May-June 2005

Posted: June 17, 2005

Prof. Nick Cozzarelli

61 Koshland Hall

U of C Berkeley 94720

Dear Professor Cozzarelli,

On May 13, I submitted two papers for the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, in the category of Social Sciences, entitled: Contradictions in the "HIV/AIDS" Establishment and questions of Responsibility Concerning "HIV/AIDS".

I received your rejection of my two submitted papers for the PNAS upon arrival in Berkeley last week, and immediately acknowledged this to you. Here is the longer comment I told you I would communicate after thinking over the situation.

1. You write: "Neither of them are research articles. They are instead opinion pieces."

I want to put in the record my strong objection to these assertions, giving your reasons for rejection. My two papers consist almost entirely of factual verifiable statements. They provide original sources to document the contradictions within the establishment position concerning "HIV/AIDS" and the toxic, pathogenic effects of anti-HIV drugs on people. I submitted the papers as "social science" because the main thrust involves people, how they fulfill their scientific (partly medical) responsibilities, and how they deal (or don’t deal) with the contradictions. Your invoking "experts on the PNAS Editorial Board" confirms the extent to which the Editorial Board and yourself have missed the point: Experts about what? To what extent can we trust what so-called "experts" say in the scientific establishment, concerning both "HIV/AIDS" as a presumed disease and the establishment’s position about "HIV/AIDS"? My documentation shows in particular how "experts" contradict each other, so evaluations have to be based on actual evidence, not what "experts" say.

Since you gave no evidence for the extent to which I wrote "opinions" rather than facts, I have to make an ad hoc decision how to deal with your sweeping characterizations. How much of the articles do I repeat to counter you sliver about my articles being "opinion pieces"? I choose to mention summarily a few titles of topics: The circularity of the CDC definition of "HIV/AIDS", the toxicity of anti-HIV drugs as stated in the "Boehringer-Ingelheim Medication Guide", the CDC double U-turn (2001 and 2005) concerning the use of these drugs, the defective statistics, the recognition of the deficiency of the HIV-antibody tests by Harvey Fineberg (current president of the IOM) are not "opinions". The quotes I used from Fineberg came from an interview with the journalist Jon Rappoport. I wrote to Fineberg about this. I sent you a copy of my letter to him, and its enclosures. I have not had a reply from Fineberg. You don’t even give any evidence that you read my articles. I urge you to do so if you have not done so, to understand the substance behind the above titles.

The above items constitute a mere summary of some of the verifiable evidence in my articles about the way the establishment promotes its HIV/AIDS position, based on defective rhetoric and defective purported statistics. It is a fact, not an opinion, that for instance the Ascher et al Commentary that appeared in Nature in 1993 did not quantify drug use in its study of the correlation of HIV and drugs with what is called "AIDS", to determine whether certain drugs are toxic. It does NOT take experts to realize that someone who smokes a pack of cigarettes a day for ten years is more likely to get lung cancer than somebody who smokes one cigarette a year. The same dose-response relation may apply to drugs, be they poppers, heroin, nevirapine, ad lib.

As to my second paper, the experimentation with anti HIV drugs on children in New York, and the death of a woman in Memphis (Tenn) because of the use of such drugs, are not "opinions". They are facts. Note that Dr. Edmond Tramont, NIH AIDS Division Chief, was quoted in an Associated Press dispatch, referring to the doctors who prescribed such drugs in this woman’s case. Tramont called these doctors "dumb docs" (8 August 2003, articles about Tramont-Fishbein).

Again, the above items are just examples of facts documented in my second article, which contains many more facts and additional evidence. As to the facts contained in both articles, the reviewer Richard Strohman had written that my papers "contain substantial and extensive empirical evidence for the failure of this theoretical construct [the standard HIV/AIDS theory]." Nowhere do you mention the reviewer, nor do you give evidence for your contrary opinion and that of your "experts". I followed the prescribed procedures in submitting my articles as an NAS member. Both the reviewer and I were entitled to more than the summary and false statement you wrote me in rejecting my articles.

Thus your rejection brings up several reasons for questioning the editorial decisions of the PNAS Editorial Board, transcending my particular case, and concerning both the Council and the membership at large. I am writing a letter to Bruce Alberts to expand on my broader concerns concerning the Editorial Board.

2. My articles are in line with Einstein’s admonition concerning the responsibility of scientists:

This quote is carved in stone in the NAS building in Washington. Thus the NAS displays one type of rhetoric for all to see; but in practice, it acts in a manner opposite to this rhetoric, and we behold another contradiction. I compiled a number of facts in my two articles. You and the Editorial Board have not pointed to any error in my documentation of these facts. By refusing publication, you are concealing from the membership and readers of PNAS the existence of such a compilation.

Your letter provides documentation for social scientific research, including the way you exercise your power as Editor in Chief of the PNAS.

I shall do my utmost to give your rejection and the stated reason the publicity they deserve.

Sincerely yours,

Serge Lang

cc: Bruce Alberts, Council of the NAS, Harvey Fineberg, Richard Strohman, Peter Duesberg, Mamone Capria, Karl Turekian, Bob Shulman, Fritz Hirzebruch, etc.

Note: My submitted articles and our exchange will appear on the web site of Mamone Capria in Italy.

8 June 05

Bruce Alberts, President

National Academy of Sciences

500 Fifth St NW

Washington DC 20418

Dear President Alberts,

I enclose a copy of the two articles I submitted three weeks ago to the PNAS, the rejection letter from the PNAS Editor in Chief Cozzarelli, and my reply to him. I want you to be explicitly informed of these dealings.

There are indications that the orthodoxy on "HIV/AIDS" is increasingly challenged. The establishment has functioned in such a way that to raise questions about the orthodoxy amounts ipso facto to raise questions about the credibility of the establishment. Cozzarelli’s and the Editorial Board’s reaction to my submission shows that the NAS is also implicated in its refusal to open its pages to a discussion of the evidence, which includes internal contradictions and abuses of medical authority. You and the NAS Council have some responsibility for the way an atmosphere has developed overall in the scientific community, suppressive of evidence going counter to the "HIV/AIDS" orthodoxy. On the other hand, I did not suppress your position. The documentation in my two articles includes mention of the Durban Declaration and the advertisement you cosigned in the New York Times. Thus I juxtaposed your position next to verifiable facts. However, the Editorial Board called my articles "opinion pieces", so it is the Editorial Board that engaged in an "opinion".

