Discussion on AIDS and HIV Controversies

All kinds of diseases started coming into the AIDS family

faster than anyone should have been comfortable with, really.

To go from two to three, to go to, to 30 in a few years was like

somebody should have said, "Hey, there's something wrong here,

and it's gotta be

financial."

Things don't happen that fast in science.

You don't suddenly notice that one new organism is causing every

problem. I mean, it was a bizarre thing that happened.

It really was.

It didn't really have any precedence in terms of, of

medicine before that, unless perhaps you could think of the

possession by the devil stuff, right?

You see, once you're possessed by the devil,

anything that happens to you or

anything you do is re- it's got to do with that, right?

So it makes it easier for you to get tuberculosis, and it makes it

easier for you to get uterine cancer.

It makes it easier for you to get Candida albicans.

And so all those things can now be called AIDS.

Now, why would anybody do that?

Now, why would any reasonable doctor start

lumping together

various symptoms

into one pile and think all this is caused by

HIV? Dr. Kary Mullis, who invented the polymerase chain

reaction, uh,

gives this, uh, in '83, I believe, and he got the Nobel Prize in 1993,

gives this

little story that he was hired to do PCR for an

HIV project for a private company, and he wrote as the first sentence of his

paper, uh, "HIV is the probable cause of AIDS."

And he said he turned to a

virologist

and said, "What's the reference for that?"

And the virologist said, "You don't need

it."

Well, Mullis is smart enough to know, of course, something new as this, you'd

always have a series of original papers that established

unequivocally that this was the cause of AIDS.

Then, and only then, I started looking into it.

I looked up a bunch of papers in science that, that Bob Gallo...

I, I knew about him and had written.

I figured, well, Gallo must have been the one to figure it

out, 'cause he's the

name I've heard associated with it.

I looked at his papers, and I didn't find anything in there

that actually showed me

that there was a fact now in science called

HIV is the cause of AIDS, or even the probable cause of

AIDS, which is all I would have expected, the probable cause of AIDS.

Highly probable, because they were attacking the whole problem by then

as though

it were certainly the cause.

So I'd expect it to be highly probable, but I couldn't find anything that said it

was remotely probable even.

It was possible, but it wasn't probable, and so therefore it

wasn't even close to what you'd call a fact