Nachtrag vom 14.10.00 zum Angebot von Dr. Rasnick. AIDS-"Dissident" Gordon Stewart hat Bedenken gegen eine solche Selbstversuchs"wette", insbesondere fürchtet er, Makgoba könne sich heimlich seiner Gift-...äh, Medikamentendosis entziehen, während Rasnick zufällig irgendeine Krankheit bekommen könnte. In diesem Fall seien die Dissidenten auf ewig erledigt! Im nachfolgenden Mail nimmt Rasnick zu diesen und anderen Einwänden Stellung (die mit >> << zitierten Passagen sind von Stewart, die anderen, auch mit DR eingeleiteten, sind von Rasnick):
Dear Gordon,

Thanks for your keen observations and reservations regarding my proposed experiment. I don't do this lightly. I have thought about it for years-waiting for an opportunity to strike. Now is the time in South Africa.

You are aware that I have proposed my experiment twice before, most recently during the meeting in Johannesburg last July. I asked Makgoba personally if he would volunteer for my experiment. He just walked away and didn't say a word.

I suspect that most people on both sides of the HIV/AIDS debate had their reasons for wanting my experiment to go away. However, they kept their thoughts to themselves.

Below I respond to your points in order.

> Dear Dave, your offer to be injected with alleged HIV if Dr Gazi will >ingest AZT and HAART drugs is admirably selfless and public spirited but I >have to advise you and any others who might contemplate this of some >conflicting factors, as follows:

>1 HIV has never been isolated free from co-culture material. This >means, not only that the injected ,material will contain adventitious and >potentially sensitising cellular antigens, but also that it might contain >CMV, VZ, hepatitis viruses, PCP, mycoplasma, candida and other components >of the highly infectious microbial menagerie which is the real hallmark of >AIDS, accounting for much if not all of the suffering and lethal pathology >of the syndrome. You might therefore become incurably unwell and perish >ignobly because it will not necessarily be because of the pathogenicity of >HIV. I told this to Peter Duesberg when he offered to inject himself with >"HIV" years ago, and nothing has changed. I know that you both think that >nitrites and other drugs cause AIDS and I agree that they can contribute >by damaging immunity but the syndrome came from infectious contaminants >conveyed by needle-sharing, poppers and street heroin.

DR: I was very specific. I said purified and infectious HIV. I will not be treated with uncharacterized shit. If purified, infectious HIV cannot be produced, that in itself is a victory.

>2 As used in the original dosage of 1800 mg/day, AZT was seriously >toxic after about one month, probably because of damage to mitochondria, >cell-division and repair. When dosage was progressively reduced to 300 >mg/day, as at present, these effects became less serious and reversible. >The other drugs used in HAART are given interchangeably and with ever >changing options. Dr Gazi could therefore opt for a legitimate therapeutic >regime which would be steered, as in current practice, to stop short of >irreversible toxicity. Yiu do not mention pentamidine, methotrexate, >fluconazole, amphotericin and otherr adjuvant chemotherapy which are >required for control of concurrent infections, so Dr Gazi could evade >their undoubted side effects too. The regimes which are being adopted >almost everywhere now incorporate a lot of experience and even wisdom in >this regard.

DR: Great. As part of my experiment. All changes to Gazi's regimen would be made public and the reason for those changes made public-primarily toxicity. Gazi doesn't have the excuse that he is worried about mutations of HIV. Only toxicity seems the justification. That's my whole point anyway.

>3 Whereas you would be injected, he would be taking the drugs orally. >He could take various measures to reduce or prevent absorption and promote >excretion, remaining well or quite well while you became iln for reasons >other than the pathogenicity of HIV if indeed it exists other than as a >pseudo-species.

DR: Such is life.

>4 The noble experiment could therefore be interpreted as showing the >opposite of what you believe.

DR: That is true of all experiments. As a scientist, I know the risks going into the experiment. I would take my chances over Gazi's any day, however.

>5 Such a result would be featured and fantasised for ever as the doom >of all dissent about the HIV hypothesis. If I were an HIV zealot or a >member of the Franco-American-Britannic consensus, I would welcome and >encourage it as a timely and noble gesture.

DR: I am counting on at least one well-placed zealot among the ranks of the HIV establishment to take me up on my challenge.

We are at war with the HIV establishment. I have to fight with the weapons available to me. My life is one of them. I saw the opportunity to go on the office and I took it.

>6 Apart from all this, I value you as a friend with courage and >honesty, and am entirly in favour of your survival in good ehalth sat we >can continue to disagree amicably and constructively. Please relay this >message, with kindest regards, Gordon Stewart.

DR: The real purpose of my proposed experiment has nothing to do with science, although it would be conducted as carefully as any scientific experiment.

The real purpose is to keep the debate before the world. Make people interested in following what's going on. If Gazi is stupid enough to accept my challenge, it would become a celebrated contest-sort of an OJ Simpson trial that people will talk about and follow in the news everyday. That is the last thing the mainstream wants-endless, un-contained discourse and debate.

I'm trying to make it fashionable for people-large numbers of people-to talk and think about the HIV/AIDS juggernaut. That is a gamble worth taking. I do it as an individual.


Auf der
Leserbriefseite von Independent Online wird das Angebot Dr. Rasnicks ebenfalls heftig diskutiert, wobei Rasnick nicht davor zurückschreckt, auch selbst zur virtuellen Feder zu greifen.

Anmerkung: Diese Selbstversuche (bzw. entsprechende Angebote) sind aus einer Reihe von Gründen nicht unproblematisch, obwohl es den Selbstversuch in der Wissenschaft immer gegeben hat. Bei HIV besteht das Hauptproblem in der (behaupteten) langen Latenzperiode. Gallo selbst hat eingeräumt, er könne durchaus 20 oder 30 Jahre gesund bleiben, sollte er sich zufällig infizieren, da er keine weiteren Risikofaktoren habe. Selbst wenn Ellison, der jüngeren Jahrgangs ist, in 50 Jahren noch quicklebendig wäre und man dies dann als Beweis akeptieren würde - wir können nicht solange warten!

Es gibt aber auch ein grundsätzliches Problem: WAS genau soll eigentlich verabreicht werden? Da es HIV m.E. gar nicht gibt, es jedenfalls niemals "körperlich" isoliert wurde, gibt es streng genommen nichts, was sich (zuverlässig) injizieren ließe. Dr. Willner injizierte sich das Blut einer "HIV-positiven" Person. Ob in diesem Blut "HIV" enthalten war, ist wie gesagt höchst fraglich; und höchste Vorsicht ist geboten, um das Vorhandensein anderer, möglicherweise tatsächlich gefährlicher Partikel auszuschließen. Siehe zur HIV-Existenz meinen Überblick mit weiteren Links.

Zurück zu "AIDS"
Zurück zum Start (Homepage)