My articles’ reviewer Richard Strohman wrote: "In my opinion the two papers submitted by Professor Lang constitute an excellent basis for reexamination of the standard theory of what is called "HIV/AIDS", because they contain substantial and extensive empirical evidence for the failures of this theoretical construct." Thus Strohman can tell the difference between an opinion and empirical evidence. Cozzarelli’s letter gives evidence that the PNAS Editorial Board cannot. Since Cozzarelli’s letter makes no mention of Strohman’s review, it also gives evidence that the Editorial Board disregards reviewers (how often? on what issues?") and does not give reasons for the disregard.

In light of the evidence I bring up in my articles, I don’t see how one can say that my articles "propagate unfounded alternative claims" (this expression comes from your New York Times ad). The PNAS might have used the opportunity to confront various founded claims. Instead, the PNAS rejected this alternative by relying on unfounded opinions of the editors.

I have looked at recent issues of the PNAS. Almost all the articles come from the direction of biology, and are concerned with technical problems. But there are other areas in science, such as physics, chemistry, mathematics, and the social sciences, as well as interdisciplinary areas. For instance, the sociological aspects of medicine are rooted in experimental biological facts and opinions, but their applications concern the human environment. For example, how many children in New York and people in Africa have been experimented upon with nevirapine? So-called "experts" in one direction may not be "experts" in the other. The issues of PNAS I have looked at provide evidence for a strong prejudicial use of PNAS in one direction of science. The editorial policy of PNAS now comes into question, triggered by my submission and its rejection, but going beyond.

It is for the NAS higher ups – you and the Council – to decide if there is anything you want to do about the problems raised by Cozzarelli’s letter, both in my case and the broader context which are mentioned above.

Very sincerely yours,

Serge Lang

Enclosures

cc: Cozzarelli, Strohman, Council of the NAS, Fineberg, Duesberg, Mamone Capria

Most people are unaware that there exists a growing (although still marginalized) dissent against the establishment position on "HIV/AIDS" that one reads about most of the time, namely that "HIV causes AIDS". This dissent is based in large part on contradictions and a morass in this position. For 13 years, I have gathered documentation, some of which I reproduce below.

Just to start, even the meaning of "HIV/AIDS" is questionable. There isn't a consistent definition of "AIDS" or "HIV/AIDS", nationally or world wide. On the basis of inconsistencies and other defects in such definitions (to the extent any definition is given at all), a challenge already exists against applying the same name to whatever is happening in Africa (say) and the United States, whatever it is, called "HIV/AIDS".

Thus when two persons have the same symptoms of a sickness on the CDC list, if one tests HIV antibody positive the sickness is called AIDS, and if the other person tests HIV antibody negative, then the sickness is given its ordinary name. In this way, the definition obstructs dealing with the question whether the virus called HIV naturally coincides with any of these diseases, and thus the question whether it is a cause of any disease. Some medical practitioners or scientists follow the CDC definition and some do not. Usually articles (scientific or simply journalistic) do not specify what AIDS-definition they use. I have never seen a newspaper give a definition. The implicit newspaper definition, which can be extracted from the context, is that a person has [antibodies against] HIV and will be dead in 10 years.

HHS and NIAID contribute to the incoherent mess by not even following the official CDC definition. For instance the HHS Surveillance Report [HHS 96] has a boxed item:

Thus they omit the cancer type diseases in the CDC list, e.g. Kaposi's sarcoma, which may not involve immunodeficiency. I wrote to CDC Director David Satcher to point out the incompatibility. A Dr. Ward answered me that the boxed "statement is not, nor was it meant to be, a proxy or substitute for the CDC definition of AIDS..." I replied by pointing to the NIAID "Fact Sheet" which states:

Thus the wheels at HHS, CDC, NIAID give no evidence that they can tell a fact from the ad hoc creation of time-dependent realities, incompatible with each other as time goes by.

The CDC list of AIDS-defining diseases was increased several times between 1988 and 1997. Since usually only cumulative figures of "HIV/AIDS" are reported, they give the false impression of an increasing epidemic, when actually the number of reported "HIV/AIDS" cases may decrease on a yearly basis. They also give rise to false statistics. For other causes of false statistics, see §6 and §7.

In Africa, the official definition of "AIDS" is the Bangui definition, arising from a conference held there in 1985, sponsored by the WHO (World Health Organization) [WHO 86], [WHO 99]. It is based on certain clinical symptoms, it does not involve HIV, and it was officially approved by the WHO. Cf. the 12 references given in [DueKR 03], p. 386, about this situation, and the conclusion: "Indeed, all available data are compatible with an old African epidemic of malnutrition and poverty-associated diseases under a new name."

§2. Is HIV harmless? A counter hypothesis. The first idea that came to the mind of medical researchers around 1980, when there occurred an increase of certain diseases in certain well-defined risk groups in the United States, is that this increase was due to drugs, of various kinds depending on the risk group, see for instance [Dur 81] and historical comments in [DueKR 03]. Different risk groups exposed to different drugs come down with different diseases. Various drugs can be involved, ranging from sex-enhancing recreational drugs and intravenous drugs to HIV-inhibiting drugs.

One risk group is usually called the homosexual risk group, thereby prejudicing the situation illegitimately. Actually, in a subgroup of male homosexuals, heavy use of drugs, especially "poppers" (whose technical name is amyl nitrite) to reinforce sexual pleasure, has been suggested as the cause of the increase of AIDS defining diseases such as Kaposi's sarcoma in this population. In England, poppers were declared illegal in 1996, because of their link (correlation) with Kaposi's sarcoma.

The time period and cumulative effect of certain drugs proved to be factors involved in the causation, see §6. The situation may be similar to prolonged use or abuse of alcohol causing cirrhosis of the liver, or smoking causing lung cancer. But correlation does not always imply causality, as we can see from the following analogy. The correlation of lung cancer and heavy smoking is essentially the same as lung cancer and yellow fingers, but yellow fingers do not cause lung cancer. One question is whether HIV is a "yellow finger".

The drug hypothesis (that HIV is not pathogenic, and diseases in the West attributed to HIV are caused by drug use) has been taken up by Duesberg and others as in the paper with Kohnlein and Rasnick [DueKR 03] and the publication "Reappraising AIDS" by The Group for the Reappraisal of AIDS.

