IDS — Acquired
Immune Defi-
ciency
Syndrome — is
today a synonym
for fear and
ignorance.
Because this
recent disease
ppears both to be incurable, and to be
in the main sexually transmitted, it has
acquired the dimensions of publicity
unheard of in modern medicine.

And because AIDS has, in Western
Society, its highest incidence among the
§4y population and drug users, it has

come a convenient — and
effective — whipping block that right-
wing reaction uses dishonestly against
each group.
_ Although incidences of AIDS are
creasing, the syndrome causes nowhere
near the number of deaths as many
common” diseases such as cancer or
heart disease. Yet the hullabaloo around
AIDS and the money spent — and
made — to treat and “cure” it continue
to grow.

What follows is a controversial look at
AIDS, its medical implications and rele-
vant issues, This article was written for
the Tribune by Ellen Lipsius, a registered
Physiotherapist, acupuncturist and nutri-
Honist who runs the Lipsius Clinic in
Toronto, and Derek Mackie, a Toronto-
based journalist who has written exten-
sively for the newspaper. We welcome
comments. (First of a series)

Dr. Peter Duesberg is a brave man.

In a profession renowned for its “old
boy” solidarity, the University of Cali-
fornia virus expert risked ostracism
when he sat before the Presidential
Commission on the HIV (or Human
Immunodeficiency Virus) Epidemic in

‘New York City last February and rid-

iculed the official theory on the cause
of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syn-
drome (AIDS). He himself realized his
tank-breaking stand, noting: “HIV has

me a billion-dollar virus and
nobody wants to admit that it might
not be the one causing AIDS. They
don’t want to admit error.”

Yet, like a dam bursting its seams,
growing numbers of medical experts,
people with AIDS and political acti-
vists are punching holes in some of the
official explanations of what is AIDS
and whether it can be cured. In the
case of the HIV theory, despite the
medical profession’s protests, an
increasing body of evidence suggests
that it does not cause AIDS.

Duesberg, a 25-year virus researcher
and cancer expert, points out that tests
on lab animals carrying HIV show no
AIDS development. He says HIV kills
immunity cells too slowly to be the true
agent.

In fact, the AIDS epidemic has
thrown a long shadow on the sound-
ness of Western “establishment” medi-
cine. As Dr. Jay Levy of the University
of California said in 1986: “Perhaps the
greatest advance is that AIDS has had
a chastening effect on us scientists. We
aren’t saying any more that we’ve con-
quered all the infectious diseases in the

’ world”,

Consequently AIDS has given us the
remarkable, though unfortunate,
Opportunity to re-examine modern
medicine’s basic principles. It’s about
time that we ask why people become
sick, why they get better, why doctors
can’t explain the cause of AIDS, and
what viable alternatives exist for treat-
ing the condition.

To understand why AIDS is here,
some history is needed. For starters,
modern medicine is rooted in the Germ
Theory, devised in 1877 by Louis Pas-

SNAG aeaatan

i ee

Screening biood for the AIDS virus.

AIDS:

alternative theories
to corporate medicine

teur (1822-1895), a French physicist
and chemist. :

In a nutshell, Pasteur’s theory is:
there are germs floating in the air and
embedded in our food which can enter
our bodies, attack organs, and-cause
illness. Thus, if you have an ear infec-
tion, it’s because a germ targeted the
ear.

Pasteur said the main source of these
germs was raw milk, and that by boil-
ing it, the germs would die. As well,
Pasteur said you can destroy germs
using chemicals (drugs) or, if necessary,
removing the diseased organs from
your body.

Prior to Pasteur, much of Eastern
and Western medicine was holistic,
which refers to the belief that disease is
the result of occupational, environmen-
tal, social, emotional and nutritional
factors. Holistic doctors said sickness
was caused by a breakdown in the
body’s immune system, not by a single
germ. Cures involved altering diet, app-

lying natural medicines and changing
social and economic conditions.

