[Sysop's note: On the floor below, Prof. Duisburg argues that AIDS is
not what the newspapers say. Then Freeman 07656 asked for an explana-
tion. He was answered by Dr Thomas, a former professor of biochemistry,
mow director of the Helicon Institute (biochemical research) in San
Diego. Oh no, said Jane Orient, M.D. (Freeman 85716ORIE), a respected
Tucson, Ariz., physician, former president of the American
Association of Physicians and Surfgeons, and of Doctors for
Disaster Preparedness  ... Read on!]
[Last contribution: Dr Thomas, 2/19/89]


Date: 12/30/1988, 22:36 hours
From: 07656GAED
I am in no way qualified to debate Peter Duesberg on the cause of AIDS
(see level 26 of the Science Tower), but I would like to ask him about
the supposed role of the macrophange cells in harboring and trantting
the HIV virus, which he does not mention.  Also, reported cases of AID
in Zaire mean very little because those statistics are gathered by
incompetents seeking to protect their governments idea of propriety.

                             *   continued   *

       I would like to respond to 07656GAED in regard to Peter
Duesberg's article that was reprinted in FF [Science Lab, floor 26].
Peter is simply making the point that the virus called HIV has not
been proven to be the cause of the disease.  The burden of this proof
is necessarily upon the individual (group) that is making this claim -
not upon Duesberg. There are untold millions of viruses out there that
could be the "cause." Likewise, there are an equal number of non-
microbial causes that could possibly be the "cause" of the disease.
If HIV is NOT the cause of the disease, then many millions, actually
billions of dollars are being misdirected.  There is the real
possiblity that an enormous medical/scientific mistake has been made.
One may hope not; but the chance is very big.
    As a scientist, and as a reasonable person (I hope), I
feel that the case for HIV has not been made. If this is so,
there is no reason to believe that AIDS is a contagious disease
(in the normal sense of viruses and microbes etc).
    We should all be aware of the tremendous pressure to
believe otherwise.  There are many jobs, and many personal
careers riding on the HIV etiology of AIDS.  Money talks.  The
smart money is that Duesberg will be proven wrong - one way or
another.  There is a genuine possibility that we are observing
the operation of "The Big Lie" in our very own country.
I know that there are many who disagree with me on this..
Charlie Thomas - 92037THOM.

                         *  continued *

Date: 2/4/1989, 20:06 hours
From: 85716ORIE
     No, HIV is not a big lie.  Those who think that it is not an
infectious disease have a lot of things to explain:  Nurses and lab
workers who converted their blood tests for HIV after getting HIV-
positive blood splashed on them or injected into them, and then came
down with AIDS. Persons who converted their blood tests then got AIDS
after receivin  contaminated blood.  Sexual partners of AIDS patients
who convert their blood tests in about 60% of cases.  Not that the CDC
has been eager to tell the truth about this disease.  Those making the
statement "you can't get AIDS from x" where x = heterosexual inter-
course, needlesticks, household contact, etc. keep getting proved
wrong.  Some surgeons in San Francisco operate in spacesuits, so that
they don't have to inhale aerosols from the operative field -- with
good reason -- drilling through bone or using the electrocautery
aerosolizes the virus.  If HIV its lf doesn't cause AIDS, then it is
very closely associated with something else that does.  Of its
contagion there can be no doubt.

                            * continued *

Date: 2/9/1989, 21:08 hours
From: 92037THOM
I would like to respond to 85716ORIE who seems to feel that AIDS is an
infectious disease and that HIV (a retrovirus) is the cause of AIDS.
It would be appropriate to ask her why she thinks this is the case.  A
cautious person would have some suspended judgement.. All I can say it
that I have not seen a compelling argument that HIV is the cause of
any disease at all.
    As a personal (or national) concern  - AIDS (whatever the
etiology) is not really a big deal.  It appears to be restricted to a
very small community (those of "high risk") and in any event is not a
major cause of death.
    I'm sorry, but that's what I think.  I'll change my view in a
flash.  But so far I have seen nothing that conflicts with my opinion.
    If you want to avoid AIDS (and attendant fall-out), I suggest that
you do not watch TV - or read the popular press.
    Best Wishes  -- Charlie Thomas  (92037THOM).