Evidence that certain diseases attributed to HIV and called AIDS are due to malnutrition was reported in 2004. For instance the San Francisco Chronicle (1 July 2004, p. A7) had an article starting:

The article in the Chronicle might have been more beneficial if it had made more precise what was meant by "HIV" and "AIDS". With these undefined terms, it is partly tendentious and confused. For one thing, what is meant by "AIDS", e.g. in the sentence from the article reading: "The women were followed for about six years. Eighteen of the 271 women who took multivitamins or 7 percent, developed AIDS, compared with 31 of the 267 women, or 12 percent, who took a dummy pill." The Bangui definition does not use HIV presence in its definition of "AIDS", whereas the CDC definition does. What the above study found to be AIDS is compatible with malnutrition as a cause of disease in part of the group studied, the label "AIDS" being added in a way which may be challenged as above. On the other hand, getting Kaposi's sarcoma is compatible with having taken poppers for a decade. What do the two have in common, besides being called "AIDS", illegitimately I claim, in light of the evidence?

The "humiliating U-turn". The next reference concerning the toxicity of anti HIV drugs comes from the New Scientist in London [NS 00] p. 7. The article starts:

A caption under a photograph accompanying the article states: "About turn: campaigns urging more funds for antivirals to treat HIV are being overtaken by fears over the drugs' toxicity." Thus the American biomedical establishment was beginning to take note of a position taken long before by Duesberg. Cf. also [DueKR 03]. The CDC itself took part in the U-turn concerning the drug nevirapine (also called viramune):

Postexposure Prophylaxis After HIV Exposures -- Worldwide, 1997 2000

Despite this evolution, four years later an Associated Press article ([Sol 04], 13 December 2004) started as follows:

The AP article goes on for five pages, and parts of it made it in the press at large. The San Francisco Chronicle had a sequence of articles [SFC 04c-g], starting on 14 December on an inside page (the front page was busy with a murder trial): "U.S. officials were warned of risk posed by Aids drug."

The drug nevirapine is sold under the brand name viramune by Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Their "Medication Guide" for Viramune (11 January 2005), approved by the FDA, states: "This guide is required to be distributed to all patients receiving the drug." The guide reads:

This acknowledgement leads to basic questions of responsibility in prescribing toxic drugs, in the U.S. and in places such as Africa. I deal with such questions in [Lan 05b]. Readers can compare the above with the documentation I provide, including the African National Congress admonition against ex-President Carter ([ANC 02], [Lan 05b] §1), and the ANC protest "Nevirapine, drugs & African guinea pigs" [ANC 04] after the AP-Solomon report. See also "U.S. accused of Aids drug conspiracy" [SFC 04g], [Far 04] ; and circling the wagons in Nature and the New York Times [Ceck 04], [McN 04].

The CDC itself issued a press release January 20, 2005:

http://www.cdc.gov/od/oc/media/pressrel/r050120.htm

The Double U-Turn documents the unreliability of NIH and government health agencies such as CDC in connection with "HIV/AIDS".

§5. "Paradoxes" arising from the hypothesis of HIV pathogenesis. Articles by Ho et al and Wei et al [Ho 95], [Wei 95] are among the most famous purveyors of the orthodox view concerning HIV. Ho was a Man of the Year for TIME magazine. However, the above articles have been severely criticized. That the HIV hypothesis of pathogenesis leads to "paradoxes" (incompatibility with empirical evidence) has been noted occasionally in scientific media, but has not been answered, let alone given the attention it deserves both in the scientific and general media.

(a) One of those pointing out some paradoxes is M. Ascher, who is part of the biomedical establishment, and was the lead author of an article in Nature [ASWV 93], purporting to show that "drug use does not cause AIDS", as the Nature press release stated. (More about this below.) However, Ascher cosigned a letter to the editors of Nature [ASAKB 95] making the point:

(b) Three years later, we have the Mario Roederer article in Nature Medicine [Roe 98], addressing especially the Ho et al and Wei et al articles which promoted the orthodox position about the "war" between HIV and T-cells, purporting to show how HIV demolishes the immune system. Roederer writes that the Ho et al and Wei et al articles

However, Roederer follows this up with an analysis containing the "nails in the coffin" sentence:

(c) See also the Hellerstein et al article [Hel 99] and my comments on it in [Lan 99] for another invalidation of the Ho et al paper, and data on the toxicity of anti-HIV drugs.

For completeness, I note that at the end of his article, Roederer maintains HIV pathogenesis, when he asserts:

No evidence is given for attributing this kind of pathogenesis to HIV. And besides, which definition of AIDS is Roederer using? Is a case of Kaposi's sarcoma "AIDS" according to Roederer, even when no immunodeficiency is present? In Roederer's expression "this disease", what is the justification for the implied claim of a well-defined single disease rather than a collection of diseases which are given the same name "AIDS"?

§6. Defective statistics: a "random sample"? We return to the article "Does drug use cause AIDS?" by Ascher et al [ASWV 93], published as a "Commentary" in Nature in 1993. That article has been subject to severe criticism, for instance in the "Re-analysis of the San Francisco Men's Health Study" by Duesberg-Ellison-Downey (Genetica 95, 1993). I discuss the Ascher et al paper explicitly over 6 pages in Challenges pp. 642-648. A Nature press release stated that the Ascher et al paper was based on a "random sampling of San Francisco households regardless of sexual preference, lifestyle, HIV status or drug use". This is false. The sample was biased because, as the paper itself states, it was drawn "from neighborhoods of San Francisco where the AIDS epidemic had been most intense before 1984". This area is the Castro district, where two things occur simultaneously: homosexuality and drug taking (especially poppers). The press release by Nature concerning the "Commentary" misrepresented the sample as random, as did an article by Gina Kolata (New York Times 11 March 1993). I report on this matter in my book pp. 642, 643, 644.

Also note Richard Strohman's letter to the editors of the SF Chronicle (never published), concerning the defects of the Ascher et al paper, quoted in full in Challenges, and the exchange between Strohman and Winkelstein in the Daily Cal. I reproduce here a few lines from Strohman's letter to the Chronicle (cf. p. 644).

The re-analysis of the San Francisco Men's Health Study by Ellison, Downey and Duesberg (Genetica 95, 1995, [EDD 96]) already raised the objection that the Ascher et al analysis "suffered several fatal flaws", among which "failing to quantify total drug use over time". Thus objections and questions about the Ascher et al paper can be raised as follows:

1. The data does not quantify the relationship between people sick in bed and the extent to which they took drugs, especially poppers, before falling sick.

