FOREWORD:
Although others have previously questioned the validity of the
hypothesis that Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) is
caused by a retrovirus called HIV, it took an expert toxicologist and
pathologist, Mohammed Ali Al-Bayati, to implicate the widespread
medical use of corticosteroids and related therapeutic drugs as the
major causative agent in the U.S. AIDS epidemic. These powerful
drugs are currently widely used to treat a host of various
inflammatory diseases.
Rather than beginning his analyses with a preconceived
hypothesis, Dr. Al-Bayati used the techniques of differential
diagnosis to let the biomedical data, epidemiological profiles, and
other relevant information implicate the causative factors. In his
rigorous evaluations, infection with the virus called HIV never
surfaced as a necessary or even likely causative agent!
The HIV hypothesis, a staunchly defended thesis among its
proponents, assumes that AIDS is caused by an infectious
retrovirus. Since the AIDS epidemic began among homosexual men,
the search for the AIDS virus was centered on this group. The
discovery of this virus among these men fit into the virological
hypothesis and it demonstrated properties that might be
postulated to affect the human immune system. The declaration
that the chosen virus was indeed the cause of AIDS was
accompanied by the naming of this virus as the Human
Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV). Given this name, the HIV
hypothesis suddenly became a self-fulfilling proposition and a
classical example of the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent.
A few years ago I had the pleasure of meeting and briefly working
with Peter H. Duesberg, a brilliant virologist and Professor at the
Berkeley campus of the University of California. Dr. Duesberg's
extensive credentials include pioneering work with retroviruses. His
personal studies of the newly discovered AIDS virus led him to the
conclusion that the virus called HIV was really quite harmless. On
this basis he postulated a number ofalternative explanations for
the various cases of AIDS including the use of recreational drugs by
homosexual men and the effect of the highly toxic AZT used to
combat the illusive HIV. Duesberg's carefully reasoned arguments
seem to have met with rejection and derision among the
proponents of the HIV hypothesis and developers of anti-HIV drugs
and treatment modalities. Duesberg's attempts to obtain funds to
do toxicological studies of chemical agents, such as recreational
drugs, that might explain the AIDS epidemic,were repeatedly
rejected.
A significant fraction of our Nation's health research funding is
earmarked for AIDS research. Remarkably, AIDS research funding
exceeds cancer research funding by NIH even though up to 40% of
Americans may sometime develop cancer and all the AIDS cases to
date represent only a few tenths of one percent of the population.
What I believe to be most remarkable about this generous
research effort to cure AIDS, however, is that virtually all of this
funding is actually only for HIV research. Limited attention, if any,
has been given to investigating alternative mechanisms in the
pathogenesis of AIDS.
Recently I have tried to discuss alternative mechanisms and
causes of AIDS with various medical practitioners whom I know.
Remarkably, the suggestion that HIV may not actually be the real
cause of AIDS is invariably met with a response akin to anger. Why
would a physician be angered by the possibility that the HIV
hypothesis is incorrect or threatened by studies of possible
alternative causes of AIDS? I am not sure, but as a scientist I
must support an open search for the truth using the widest
possible avenues of valid scientific investigation. New ideas are
important to the progress of science, and sources of funding for
research that objectively deals with nonconventional biomedical
approaches are essential to the development of a complete
understanding of complex issues.
Dr. Al-Bayati's detailed evaluation of the world-wide AIDS
epidemicapproaches the literature head-on and lets the chips fall
where they may. Because of his objective use of differential
diagnosis and his sensitivity and understanding of both
pathological and toxicological factors, he is able to convincingly
demonstrate that the convergence of several factors other than
HIV represent the true causes of AIDS. This book deserves careful
attention, especially from physicians who must decide the course
of medical treatment for their various patients.
Professor Otto G. Raabe
University of California, Davis
June, 1999