gradient was cellular contamination. HIV expert Hans Gelderblom, of Berlin's Robert Koch Institute, co-authored the first paper which describes the contamination as "an excess of vesicles" - particles of cellular proteins, that may contain DNA or RNA. In a consecutive paper, a U.S. research team from the AIDS Vaccine Programme in Maryland reveal carefully, "It is unknown how these cellular proteins associate with the virus" and warn, "The presence of microvesicles in purified retroviruses has practical implications". One has to wonder how it could be possible to sequence an "HIV" genome or obtain pure HIV proteins from "isolates" like these. (See Figure 1.)

Eleopulos and colleagues summarize the problem:

NIAID: "In another tragic incident, transmission of HIV from a Florida dentist to six patients has been documented by genetic analyses of virus isolated from both the dentist and the patients."

Duesberg summarizes some of the evidence disproving the allegations against Dr. Acer:

Not one paramedic, emergency medical technician or surgeon in the U.S. has contracted AIDS from on-the-job exposure (CDC, 2000). Out of 733,374 total U.S. AIDS cases through 1999, only 25 are thought to be occupationally acquired, based on presumptive evidence — meaning they admitted no other risk factor (CDC, 2000). In Canada, out of 17,389 AIDS cases through 2000, only 5 are reported as occupationally acquired (PPHB, 2001). Only one case has been documented, and the evidence was weak and circumstantial (CCDR, 1992). Consider that the 1 million needle-stick injuries among health care workers in the U.S. each year result in about 1,000 cases of hepatitis among health care workers annually. That means that in the 18 years of AIDS, health care workers contracted 18,000 cases of hepatitis and 25 cases of AIDS. Pretty strange if HIV is a blood-borne virus!

B. CLAIMS THAT HIV ISOLATION HAS BEEN ACHIEVED

NIAID: "HIV can be detected in virtually everyone with AIDS."

"Recently developed sensitive testing methods, including the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and improved culture techniques, have enabled researchers to find HIV in patients with AIDS with few exceptions. HIV has been repeatedly isolated from the blood, semen and vaginal secretions of patients with AIDS, findings consistent with the epidemiologic data demonstrating AIDS transmission via sexual activity and contact with infected blood (Bartlett, 1999; Hammer et al. J Clin Microbiol 1993;31:2557; Jackson et al. J Clin Microbiol 1990;28:16)."

New testing techniques cannot both be validated against existing antibody tests and used to support current tests. They must, instead, be independently validated using the only technique that unambiguously detects HIV - virus purification.

In a letter to the editor of the British Medical Journal, Eleopulos et al simply states the problem and invites speculation as to how all those "extra" Africans become HIV positive:

"Recent data has challenged the whole notion that the majority of HIV infections in Africa are heterosexual." (Brewer DD, 2003; Gisselquist D et al, 2002; Gisselquist D et al, 2003a; Gisselquist D et al. 2003b)

The statement quoted above from the NIAID document cites three references to support its claim that newer tests have allowed HIV to be 'repeatedly isolated' from people diagnosed with AIDS. When these three references are examined, however, one finds that they actually point out many inconsistencies and problems with the tests currently being used, and in some cases these uncertainties are openly admitted. This is a perfect example of the paucity of evidence and misleading references put forward by the NIAID/NIH in support of their claims. Following is a brief analysis of how the three references for the above NIAID/NIH statement are inadequate and misleading:

1. Bartlett, 1999; 2001-2002 Medical Management of HIV Infection by John G. Bartlett, M.D. and Joel E. Gallant, M.D., M.P.H. Copyright © 1997-2002 The Johns Hopkins University on behalf of its Division of Infectious Diseases and AIDS Service. "Production of the 2001-2002 edition of Medical Management of HIV Infection has been underwritten by an unrestricted educational grant form GlaxoSmithKline, Inc."

The relevant section reads as follows:

None of this sounds like evidence that there are valid tests for detecting HIV that could be considered a gold standard for "routine serology", that is, HIV antibody tests. It is clear that antibody tests do not prove presence of a virus. DNA, RNA and protein antigens are contingent upon proof they are extracted from pure culture of virus.

A foot note at the bottom of the page of the internet version of this publication states: "Physicians and other health care professionals are encouraged to consult other sources and confirm the information contained in this site ...." So perhaps we had best move on.

2. Hammer et al. J Clin Microbiol 1993;31:2557. Use of virologic assays for detection of human immunodeficiency virus in clinical trials: recommendations of the AIDS Clinical Trials Group Virology Committee.