2. What is the correlation between the death rate and years of nitrite use in the sample on which the Ascher et al article is based, with the claim that "drug use does not cause AIDS"?

The National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) sponsored a meeting in Rockville MD on the toxic effects of nitrite inhalants (23 and 24 May 1994, the year after Ascher et al). The 12 August 1994 issue of Biotechnology reported on this meeting under the headline: "NIH reconsiders nitrites' link to AIDS." The article, by John Lauritsen, stated among other things:

Unfortunately, the Ascher et al paper lacks the quantification which would make it possible to tell whether the sample they analyzed showed a dose-response relation similar to that found in the MACS study. Thus a defective purported statistical analysis fails in its scientific role to provide evidence for factual situations. Note that a dose-response relation also shows up for the effect of toxic anti-HIV drugs, see [Lan 05b] §1.

In addition, note that the re-analysis [EDD 96] mentioned above found that 100% of the sick men in the sample had used nitrites, while 83% were HIV positive.

§7. Defective statistics about Africa: the Malan articles. On 22 November 2001, Rolling Stone published a long documented article by Rian Malan questioning the validity of figures spread by UNAIDS and the WHO about "HIV/AIDS" in Africa. Towards the end, this article reproduces an exchange with UNAIDS' chief epidemiologist Dr. Bernhard Schwartländer, about the "UNAIDS computer model of Africa's epidemic", said to be "completely dependable". However, Malan writes:

Concerning computer generated estimates by UNAIDS and the WHO, Malan wrote:

Malan goes on documenting the contradictions with empirical data. He concludes:

The San Francisco Chronicle published a shorter version of the Malan Rolling Stone piece on 6 January 2002. However, some three years later (24 November 2004, p. A3) the Chronicle became a conduit for the exaggerated figures of UNAIDS and the WHO, when they published an article headlined:

Thus the headline makes it appear that actually 3 million people have died of HIV/AIDS in 2004. However, the article itself states:

There we behold the way journalism reinforces the propagandistic character of UNAIDS estimates, because the 3 million figure is not one of actual deaths in 2004, but is only an estimate, similar to those criticized by Malan. Thus the headline is a misrepresentation, passing off a computer-generated estimate for the future as a fact. Thus does the SF Chronicle contribute to conditioning people for the orthodoxy. Did the author of this SF Chronicle article read the Malan articles, in Rolling Stone or in the briefer version published by the Chronicle itself? Can the author of the Chronicle's current article, or the editors who might have written the headline, tell the difference between a fact, an opinion, a hypothesis, a computer estimate, and a hole in the ground?

More systematically, in [DueKR 03] p. 385, the authors point out that during the so-called AIDS epidemic (1984-2000), the sub-Saharan African population has grown by 274 million people. Hence the WHO's purportedly statistical figure of about 1 million cases of AIDS over this period "is statistically hard, if not impossible to verify - unless the African AIDS diseases were highly distinctive...".

§8. Invalidity of the "HIV" test. Challenges to the validity of the "HIV" test come from several sources. Harvey Fineberg, President of the IOM (Institute of Medicine), published a statistical study on AIDS testing in the spring of 1987, in Law, Medicine and Health Care. Fineberg questioned the accuracy of the test. The journalist Jon Rappoport in his book "AIDS INC." quotes Fineberg as follows:

HIV-negatives with AIDS-defining diseases. There exist thousands of Americans who have AIDS-defining diseases but are HIV negative. It is quasi impossible to give proper statistics about how many thousands, partly because of the multiplicity of diseases used to define AIDS, and also because of the lack of studies which would systematically report overall figures, either for individual diseases or all of them as a group.

HIV-positives without diseases. Conversely, there are hundreds of thousands in the U.S. who test HIV positive but have not developed AIDS-defining diseases, and tens of millions of the estimated 40 million HIV positive in the world. As noted by the magazine SPY (February 1993, p. 19), since 1985, the CDC has stated each year that there are approximately one million Americans who are HIV positive. The CDC figure remained constant from 1985 to 2004. But most of these people have not gotten sick with one of the diseases listed by CDC in defining AIDS. Responding to Duesberg's letter dated 11 February 1993, Harold Jaffe replied on 5 March 1993 that, of these one million, "approximately 900,000 have not developed one of the clinical conditions included in the 1987 AIDS case surveillance definition." So in 1993, the CDC was asserting that about 90% among HIV positives have not developed an AIDS-defining disease.

Jaffe's percentage figure is quite different from the figure attributed by the New York Times to the World Health Organization. The numbers game still goes on, as reported for instance in a New York Times article "Obstacle-Strewn Road to Rethinking the Numbers on AIDS" (1 March 1994, p. B8), by Lawrence K. Altman, M.D., who regularly writes on HIV and AIDS for the Times, and systematically calls HIV "the virus that causes AIDS". In his article, Altman gave a revised figure ranging from 600,000 to 800,000, and stated that the figures might go down further.

Note that the figure of 1 million "estimated cumulative HIV infections" in North America has also been given by the World Health Organization ("The HIV/AIDS Pandemic 1993 Overview", The WHO, June 1993). This figure and other WHO figures for Western Europe (500,000) and Sub-Saharan Africa (8 million) were reproduced in a table prominently displayed in the article "HIV: beyond reasonable doubt" (The New Scientist, 15 January 1994, p. 24).

Just what is "beyond reasonable doubt"? Considering the way some estimated numbers have dropped radically, it follows that official figures from the CDC or WHO cannot be trusted. The figures these organizations put out add to the chaotic and unreliable mess which exists in lieu of information about HIV and various diseases.

In addition to the contradictions, there is also a morass caused by artifacts of language, conditioning people to use meaningless expressions, defective purported science, as listed throughout this article.

How does one describe a morass without becoming part of it?

Onward. The present article presents a factual background needed to get more systematically into human issues, which deserve articles of their own. There arise issues of responsibility (see [Lan 05b]), as well as issues concerning the whole social-political-psychological environment when various political wings play a role (the right wingers are supposed to be homophobic, the left wingers pro-gay, funding is available for "HIV/AIDS" research and support in much larger quantities than for other social governmental support, etc.) which would take several other articles to describe.

