A recent NEJM article admits "virological failure" of drug treatment for HIV (1). Virological failure is another invented Orwellian double speak phrase that actually means the opposite. It does not mean that the virus has failed, but instead means that the virus has succeeded in replicating and the drug treatment has failed (2). I suggest that this confusing terminology is adopted to avoid admitting failure of the drug treatment, as this would end any further drug study funding by the drug company. Since HIV is part of the patient, its proviral genome integrated into the host's own DNA, the term "virological failure" can also subliminally suggest the patient has somehow "failed" drug treatment, another form of "blame the patient" (3).
The lead author, Myron (Max) Essex (4), whose early work dealt with the feline leukemia retrovirus has 370 articles to his name, about 60 dealing with cats dating back to the early 1980's. In 1982, based on his cat research, Essex suggested to Gallo a link between the feline leukemia retrovirus and the new "AIDS syndrome". Thus, Essex might be considered to be the real "inventor" of the AIDS virus, rather than Gallo.
Back in the 1980's, Essex started a bio-tech company, Cambridge Bioscience Corporation, which marketed a popular cat vaccine for feline leukemia. One might ask the obvious question, how could there be a successful vaccine for one retrovirus, feline leukemia, and not for HIV? The answer to this is simple. All "infected cats", even though vaccinated, have persistent plasma RNA viral load. In other words, the cats have "virological failure" in spite of the vaccine. Hofmann-Lehmann writes, "commonly used FeLV vaccines understood to be successful model antiretroviral vaccines protecting against FeLV-related diseases do not confer sterilizing immunity." (5). By the way, Max's Cambridge Bioscience also sells an HIV antibody test kit.
Although the concept of "virological failure" is fairly new, a Library of Medicine search of "virological failure" yields 768 articles, 624 within the last 6 years, and 534 of these relating to HIV research. This brings us back to the question of why so many studies deal with "virological failure" of HIV drug treatment. These treatments fail "because", as Steven Hughes (6) explains, "the viral DNA becomes part of the host genome, and infection is permanent. The infected cells, and all their progeny, will carry the inserted viral sequence" (7). This explains the harm and futility of attempting to eliminate a genetic sequence in the host DNA by the administration of toxic drugs as seen with the recent NEJM study of nevirapine to prevent HIV transmission from parent to offspring in Botswana, Africa (1).
The DAIDS-sponsored clinical trial, HIVNET012 nevirapine study was completed in Uganda and published in Lancet in 1999 (8). Considering the evidence of widespread scientific and professional misconduct at the NIH, NIAID and DAIDS provided by whistle blower Jonathan Fishbein, M.D.(9), why hasn't nevirapine been banned?
Another important question is how prevalent is death from AIDS among children born from HIV positive mothers in America who do not receive treatment with toxic antiviral drugs? In 20 HIV positive children over the age of one year, who were born from IV drug user HIV positive mothers in New York public hospitals, only one died from AIDS giving a 95% survival rate with no treatment (10). These 20 children were untreated because AZT had not been approved for children under 13 until May 3, 1990 which is after the date of the study.
If you browse through the mother-to-child pediatric HIV/AIDS medical literature, you will notice the recurring theme of intravenous drug use. Peter Duesberg points out in The Scientist, "about 80 percent of pediatric AIDS in the United States and Europe is the consequence of intravenous drugs received by newborns from their mothers prior to birth" (11).
Considering this information, why risk giving a highly toxic drug such as nevirapine to pregnant mothers and their babies? Instead of offering them compassionate care, the medical system has succeeded in driving these mothers into hiding (12). As for the orphan children and crack babies of HIV positive mothers, words cannot describe the deep repulsion and disgust experienced when reading the stories of the medical experimentation forced on them without their consent (13,14,15). These events represent an embarrassment to the entire medical profession, and evoke images of medical experimentation performed by ordinary doctors on concentration camp victims during the Holocaust (16, 17, 18, 19).
Jeffrey Dach M.D. is board certified in interventional radiology and a member of the Board of the American Academy of Anti-Aging Medicine. He retired from radiology two years ago, and is currently in private practice focusing on bio-identical hormone treatment.