This is a set of guidelines or tutorial similar to the Medical Management of HIV Infection. Rather than providing evidence that "HIV can be detected in virtually everyone with AIDS", it strongly suggests the opposite. In the section on Viral Isolation two assays are discussed; PBMC culture and plasma culture. Regarding the PBMC culture:

In the following discussion of plasma culture Hammer et al. state:

See Table 1 in the Piatak paper to get some perspective on how much "plasma viremia will increase."(Piatak, 1993). Hammer et al. also suggest that a DNA PCR assay could be used for diagnosis, but with this qualification:

3. Jackson et al. J Clin Microbiol 1990;28:16. Human immunodeficiency virus type 1 detected in all seropositive symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals.

This paper claims to 'isolate' HIV in 100% of people who had been previously diagnosed HIV-positive using the antibody tests, but there are a number of inconsistencies in its claims. The first major inconsistency is that the vast majority of similar studies have been able to 'isolate' HIV in much less than 100%, and even as low as 20%, of people diagnosed 'HIV-positive', so that using this study as a reference is misleading, at best. Another major inconsistency is that the word 'isolation' is used to describe the detection of surrogate markers which are not specific to HIV, as discussed above. Papadopulos-Eleopulos et al. provide a thorough refutation of this study's conclusions:

C. CLAIMS THAT HIV ANTIBODY TESTS ARE VALID

NIAID: "Diagnosis of infection using antibody testing is one of the best-established concepts in medicine. [�]. Current HIV antibody tests have sensitivity and specificity in excess of 98% and are therefore extremely reliable (WHO, 1998; Sloand et al. JAMA 1991;266:2861).

"Progress in testing methodology has also enabled detection of viral genetic material, antigens and the virus itself in body fluids and cells. While not widely used for routine testing due to high cost and requirements in laboratory equipment, these direct testing techniques have confirmed the validity of the antibody tests (Jackson et al. J Clin Microbiol 1990;28:16; Busch et al. NEJM 1991;325:1; Silvester et al. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Hum Retrovirol 1995;8:411; Urassa et al. J Clin Virol 1999;14:25; Nkengasong et al. AIDS 1999;13:109; Samdal et al. Clin Diagn Virol 1996;7:55."

As with the claim "HIV can be detected in virtually everyone with AIDS", the anonymous authors have provided spurious references that do not support their assertions. Seven of the eight references have nothing to do with attempting to confirm the validity of the antibody tests. Only the Jackson et al. reference can be considered appropriate, but their conclusions are based on the flawed logic discussed above. See previous discussion of Piatak et al.

Even if one were to accept the existence of a unique "HIV" retrovirus with an outer coat composed of unique proteins ('antigens'), this still does not prove that antibody tests are accurate. No antibody test can distinguish between HIV antibodies (if they exist) and cross-reacting non-HIV antibodies unless the specificity of the test is established by comparing the presence of antibody reactivity (a 'positive' test result) when virus purification is successful, and the absence of antibody reactivity when virus purification fails. No data in the scientific literature has reported this essential verification. HIV antibody tests are therefore not grounded in reality, and may be meaningless.

The same applies to "viral load" (PCR) tests:

If you have to use PCR to find something, that automatically means that what you find has no pathological relevance. Piatak, et al.(1993) were able to successfully "isolate" virus from only 53% of people with measurable viral loads. SeeTable 1(Piatak, 1993). Thus the diagnosis "HIV-positive" is of questionable scientific value and needs to be reappraised.

Eleopulos el al remind us of this revealing meta-analysis of the sensitivity and specificity of PCR:

Why does there seem to be a correlation between so-called HIV antibodies and AIDS defining illness?

Without carefully controlled, unbiased studies to determine the clinical significance of HIV tests, it's hard to know what positive results may or may not indicate. It seems clear that people who fall into the AIDS risk groups and test positive on these antibody tests are more likely to develop the illnesses classified as AIDS - as well as diseases which are not classified as AIDS. The so-called AIDS diseases occur principally in people with a history of repeated exposure to foreign proteins and /or toxins: multiple STDs and other viral, bacterial and parasitic infections; various pathogens via injecting contaminated street drugs; recreational and pharmaceutical drugs; commercially-made clotting factor and blood transfusions. They may also occur in the chronically malnourished due to their weakened immune systems and subsequent exposure to more pathogens. These exposures to various pathogens, foreign proteins and toxins may elicit enough antibodies to register on the non-specific HIV antibody tests. Such a high level of antibody activity is not usually found among healthy people who are not in any AIDS risk group.