[ANC 02] AFRICAN NATIONAL CONGRESS web site, Response to Former President

Jimmy Carter..., http://www.anc.org.za/ancdocs/pr/2002/pr0310.html

[ANC 04] HEALTH - Nevirapine, drugs & African guinea pigs,

ANC Today Vol. 4 No. 50, 17-23 December 2004 http://www.anc.org.za/ancdocs/anctoday/2004/at50.htm#art1

[AP 04] Associated Press: "AP: U.S. Officials Knew of AIDS Drug Risks,", 14 December 2004

[ASAKB 95] M. ASCHER, H. SHEPPARD, R. ANDERSON, J. KROWKA, H. BREMERMANN,

Paradox remains, letter to Nature 375 (18 May 1995) p. 196

[ASWV 93] ASCHER, SHEPPARD, WINKELSTEIN and VITTINGHOFF, Does drug use cause AIDS?,

Nature 362 (1993) pp. 103-104

[BI 05] Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals Inc. "Medication Guide" 11 January 2005

[CAU 88] Confronting AIDS Update, Institute of Medicine, 1988, pp. 207, 208.

Quote from p. 207: "The following revised case definition for surveillance of

acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) was developed by CDC in

collaboration with public health and clinical specialists..."

[CDC 92] Center for Disease Control publication Morb. Mort. Weekly Rep. 41, No. RR17 (1 Dec 1992),

giving "the revised classification system for HIV infection and expanded surveillance case definition for AIDS..."

[CDC 01] Centers for Disease Control: "Serious Adverse Events Attributed to Nevirapine Regimens for Postexposure Prophylaxis After HIV Exposures -- Worldwide, 1997 2000

[Ceck 04] E. CECK, Activists and researchers rally behind Aids drug for mothers,

Nature 432 (23 Dec 2004) p. 935

[Due 95] P. DUESBERG, Infectious AIDS - Have We Been Misled?,

North Atlantic Books, Berkeley, Calif. 1995

[Due 96a] P. DUESBERG editor, AIDS: Virus-or Drug induced?

Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers (1996)

[Due 96b] P. DUESBERG, Inventing the AIDS Virus, Regnery Publishing Inc. 1996

[DueKR 03] P. DUESBERG, C. KOHNLEIN, D. RASNICK, The chemical bases of the various AIDS

epidemics: recreational drugs, anti-viral chemotherapy and malnutrition, J. Biosc. 28 No. 4 (June 2003) pp. 383-412 (Indian Academy of Sciences)

http://www.ias.ac.in/jbiosc/jun2003/383.htm

[Dur 81] D. T. DURACK, Opportunistic infections and Kaposi's sarcoma in homosexual men;

N. Engl. J. Med. 305 (1981) pp. 1465-1467

[EDD 96] B. ELLISON, A. DOWNEY, P. DUESBERG, HIV as a surrogate marker for drug use:

a re-analysis of the San Francisco Men's Health Study, in [Due 96a] pp. 97-104

[Far 04] C. FARBER, Grade four event, New York Press, 29 Dec 2004-4Jan 2005

[HHS 96] HHS Surveillance Report, HHS and CDC, National Center for HIV, STD,

and TB prevention, Atlanta Georgia 30333

[Hel 99] HELLERSTEIN et al, Directly measured kinetics of circulating T lymphocytes in normal

and HIV-1-infected humans, Nature Medicine Vol. 5 No. 1 (1999) pp. 83-89

[Ho 95] HO et al., Rapid turnover of plasma virions and CD4 lymphocytes in HIV-1 infection,

Nature 373 (1995) pp. 13-126

[Hog 04] J. P. HOGAN, Kicking the Sacred Cow, Baen Publishing Enterprises, 2004

See also: http://www.jamesphogan.com/bb/content/12803.shtml

[Lan 94] S. LANG, HIV and AIDS: Have We Been Misled?, Yale Scientific (1994), pp. 8-23

(This article is reproduced updated in [Lan 98] and [Due 96a].)

[Lan 95] S. LANG, To Fund or Not to Fund, That is the Question. To Inform or Not to Inform, That is Another Question, Proposed experiments on the drug-AIDS hypothesis,

Yale Scientific (Winter 1995) pp. 15-21 (Reproduced in [Due 96a], [Lan 98], [Lau 04b])

[Lan 98] S. LANG, Challenges, Springer Verlag 1998, pp. 600-714.

[Lan 99] S. LANG, The case of HIV: We have been misled, Yale Scientific (Spring 1999) pp. 9-19

(Reproduced in [Lau 04b] and [Mam 04].)

[Lan 05] S. LANG, The Daily Cal File, on [Mam 04]

[Lan 05b] S. LANG, Questions of responsibility concerning "HIV/AIDS", submitted PNAS 13 May 05

[Lau 03], [Lau 04a] HELEN LAUER, articles in The Statesman, on HIV/AIDS, for instance in 2003:

September, October, November; and 2004: June (two articles)

[Lau 04b] HELEN LAUER editor, History and Philosophy of Science for African Undergraduates,

Hope Publications, Ibadan, Nigeria. This book is a collection of essays and articles.

Several of Lang's articles on "HIV/AIDS" are reproduced pp. 47-74, including

[Lan 95], [Lan 99], and a letter to the editors of Scientific American, which was not

previously published.

[Laur 90] J. LAURITSEN, Poison by Prescription : The AZT Story, Asklepios Pub. 1990

[Mal 01] R. MALAN, Aids in Africa, Rolling Stone (22 November 2001) pp. 70-102

[Mal 02] R. MALAN, Megadeath and Megahype, San Francisco Chronicle INSIGHT (Ideas, Opinions and Commentary) pp. D1, D6, 6 January 2002

[Mal 03] R. MALAN, Africa isn't dying of Aids, The Spectator (27 December 2003), cover story

[Mam 04] M. MAMONE-CAPRIA, "Science and Democracy" website: www.dipmat.unipg.it/~mamone/sci-dem

[McN 04] D. McNEIL Jr, Furor in Africa over drug for women with H.I.V., New York Times 23 Dec 2004 p. A12

[NIAID] " FACT SHEET" from National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases,

Office of Communications, "The evidence that HIV causes AIDS",

http://www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/evidhiv.htm

[NS 00] NO MORE COCKTAILS, New Scientist (16 Dec 2000) p. 7

[NYP 04] New York Post, AIDS Tots Used as "Guinea Pigs", by Douglas Montero, 29 February 2004

