Sign the petition

Durban Declaration Rebuttal

Commentary

Preamble

IFAS is not convinced that the claimed HI-Virus exists. All current detective measures are either indirect or not specific and not based on purified HIV (Gold Standard). Even the considered discoverer of „HIV" Prof. Luc Montagnier has admitted this. Hence, to be correct one should refer to "HIV" as the alleged virus suggested being the cause of AIDS. To make the reading of this report easier, however, we use the terms "HIV" and AIDS as commonly albeit uncritically used by the media.

Background

The International Forum for Accessible Science (IFAS) was from the very beginning one of the organisations supporting the efforts of South African President Thabo Mbeki to re-assess AIDS in Africa.

Initial contact with the SA Ministry of Health was made as early as 1998. At that time IFAS approached Dr. Nkosazana Zuma. She has been provided with relevant information about AIDS. In 1999 IFAS established contact with Dr. Ian Roberts from the South African Ministry of Health which subsequently led to submission of our list earlier this year.

IFAS has submitted a list of some seventeen (17) experts from different fields relevant to AIDS. From this list Zuma’s successor Dr. Manto Tshabalal-Msimang chose seven (7) experts to participate in the panel.

Together with some eight (8) other AIDS dissenters and twenty-three (23) representatives from the "HIV"-establishment they discussed issues put on the agenda by President Mbeki.

These agenda items where:
1. What is the evidence for HIV as the cause of AIDS. What are the consequences for causation and, hence, diagnosis?
a. What is the cause of the immune deficiency, leading to AIDS and death?
b. What are the most efficient measures to counter such cause/s?
c. Why is HIV/AIDS in Africa predominately heterosexually transmitted whilst mostly homosexually transmitted in the industrialised world?

2. What role-plays treatment in development countries? The following questions should be taken in account, what treatment protocols are suitable for developing countries:
- For AIDS-patients
- For HIV-positive individuals
- For the prevention of mother to child transmission
- For the prevention of HIV-infection due to professional exposure (e.g. needle sticks)
- For the prevention of HIV-infection following rape

3. Therapeutic prevention of HIV/AIDS?

In all cases consideration should be given to the social and economical context, especially poverty and poverty related illnesses as well as the limited infrastructure in developing countries.

Since IFAS was only observing the second meeting, the feed-back from the first meeting held May 6th/7th in Pretoria, SA is based on a report issued in German by Christian Fiala and Claus Köhnlein.

Structure of Presidential AIDS Advisory Panel

On the initiative of South African President Thabo Mbeki thirty four (34) physicians and scientists from different countries met on May 6th and 7th in Pretoria. The basis for the invitation was contradictions and open questions regarding HIV/AIDS, especially in relation to Africa. It was the intention of President Mbeki to invite scientists with different experiences and views to be discussed under the chairmanship of an experienced Canadian mediator.
Approximately two thirds (2/3) of the participants represented the HIV-establishment and, hence, held the conventional view that the HI-Virus was the sole cause of AIDS. About one third (1/3) of the participants held challenging views in different areas of the conventional model.
Because some panel members of the HIV-establishment insisted in closed sessions, media was not allowed to attend the discussions. However, the whole debate was video taped. The South African Government reserves the right for publication.
Since the establishment of AIDS, with the alleged HI-Virus as its suggested cause this panel presented the first open and official debate of often very conflicting views. President Mbeki’s initiative was immediately after announcements early this year subject to highly political and media pressure. An intervention by President Clinton led to the inclusion of four (4) extra US experts initially not planed.
As pointed out initially the agenda was pre-designed, not so the way to proceed. This left the chair and the participants with quite some room for shaping the panel. All panellists were asked to represent their personal views on the subject.

Initial Meeting (6th/7th May, Pretoria)

The first day of the initial meeting allowed the individual participants to state their opinions. Immediately the fundamental differences became obvious.
An early initiative, whereby the panel would reach conclusions by consensus was dropped. Most participants agreed, consensus was not seen as suitable instrument in concluding scientific discourse.
Three (3) groups were formed to discuss:
AIDS causation
prevention and
therapy
For most parts neither of those groups reached agreement. It was agreed, however, that an improvement of hygiene was crucial to the African AIDS situation. Surprisingly the group seemed to agree that the early dose of AZT/Retrovir administered initially caused fatalities in the initial treated group. Yet, resulting consequences could not be agreed upon. Concluding the different working groups was for most participants not satisfactory as it left little space to sufficiently state the different positions. Hence, no summarised written documents could be drawn.

On the 2nd day a different strategy was implied. The panel split in two groups. Based on their certain common views they phrased recommendations. In one were those representing the HIV-establishment and, hence, basing their recommendations on the propagated views on HIV/AIDS. I the other group were those criticising the prevailing dogma and, hence, the resulting consequences as seen in policies of the last fifteen (15) years.
Despite fundamental differences of opinion a sub-group of four (4) panellists from both sides was formed to bring together epidemiological data and design tests to either support or disprove the current HIV/AIDS hypothesis. Input and contributions from other panellists was welcomed.

The initial meeting was followed by an eight (8) week period of Internet discussion to discuss open questions in more detail. The South African Government hoped to get further clarification in this second step of the re-assessment. Unfortunately most postings and questions came from the panellists criticising the current interpretation of and approach in HIV/AIDS. The HIV-establishment did not do much to defend their point of view, despite the fundamental well-referenced and documented challenges. Once more they were hiding behind silence.