Papadopulos-Eleopulos points out that it is practically impossible to obtain clear data on this issue:

The "modern culture techniques" and the various indirect markers that HIV researchers regard as the equivalent of HIV isolation were discussed in detail above. Here it is worth noting that Eleopulos et al. argue that the various markers thought to indicate HIV infection can only be detected when cultures derived from the patients' tissue are subjected to extreme biological and chemical stress. Known as oxidative stress, these conditions are comparable to what happens in our bodies when exposed to the long list of stressors described above. This kind of oxidative stress may cause the conditions that then cause the HIV test to react positive, as well as increasing the risk of a person developing AIDS-like illnesses (Papadopulos-Eleopulos. 1992; Giraldo RA.).

See: Appendix B: The correlation between "HIV" antibodies and AIDS diseases

There are no simple answers to the mystery of AIDS. The illnesses do exist, even though they probably do not have a single cause. The HIV antibody tests may not indicate the presence of a virus, but people who come down with AIDS-like diseases are more likely to test positive. It is likely that an association between the diseases and the antibodies is due to a number of health risk factors. In Western countries, the biggest factor in illness appears to have been drug use, whether injected, ingested or inhaled, with different patterns of use leading to different diseases. In Third World countries, malnutrition can lead to a wasting condition that meets the Bangui definition of AIDS. Antiviral drugs are highly toxic, and can also lead to many of the diseases defined as 'AIDS'. Addressing known health risks is often much safer, cheaper and more effective than placing millions of people on lifelong pharmaceutical therapy. (Duesberg, P, Rasnick, D.)

Many HIV antibody positive people - some diagnosed over 17 years ago - remain healthy without HIV drugs and have never developed AIDS. For many people, being diagnosed HIV positive may have no bearing on their probability of living a long, healthy life. Clearly, testing positive on such a non-specific test does not always mean that one is in danger of acquiring immune deficiency. On the other hand, the idea of "HIV positive" has taken on devastating significance in the popular consciousness. The patients' health - physical and psychological - may be seriously compromised by an "HIV positive" diagnosis. Their physicians may feel compelled to offer treatments, even in the absence of clinical symptoms, with drugs well documented for their toxic effects. To confound things further, many of the toxic effects are indistinguishable from symptoms of AIDS (DeSimone, 2000).

Alive and Well founder and spokesperson Christine Maggiore recently summarized her perception off the human toll of the failed HIV/AIDS hypothesis:

• Appendix A: The Origin of the "HIV" Proteins

• Appendix B: The correlation between "HIV" antibodies and AIDS diseases

Review Papers in the Medical Journals

Papadopulos-Eleopulos et al.

• Is a Positive Western Blot Proof of HIV Infection? Bio/Technology Vol. 11 June 1993.

• Has Gallo Proven the Role of HIV in AIDS? Emergency Medicine 1993;5:5-147.

• AIDS in Africa: Distinguishing Fact and Fiction. World Journal of Microbiology & Biotechnology (1995) 11, 135-143.

• HIV Antibodies: Further Questions and a Plea for Clarification. Current Medical Research and Opinion Vol. 13: 627-634, 1997.

• HIV Antibody Tests and Viral Load — More Unanswered Questions and a Further Plea for Clarification. Current Medical Research and Opinion Vol. 14: 185-186, 1998.

Etienne de Harven

• Viral Etiology of Human Cancer: A historical perspective. Haematologica Journal of Hematology volume 84 - number 5 - May 1999

Peter Duesberg

• Human Immunodeficiency virus and acquired immunodeficiency syndrome: Correlation but not causation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA Vol.86, pp. 755-764, 1989

• AIDS epidemiology: Inconsistencies with human immunodeficiency virus and with infectious disease. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA Vol. 88, pp. 1575-1579, 1991

• Peter Duesberg & Jody R. Schwartz

• Latent Viruses and Mutated Oncogenes: No Evidence for Pathogenicity. Progress in Nucleic Acid Research and Molecular Biology 43:135-204, 1992

• Peter Duesberg & David Rasnick

• The AIDS dilemma: drug diseases blamed on a passenger virus. (pdf version) Genetica 104: 85-132, 1998

Acknowledgments

We thank Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos and Valendar Turner at the Royal Perth Hospital, University of Western Australia for their tireless work and generosity. We would also like to thank Peter Duesberg and David Rasnick, who have made many sacrifices challenging the ruthlessly guarded HIV=AIDS hypothesis.

For our critique of another notorious document see the Durban Declaration Rebuttal. The "Durban Declaration" was published in Nature on July 6 2000, and our rebuttal was written a few months later and is available online at http://thedurbandeclaration.org.

References