[Rap 88] J. RAPPOPORT, AIDS INC., Human Energy Press, 1988

[Roe 98] M. ROEDERER, Getting to the HAART of T cell dynamics, Nature Medicine (4 No. 2)

February 1998 pp. 145-146; see also his article in [Lau 04]

[SFC] San Francisco Chronicle:

[SFC 04a] Daily multivitamins found to cut AIDS risk in half, 1 July 2004, p. A7

[SFC 04b] U.N. Aids Report: 3 million dead, $6.1 billion Spent in 2004, 24 November 2004, p. A3

[SFC 04c] U.S. officials were warned of risk posed by Aids drug, 14 December 2004 p. A4

[SFC 04d] Aids Chief removed critical data on key drug, 15 December 2004 p. A9

[SFC 04e] AIDS drugs probably killed woman - healh officials knew of risks -

Experimental medicines given despite signs of liver failure, 16 December 2004 p. A8

[SFC 04f] AIDS drug debate creates fear of restrictions in Africa - Activists, doctors think governments

may prohibit use, 17 December 2004, p. A23

[SFC 04g] U.S. accused of AIDS drug conspiracy, 18 December 2004, p. A7

[Sol 04] J. SOLOMON, Top U.S. officials warned of concerns before AIDS drug sent to Africa, AP Exclusive,

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive /2004/12/13/financial1428EST0168.DTL&type=printable

[Sol 05] J. SOLOMON, Study Examines AIDS Drugs Tested on Kids, Associated Press. washingtonpost.com

(It is not clear at the time this is written how extensively the above AP piece is covered in the

mainstream press.)

[Wei 95] WEI et al., Viral dynamics in human immunodeficiency virus type 1 infection,

Nature 373 (1995) pp. 117-122

[WHO 86] WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION, Provisional WHO clinical case definition for AIDS, Weekly Epidemiological Records 36 (7 March 1986) pp. 72-73

[WHO 99] WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION, Global AIDS surveillance Part II:

Weekly Epidemiological records 74 (3 December 1999) pp. 409-411

- for the flu, Mac Kenzie, W. R., Davis, J.P., Peterson, D. E., Hibbard, A.,J., Becker, G. and Zarvan, B.S., Multiple false-positive serologic tests for HIV, HTLV-1, and Hepatitis C following Influenza vaccination, J. Am. Med. Assoc. 268 (1992) pp. 1015-1017

- for tuberculosis, Pitchenik, A. E., Burr, J., J., Suarez, M., Fertel, D., Gonzalez, G. and Moas, C., Human T-cell lymphotropic virus-III (HTLV-III) seropositivity and related disease among 71 consecutive patients in whom tuberculosis was diagnosed: a prospective study, Am. Rev. Respir. Dis. 135 (1987) pp. 875-879

- also for tuberculosis, St. Louis, U. E., Rauch, K. J., Peterson, L. R. et al. Seroprevalence rates of human immunodeficiency virus infection at sentinel hospitals in the United States, N. Eng. J. Med. 323 (1990) pp. 213-218

- for leprosy, Kashala, O., Marlink, R., Ilunga, M., Diese, M., Gormus, B., Xu, K., Mukeba, P., Kasongo, K. and Essex, M., Infection with Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 (HIV-1) and Human T Cell Lymphtropic Viruses among Leprosy Patients and Contacts: Correlation between HIV-1 Cross-Reactivity and Antibodies to Lipoarabinomannan, J. Inf. Dis. 169 (1994) pp. 296-304

- for antibodies against malaria registering as false positive for HIV:

- Biggar, R.J., Possible nonspecific associations between malaria and HTLV-III/LAV, N. Engl. J. Med. 315 (1986) p. 457

- Biggar, R. J., Gigase, P. L., Melbye, M., Kestens, L., Sarin, P. S., Bodner, A. J., Demedts, P., Stevens, W. J., Paluku, L. C., D. H. et al., ELISA HTLV retrovirus antibody reactivity associated with malaria and immune complexes in healthy Africans, Lancet 2 (1985) pp. 520-523

- Volsky, D.J., Wu, Y. T., Stevenson, M., Dewhurst, S., Sinangil, F., Merino, F. L. R. and Godoy, G., Antibodies to HTLV-III/LAV in Venezuelan patients with acute malarial infections [letter], N. Engl. J. Med. 10 (1986) pp. 647-648

This article is rooted in the factual documentation presented in [Lan 05a]. Here we begin to deal with human-sociological questions, especially questions of responsibility vis a vis "HIV/AIDS".

§1. Africa and the U.S. One position of dissent from the orthodoxy concerning Africa is that it is illegitimate to give the same name "AIDS" for what's happening there, as for what's happening in the United States, within some well defined risk groups. Roughly speaking, sickness and death in Africa due to malnutrition, sanitation, and arising from poverty, have been occurring for centuries, and whatever increase has occurred has remained approximately the same relative to the total population. Actually, sub Saharan Africa is experiencing a population explosion.

This doesn't mean one should not be concerned with the health problems of Africa, or that one should not help. The question is rather, what is help and what is not. I quote from an ANC website [ANC 02].

In [Lan 05a] §2 we have seen how some African diseases called AIDS might more appropriately have been attributed to malnutrition. More effective help might have been given than sending $15 billion worth of toxic drugs to Africa, as President Bush promised in 2004. In [Lan 05a] §3 we have seen the newly triggered action by the AP (John Solomon) concerning the toxicity of nevirapine and the compounded African protest [ANC 04]. One of the paradoxes is that according to the WHO definition of AIDS in Africa, HIV is not even tested as a cause or a symptom of "AIDS", but in practice it may be tested.

Indeed, the NIH asked the IOM (Institute Of Medicine) to look into one narrow issue: the toxicity of the single drug nevirapine in the very narrow context of the "Uganda trial", i.e. just the case of using nevirapine in a single dose with the intent to prevent transmission of HIV from mother to child (whatever that means). An IOM Committee (Panel) was formed and issued a report in early April 2005. A press release from the National Academies [IOM 05b] stated: "A Ugandan drug trial's findings that the AIDS medication nevirapine is effective and safe in preventing HIV transmission from mother to unborn child during birth were well-supported, according to a new, independent analysis by the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies."

To verify the validity of this evaluation is impossible for me without spending more time than I have on hand. I ask one question in this connection:

Were the Uganda patients told about the Boehringer Ingelheim Medication Guide?