                       *   continued   *

Date: 2/11/1989, 14:17 hours
From: 85716ORIE
A reply to Dr Thomas' message on the bulletin board.  In 1987, AIDS
was the cause of 11% of the deaths that occurred in males age 25 to
34, and 9 percent in the 35 to 44 age group.  By 1992, it is expected
to be the major killer in those age groups.  Is that significant
enough for you? You may be well advised not to watch television or
read the popular press, but I would also suggest that you try not to
get any blood (or other body fluids) on you.
    Jane M. Orient, MD

                         *  continued  *

Date: 2/14/1989, 21:13 hours
From: 92037THOM

I am glad to get the message from  Dr. Orient in regard to her concern
about AIDS.  But the evidence is not here... A strong declarative
statement is not sufficient.  I understand her concern about the
"potential threat" - and I do admit that threat exist - but AIDS is
not one of them.  Have you noticed how the intensity of the media hype
about AIDS has peaked?  I predict that in 3 years about as many people
remember AIDS as they do SWINE FLUE! Meanwhile - I advise: no TV!
Don't read about AIDS in most publications. Never take drugs of almost
any kind, including inhalents, and you will not come down with AIDS
(whatever that is! -- remember that the CDC now DEFINES AIDS as
someone who is Ab+).  This disease does not exist in reality - like in
polio, or diptheria, or pneumonia - it exists primarily on TV
politics, and MD's who are a bit fuzzy in their diagnosis of things.
It's the biggest scam that has hit the present generation - in the
medical/scientific area. Sorry we can't be friendly about this - but
that's what I think.

       As Ever - Charlie Thomas   92037THOM.

Date: 2/16/1989, 22:44 hours
From: 92037THOM
   In regard to the continuing controversy about the etiology of AIDS,
I urge all FREEMEN to read the long (10 page) and well documented (196
references) article by Peter Duesberg that has just appeared in the
February issue of the Proc. Nat'l. Acad. Sci.
   Here Peter sets forth all of the reasons known to him why HIV could
not be causing this disease, and at a minimum shows that the
proponents of HIV have not made their case convincing.
   All of the antiDuesberg commentary does not really address a
single question that he has raised.  It is very tough to talk
about facts when jobs and livlihoods depend on the outcomes.
      I find Peter's arguments quite compelling - more so than the
incomplete epidemiology that supports the HIV origin of AIDS. HIV is
clearly not a very infectious virus, and probably does not hurt anyone
(very much).  It's amazing that HIV should have become so prominent
- through no fault of its own.
      So - why do people think HIV is so dangerous??  Anybody out
there know a good reason?
      As Ever,  Charlie Thomas -- 92037THOM

                         *  continued  * 

Date: 2/17/1989, 09:52 hours
From: 85716ORIE
     The reason we think AIDS can be transmitted by heterosexual 
intercourse is that about 82% of the partners of persons infected with 
the AIDS virus converted their blood test within about 18 months, if 
they had intercourse without condoms.  If they had intercourse with 
condoms, 17% converted. If they abstained, none converted.  These 
figures were reported by Fischl et al at the Third International 
Conference on AIDS.  They involve small numbers (only 18 couples in 
the condom group and 17 in the no protection group), so the confidence 
limits are very wide.  You probably haven't seen this study cited in 
the popular press -- the public health establishment doesn't like it 
because they are trying so hard to promote condoms as the panacea for 
this disease.  Now, some of these people may practice anal intercourse 
without admitting to it, but can one be absolutely certain that all of 
them did?  And what about the haemophiliacs and the old women who got 
AIDS after a blood transfusion? The reason why there aren't millions 
of dead bodies -- yet -- is that the epidemic is still in its 
exponential phase.  The doubling time in Arizona is about 15 months.  
The incubation period is very long.  Until recently, it was claimed 
that most persons who converted their blood test would never get AIDS.  
Now it is believed that nearly all of these people will die of the 
complications of HIV within 10 years or so. That means that the 
millions of bodies will indeed be seen in several years.  It would be 
very comforting to believe that AIDS will just disappear from the 
scene in a couple of years.  But so far there is not a bit of evidence 
to support that fond hope.  Jane M. Orient, MD