Yet Pasteur thought so highly of his
theory that he launched a campaign to
rid Europe of raw milk, causing alarm
among many medical experts of the
day. Florence Nightingale, the famous
nurse who realized the importance of
sanitation, felt the chemist was danger-
ous. And scientists like Frenchman Dr.
Antoine Bechamp rebuffed Pasteur in
the 1880s, saying that if germs are
found in the body: “‘ ... it is not that
they entered from outside and caused
the disease. It is because they developed
from the decaying cells within the body
and have an important role to play in
helping to handle the waste and des-
truction brought about by serums,
drugs and other toxic materials.”

In fact, Pasteur realized his error and
renounced the germ theory on his
deathbed in 1895. But by then it was
too late; events had reeled beyond his
control. The Industrial Revolution was

in full swing, ushering in a number of
changes. One was city sewage systems.
These stopped diseases like the Black
Plague and typhoid from spreading.
Industrialization also introduced a
chemical industry which saw Pasteur’s
theory as a way of making money.

From their humble beginnings,
chemical corporations have grown into
multinationals. Now Du Pont, Merck
Frosst, Hoechst AG, Sandoz, Pfizer
and Upjohn invent, manufacture and
sell drugs which they claim cure your
aches and pains. But as Dr. Robin
Cook, a physician at the Massachusetts
Eye and Ear Infirmary, noted in 1985:
“Drug firms ... do not exist for the
public weal, no matter how they try to
convince the public otherwise. Their
goal is to provide a return on their
investors’ capital.”

Indeed, Dr. Robert Mendelsohn, a
University of Illinois physician and lec-
turer, points out that while some drugs”
seem to cure one disease, they initiate
others. Drugs also poison the body, he
says. For instance, the antibiotic
chlormycetin is prescribed for meningi-
tis. Says Mendelsohn: “(this drug) has
the not uncommon fatal side effect of
interfering with the bone marrow’s
production of blood”. He add that out
of the eight to 10 million Americans
suffering from the common cold who
go to a doctor every year, 95 per cent
are given drugs which have no effect.

In the case of surgery, which
involves removing all or part of a
body’s organ, operations can have
short-term benefits. But surgery traum-
atizes not only the patient, but the
body too, weakening it considerably.

Thus it is not surprising that despite

_ modern medicine, people continue, as

statistics say, to die horrible deaths in
growing numbers. Take cancer, for
instance. In 1979, 14,252 people died of
cancer in Ontario, making it the second
most common cause of death. Have
the high-tech cancer treatments slowed
down the instances of this deadly con-
dition? Not at all. In 1976, about 21 per
cent of all Ontario deaths were because
of cancer. In 1940, only 13.2 per cent of
deaths were cancer-related.

But people now live longer than ever
before, it is argued. Indeed, a child
born in 1984 has a life expectancy of
74.7 years, while the average lifespan of
a North American in 1900 was 47.3
years. However, the increased lifespan

- has little to do with modern medicine.

The advent of hygiene, sewage systems,
public health, steadier sources of foods
and better working conditions are more
responsible for sustaining life.

In fact, as Dr. Arthur Barsky of the
Harvard Medical School wrote in the
New England Journal of Medicine
recently, we are living longer and in
poorer health. He stated: “According
to nationwide polls and community
surveys, the proportion of Americans
who are satisfied with their health and
physical condition has fallen from 61
per cent in the 1970s to 55 per cent in
the mid-80s”. Barsky says people are
reporting more frequent and longer-
lasting bouts of serious, acute illness
now than 60 years ago.

This pattern holds for Canada as
well. Ontario’s hospitals are overflow-
ing with patients, while many people
wait months for simple operations.

Since AIDS arrived on the scene, the
medical profession has been scrambling
to explain what it is and how it can be
cured. Yet it would be astonishing if
doctors could answer such questions,
considering that what they practice is
often based on flimsy theory and
guided by reckless corporations like Du
Pont.

Pacific Tribune, July 13, 1988 5