Q: What about press reports of a year or two ago about the 55-year-old Marin woman who died of AIDS five years after receiving a blood transfusion?

 A: That is what is called an anecdotal study; it's worthless for science. You need a controlled study to identify the cause of a disease in a person who picked up a presumably causative virus--or antibody to a virus--five years earlier. You would need a hundred 55-year-old women from Marin County who got the same disease she did--what was it, pneumonia?--and are antibody positive. And you would need to compare them to a hundred similar 55-year-old women without antibody to the virus. If only the hundred antibody-positive women became sick, and the only variable were the virus, then you could say the virus could have done it.

I want to emphasize that such a controlled study has never been done. Not a single one. I have asked for such studies. I have suggested them. A good one would be to match hemophiliacs with and without antibody to the virus, follow them for a year or more, and then ask: How are the ones with antibody doing compared to those without antibody? If you found pneumonia, hepatitis, cytomegalovirus, and all the other infections that are typical of hemophilia only in the ones with antibody to the virus, then you'd have some evidence.


Q: What do you expect would be found from such a controlled study?

 A: The incidence of AIDS diseases in HIV-positives and HIV-negatives would be exactly the same.

If you think a virus is the cause of AIDS, do a control without it. To do a control is the first thing you teach undergraduates. But it hasn't been done. The epidemiology of AIDS is a pile of anecdotal stories, selected to fit the virus-AIDS hypothesis.


Q: You are saying that AIDS is not an infectious disease?

 A: Yes. It doesn't fit anything we know about infectious diseases. It stays in risk groups; it takes ten years from so-called infection to symptoms. Microbes are not that picky--to limit themselves to very special risk groups. There is no microbe that takes ten years to cause disease. Within a couple of weeks or months, either you reject the microbe or the microbe eats you up.

I think you can ask one question after another that was not answered by the virus-AIDS hypothesis and answer it with the risk-AIDS hypothesis. It explains, for example, why a vaccine would never work. Because antibodies to the virus are said to be the precondition for AIDS under the standard definition. An absolute paradox. It would be the first and only virus in the universe that causes 25 different diseases only after anti-viral immunity! But this paradox could readily be reconciled with the hypothesis of risk- or drug-induced diseases. According to this hypothesis, the roughly ten years HIV is said to take to cause disease--the so-called latent period--would depend on how often you use drugs, what drugs you use, where you inject them, and how sensitive your body is to them. Thresholds would be largely different for different people, and the outcomes would therefore be largely differentas they are in AIDS cases.