                       * continued *

Date: 2/19/1989, 13:39 hours
From: 92037THOM

      There is no question that the AIDS virus (called HIV) is
infectious and contageous - but very weakly so.  It's very hard to
      There are many viruses similar to HIV, and their mode of
infection and something about the course of the subsequent disease (be
it mild or severe) is known. As a result of this infection,
circulating antibodies are raised against the HIV. People who have
these antibodies are called "Ab+" or said to "have AIDS."  Most of
them are not sick, and they become sick at a very slow rate - the
figures are about 45% of those who are Ab+ come down with the disease
called AIDS within a period of 8 years (now going on 9 years).
      There is a disease, now called AIDS, that involves certain
terminal pathologies, etc. and most saliently the extreme depression
of cellular immune system.  Surprisingly, there is almost NO virus in
their blood (0 to 1 particle/ ml).  Perhaps, and most reasonably,
because the virus is being neutralized by the Antibody.
      The question is whether the virus HIV is causing the
extreme depression in the number of T lymphocytes, which opens the way
to terminal pneumonia and other things that people die of.  This
question has been begged by the Center for Disease Control (CDC) by
requiring that the diagnosis for AIDS must INCLUDE the presence of HIV
     Therefore the death of anyone who is Ab+ is likely to be named
"an AIDS-related pneumonia" or an "AIDS related cancer" or "an AIDS
related _______ ."
      I suggest that Peter Duesberg is right - that the
virus could not be causing the disease, and certainly plays no role in
depressing the levels of lymphocytes. (see the Feb '89 issue of the
Proc. Nat'l. Acad. Sci.)
      What is causing the disease?  We don't know. Further we don't
know whether it is infectious or not. For interested Freemen, I
suggest William R. Holub's article in the April or May issue of the
ACPR (American Clinical Products Review) and descendent commentary in
the same journal.
      Where are the bodies?  The epidemic does not seem to
be developing on schedule.  Rather it is really disappearing.  For
documentation on this point, I suggest reading Michael A. Fumento, who
has contributed to Commentary, National Review, and elswhere.  His new
book entitled "The Dissappearing Aids Epidemic" will be out January
1990. Fumento is a careful reader of the public records in New York,
San Francisco and of the CDC.
      Now why do so many people want to believe otherwise
- even those who can read and appreciate the record much better that I
can?  (Remember that the majority of biological scientists and in
particular virologists believe that HIV is the cause of the AIDS
disease.)  I can make wistful conjectures - but they really have no
value for other Freemen.  I would prefer to stick to the scientific
question at hand.
             Best Wishes to all - because this is my last
communication on this subject.  I would not want to have HIV infect
Fort Freedom's hard disk!
              Charlie Thomas  92037THOM

                         *  continued  *  

     [The following is an excerpt from a letter mailed by Dr Jane 
          Orient to Sysop, dated 2/17/1989, received 2/21/1989:]

     I am now rereading my downloaded file. Mr. Zaychik has a poor
understanding of what constitutes proof. It is well known that people
lie about their sexual histories, but that doesn't prove that all of
them always lie and that people are bisexual even when they say they
are not. The New England Journal is not basing its entire case on the
assertions of a single AIDS victim. (Which is not to say that I think
it is a good scientific journal.) The assertion that "you can't get
AIDS from household contact" is based on a small study published
there. 197 nonsexual contacts were identified, of which only 104
consented to testing. Of those two were positive. One was called a
false positive (and most likely was), and one was attributed to
perinatal transmission. 9 of them shared razors and 7 toothbrushes,
from which some conclude it is OK to do those things. The median
length of the follow-up was only 22 months. In the epidemiologic
studies of health care workers, any positives are assigned to some
other risk factor (than occupation) if any can possibly be found.
Quite in contrast to the practice with other occupational hazards.
Tens of thousands of cases aren't enough to satisfy people about low-
risk radiation, but 100 can reassure them completely about AIDS, which
has a doubling time instead of a half-life. Mr. Z. might well get aids
from his friend. I wonder if he has been tested. (Actually there is a
case of a woman who got HIV from her husband, who got it from a
transfusion during an operation that rendered him impotent. You
haven't read about that one either.)
     Dr Thomas seems to need no evidence to convince him that drug
abuse is the cause of AIDS. Can he be certain that all hemophiliacs
and homosexuals and other people abuse drugs?
     I guess I should have stated that the disease is in the EARLY
part of its exponential phase most places, though it seems to be
leveling off in populations that are pretty well saturated (e.g. gay
men in San Francisco). As time passes, more and more seropositive
persons come down with AIDS <197> that so far is not leveling off.
     I have piles of references, but haven't taken the time to cite
them. Do you want a copy of a paper I recently submitted to JAMA,
complete with references? I'd like to demand Dr Thomas' sources, but
can hardly do so without reciprocating. By the way, I thought the
reply to Duesberg did answer all the points he had raised.
     I feel it necessary to respond to these people and if possible to
persuade them to change their minds, because they may be responsible
for killing people by convincing them there's no need to worry.
     It's just amazing how the media and also people with a lot of
influence in medical circles worry so much about the possibility of
AIDS hysteria or discrimination and so little about death.
     In haste,
     Jane [Orient, M.D., Freeman 85716ORIE]

[Included with Dr Orient's letter was the booklet "Answers About AIDS,"
a report by the American Council on Science and Health, 47 Maple St.,
NJ 07901, tel. (201) 277-0024, $2.]

                        *       *       *

Return to the ground floor of this tower
Return to the Main Courtyard
Return to Fort Freedom's home page