The guide itself states: "This guide is required to be distributed to all patients receiving the drug." See [Lan 05a] §3. Actually, patients aren't necessarily told of the toxicity, as exemplified in an AP article [SoH 04] about the case of a 33-year old Memphis woman:

The article further reproduces a statement by Clifford Lane, called the NIH's No. 2 infectious disease specialist:

So the "experiment" is shown to have "rules" which CONTRADICT the FDA approved Boehringer Ingelheim Medication Guide! Thus we behold another contradiction between the rhetoric and the reality of the medical establishment's handling of "HIV/AIDS". We also see how group-think blinds doctors in the exercise of their medical responsibilities.

In [Lan 05a] §8, I brought up specific questions which exist about the most basic meaning, validity, or significance of "HIV positivity". Another fundamental objection now is that the IOM focuses attention on the toxicity question as it arises in the presumed single item of the "Ugandan drug trial". The special mother-child conditions under which nevirapine is given supposedly in a single dose may be quite different from the actual conditions under which it is prescribed as a "regimen" for people "at risk for HIV", including mother-child transmission. Or, as the case of the Memphis woman shows, there may be no difference in practice. In any case, as we have seen above and in [Lan 05a] §3, nevirapine has been recognized as highly toxic, both by the drug company selling it and by the HHS-NIH in 2001. It is already questionable in what sense the special case of one dose in the mother-child context is meaningful or significant.

The special case is of very little importance compared to the toxicity problem in the very much larger general context, not only because "HIV positivity" is a questionable concept, but much more fundamentally, because HIV (whatever it is) may not be pathogenic!

We have seen how some studies point to malnutrition as the cause of some diseases which have been called "AIDS" in Africa. Other cases of so-called AIDS may be due to sanitation, malaria, and other classical causes.

In his comments questioning the meaning of HIV-positivity (see [Lan 05a] §8), Harvey Fineberg was quoted as concluding:

What "high risk behavior"? What lifestyle was Fineberg thinking of? Sex habits? Taking poppers (sniffing amyl nitrite)? Amphetamines? Heroin? However, the malnutrition in Africa may not be so much due to "lifestyle" as to conditions resulting from poverty.

Professional/Medical responsibilities. Fineberg gave his endorsement to the narrow focus of the IOM Committee. But we have seen broader and more fundamental issues, which make this focus misleading, by obscuring these more fundamental issues.

- Just the use of the same name "HIV/AIDS" obscures these differences, illegitimately and unscientifically. How come the IOM has not looked into this possibility, and issued reports about it, especially in the context of the Uganda trial considered by the IOM Committee?

Independence of the IOM. The IOM is especially significant because it is part of the "National Academies" with the aura and prestige of science. In his foreword to the IOM Committee's Report, Harvey Fineberg stated that NIH asked IOM "to conduct an independent review of the HIV NET 012 trial". However, IOM is not "independent" in several ways which are not a priori objectionable, but do exist.

(a) The IOM has a link with the academic establishment. Some connections are more direct than others. Fineberg himself has been Dean of the Harvard School of Public Health and Provost at Harvard. The chair of the IOM Committee James H. Ware is now Dean for Academic Affairs at Harvard, and is also Professor of Biostatistics (a science) at the Harvard School of Public Health.

(b) In the natural course of events, medical scientists get funded in large part by NIH. These same people then are on committees to investigate actions taken by their funding agencies. They are subject both to social pressures (collegiality, the usual pressures of group-think which induces blindness) and money pressures (people from the biomedical establishment who speak out publicly against HIV pathogenesis lose their grants). The money pressures are usually given more emphasis than the social pressures. However, Senator Chuck Grassley wrote a letter to Fineberg dated March 30 in which he said: "Although I am troubled by this fact [reviewers' financial ties to the NIH], I am more troubled by the fact that at a meeting with the IOM on January 5, 2005, your staff assured my staff repeatedly that the current members of this IOM committee did not have financial or professional conflicts of interest."

(c) In the present instance, the NIH sponsored the IOM Committee. What's the probability the Committee would dump on the NIH? Just by accepting the limitations of a restricted "charge" by NIH to IOM, the IOM shows how it is NOT independent of NIH.

Both in the present instance and in general, the choice of subjects to be looked into and the attitudes toward these subjects are naturally affected by the above mentioned relations (institutional links and financial links). A priori, the connection between IOM and the educational establishment exemplified by Fineberg's and Ware's past and present connections with Harvard might be very valuable, since they could educate students and the public to have a more independent view of the HIV/AIDS situation. The evidence right now shows that this education is not taking place.

A Rhetorical Thrust. On the issue of HIV pathogenesis, I confronted various higher ups in the past, for instance the Lancet editor Richard Horton. He wrote a long review article for New York Review of Books (23 May 1996) about some of Duesberg's publications. On the whole Horton's selectivity did not properly allow readers to evaluate (a) the books under review; (b) the relative merits of hypotheses competing with the orthodoxy; (c) the positions of a number of scientists who have challenged the orthodoxy. Cf. my detailed analysis in Challenges pp. 699-713. I wrote a critical analysis of Horton's review, but both NYR and Horton for the Lancet refused to publish it. Cf. Challenges. In his article, Horton did state without fudging that "the ideological assassination that Duesberg has undergone will remain an embarrassing testament of the reactionary tendencies of modern science...". Still, he spoiled the effect of this sentence in a subsequent exchange with Duesberg in NYR (8 August 1996), where he wrote: "Duesberg accuses me of using 'the argument of fear.' If there is nothing to fear from HIV, he can easily prove it. If Duesberg seriously believes that HIV is harmless, let him inject himself with a suspension of the virus."

I also confronted Donald Green, Director of the Institute for Policy Studies at Yale. The Yale AIDS program is under the aegis of this Institute. I gave him my packet of "HIV/AIDS" documentation. He used the same ad hominem thrust as Horton. He said: "If you are so sure about HIV being harmless, why don't you inject yourself with HIV?"

This kind of thrust avoids dealing with documented objections to the position of the orthodoxy. I regard this thrust as a major failure of intellectual, scientific, and professional responsibility. Evaluating such a rhetorical thrust is fundamental to scientific standards. The thrust transforms what could remain a legitimate exchange about the evidence into an ad hominem attack, and thereby contravenes fundamental scientific standards. I object to replacing questions about what's the evidence with questions about beliefs. For a longer discussion of this thrust, see Challenges pp. 707-708. What will be the ultimate evaluation of such a thrust by the scientific and academic community?

Risking lives? The Durban Declaration. David Baltimore, currently President of Caltech, is quoted in the article "AAAS criticized over AIDS skeptics' meeting" (Nature 369, 1994, p. 265): "There is no question at all that HIV is the cause of AIDS. Anyone who gets up publicly and says the opposite is encouraging people to risk their lives." There is indeed a question whether HIV is pathogenic. Is it responsible to withhold evidence on this question, and to stake the credibility of the scientific-academic establishment in the opposite direction for the reason Baltimore gives? Besides, by covering up the toxicity of anti-HIV drugs for many years, and promoting the dogma of HIV pathogenesis, while not warning certain social groups that poppers are dangerous to their health and lives, scientists-academics such as Baltimore make a prejudicial choice which does not properly allow people to exercise judgment about what does constitute risks to their lives.

Baltimore and Bruce Alberts (President of the National Academy of Sciences) were among the signers of a full page advertisement in the New York Times (9 July 2000), supporting the Durban Declaration [DD 00]:

The previous article [Lan 05a] accumulates evidence that the above establishment position is false, and that the alternative claims are not "unfounded". This evidence shows that some relevant or significant facts have been disregarded in the laboratory, in the classroom, on the public platform, in the Academies, in the media, and in real life.

Children guinea pigs in the U.S. As to risking lives, we have seen in §1 how there have been complaints in Africa about using Africans as guinea pigs (whose lives are risked). The problem is not limited to Africa. The journalist Liam Scheff published an article in the New York Press [Sch 04b]:

home in Washington Heights. And the city wants it that way.

There and in a subsequent piece [Sch 05], Scheff described in vivid and extraordinarily disturbing concrete terms how children and orphans are used as guinea pigs for toxic anti-HIV drugs. If some children refuse to submit, they are

Thus we behold a horrifying result of the psychological, sociological, and medical dynamics leading to the above horrors. The signers of the Durban Declaration and the above-mentioned advertisement are among the many who contribute to the dynamics whereby "the term 'HIV positive' is accepted as a given -- a death sentence", as Scheff writes, giving rise to "an ugly reality".

For almost two years, most of the mainstream media in the U.S. did not report the experiments described by Scheff. The New York Post was an exception [Mon 04]. The BBC did report [BBC 04]. More than a year later, the New York Times [Kau 05] and the AP John Solomon [Sol 05] reported an investigation into the doings brought to light by Scheff. The New York Times article was inaccurate and tendentious on several counts, cf. for instance [Sch GNN 05]. The Times article reads:

However, the Times also reported that "Vera Sharav, the president of the Alliance for Human Research Protection, a Manhattan-based watchdog group that has pressed for a more thorough investigation, said that...the foster children were only presumed to have AIDS. 'It's a hell of a thing to give a child toxic drugs when they are only presumed to have AIDS,' Ms. Sharav said."

An AP report [Sol 05] was mostly not run in the mainstream press.

There have been other reports of people going overboard in their fight against HIV, for instance this abcNEWS (Internet Ventures)-Associated Press report from Pennsylvania (30 April 2005):

Envoi. At the moment, we are at an impasse. The dissent is growing. For an example coming from a source quite different from the sources that I have already mentioned, see "Closing Ranks: AIDS Heresy In The Viricentric Universe" in James P. Hogan's book [Hog 04]. Other mass appeal publications of AIDS heresy are in the works presently. However, it's not clear if or when the dissent will reach a critical mass sufficient to unravel the orthodoxy. I hope the present articles help to inform, as distinguished from conditioning or manipulating people about the issues concerning "HIV/AIDS".

How does one challenge a mindset conditioned in the population at large over 20 years?

[ANC 02] AFRICAN NATIONAL CONGRESS web site, Response to Former President Jimmy Carter...,

http://www.anc.org.za/ancdocs/pr/2002/pr0310.html

[ANC 04] HEALTH-Nevirapine, drugs & African guinea pigs

ANC Today Vol. 4 No. 50, 17-23 December 2004

[AP 04] Associated Press: "AP: U.S. Officials Knew of AIDS Drug Risks," 14 December 2004

[BBC 04] GUINEA PIG KIDS, BBC, 30 November 2004

[Crowe] Website: http://aras.ab.ca/thelist.htm

[DD 00] Durban Declaration, reproduced in Nature Vol. 406 (6 July 2000) pp. 15-16

[Hog 04] J. P. HOGAN, Kicking the Sacred Cow, Baen Publishing Enterprises, 2004

[IOM 05a] Institute of Medicine of the National Academies "Review of the HIVNET 012 Perinatal HIV

Prevention Study (7 April 2005)

[IOM 05b] Office of News and Public Information, The National Academies, "Findings from Perinatal HIV Prevention Study in Uganda are Valid, New Review Says" [Press Release] April 05

[Lan 05a] S. LANG, Contradictions in the "HIV/AIDS" Establishment, submitted PNAS 13 May 05

[Kau 05] L. KAUFMAN, Private firm to Investigate AIDS Charges Against City, New York Time 23 April 2005

[Mam 04] M. MAMONE CAPRIA, "Science and Democracy" website: www.dipmat.unipg.it/-mamone/sci-dem

[McN 04] D. McNEIL Jr, Furor in Africa over drug for women with H.I.V., New York Times 23 dec 2004 p. A12

[Mon 04] D. MONTERO, AIDS Tots Used as "Guinea Pigs", New York Post, 29 February 2004

[Rap 88] J. RAPPOPORT, AIDS INC. Human Energy Press 1988

[Sch 04a] L. SCHEFF, The House that Aids Built, Altheal.org

[Sch 04b] L. SCHEFF, Orphans On Trial, New York Press Vol. 18 No. 17, April 27-May 3, 2005

[Sch 05] L. SCHEFF, The News Hole, New York Press, 11 January 2005

[Sch GNN 05] L. SCHEFF, All The News That Fits...Two Years Later, Guinea Pigs Kids,

GNN Articles: Sci-Tech, 27 April 2005

[Sol 05] J. SOLOMON, Study Examines AIDS Drugs tested on Kids, Associated Press. washingtonpost.com

[SoH 04] J. SOLOMON and R. HERSCHAFT, AIDS drugs probably killed woman - health officials knew of risks,

San Francisco Chronicle 16 December 2004 p. A8