Follow-up Meeting (3rd/4th July, Johannesburg)

The next and last part of the panel was the meeting in Johannesburg to which IFAS and other organisations were given observer status. This meeting was shortened from initially three (3) to two (2) days.

Minister of Health Dr. Manto Tshabalal-Msimang welcomed the panellists assuring them that the "hours of honest help will not be betrayed". She considered the Internet encounters as having achieved something but was seemingly disappointed with the lack of debate and, hence, scientific clarification. There was for most parts barely a discussion at all. She repeated that the aim of the panel remains, to make recommendations to the president. She introduced the "HIV/AIDS & STD Strategic Plan for South Africa 2000 – 2005". This report was issued before the panel concluded. It is largely based on the surveillance data in question challenged by well articulate AIDS-analysts.

The chairperson reminded all panellist that whilst there is disagreement, all wanted to reduce human suffering. He invited all experts to short statements and speaking form their own personal experience. The presidential facilitator made it clear; the work of the Presidential AIDS Advisory Panel was not considered finished. Calling for ongoing support from the experts in further asserting possible coping strategies to counter the challenges posed by AIDS. The panellists introduced themselves. The panel was extended by a few extra persons including the chairman of the Durban AIDS conference.

The first of the final two days was divided into four (4) sessions. In each session there were two (2) presentations, representing the two (2) main different views, followed by discussions. The sessions were on the aetiology, prevention and treatment of AIDS and HIV testing and surveillance.

In relation to aetiology two opinions remained unchanged. The first presentation by (Drs. Carolyn Williamson/Lynn Morris) claimed HIV as the sole cause of AIDS without relevant references. Their evidence was as usual: only those who are HIV+ develop AIDS, hence, all AIDS cases are HIV+, hence, HIV causes AIDS. That this circular argument is merely a question of definition and re-classification of old known conditions was stubbornly ignored by the presenters. However, Williamson surprised the audience with the following statement "the cause is neither necessary nor sufficient" (sic). Confronted with the irrational of her statement, especially considering her previous claims about HIV, she failed to give further reasoning or reference to this unscientific statement. Later on she confessed, to have been asked to say this by a colleague. Never the less, they recommended HIV-testing and treating HIV. Why though, one wonders, if HIV is neither necessary nor sufficient to cause AIDS?

Prof. Peter Duesberg showed again that the correlation of acquired immune deficiency and death with other health-risks (drugs, malnutrition and treatments) was initially much better than with HIV. He considers HIV a harmless passenger virus and, hence, the tests useless. Stopping anti-HIV treatment whilst treating the clinical conditions, would end the suffering of many AIDS cases, he concluded.

On prevention of AIDS the line of logic of the HIV-establishment was clear, testing for and treatment of what they consider HIV.

Roberto Giraldo offered a concise presentation. He presented what most critics of the current HIV-AIDS-dogma say, several accumulating and long lasting insults on the immune system cause its collapse as seen in AIDS. Such stressors in developing countries are biological (infections), nutritional (under-nourishment), chemical (pollution, street drugs and pharmacological drugs), physical (physical pollution) and mental (poverty related anxiety and depression). He strongly recommended fighting the consequences of poverty on all levels. In relation to treatment he recommended treating the AIDS-defining illnesses conventionally. He suggested using nutritional supplements and (other) anti-oxidants to strengthen the immune system. He, furthermore, recommended the involvement of indigenous medicine to combat AIDS.

Both treatment presentations concluded the importance to treat clinical AIDS-defining illnesses conventionally with effective treatments. Joseph Sonnabend stressed the value of so called anti-HIV treatments is severely ill persons. David Rasnick used the scientific literature to demonstrate the contradicting views of the HIV-establishment regarding their own recommended treatments by pointing out the confirmed failures and dangers of not only the old (nucleoside analogues like AZT) but also the new claimed anti-HIV treatments (protease inhibitors). It is amazing to read how the HIV-establishment discredits its own remedies whilst continuously publicly endorsing them, without anybody holding them accountable. He concluded abolishing HIV-testing to solve the epidemic of unscientific AIDS labelling.

In the afternoon the long awaited presentation by the Perth Group was due. Val Turner showed in their usual humble and soft-spoken manner how the oldest and most used anti-HIV antibody tests are neither specific nor accurate and, hence, no proof of a novel retrovirus. Without the so-called "Golden Standard", which means nothing less than the purification of HIV, no body can claim its existence. Hence, all used tests for HIV are not specific. They do consider, however, the biochemical activity considered "HIV-positivity" as the sign of a stressed organism and, hence, not a sign of good health.

Helene Gayle could not but repeat the same old statistics of the CDC, which are for most parts the bases of many disputes.

The discussion to follow brought some interesting confessions to the light. On one hand some HIV-experts consider isolation of HIV irrelevant and difficult to obtain, whilst others claim they do it every day? An interesting question is - like many others left unanswered by the HIV-establishment – what are they working with in their lab? Is it really HIV (specific)? The term "isolation" - not specified in literature - clearly means very different things to different people. At least the Perth Group has a clear and logic concept based on the work of Luc Montagnier the discoverer of the AIDS virus. Oddly enough he himself did not seem to follow his own previously established logic. Clarification is certainly needed.

The consequences of poverty play a central role in AIDS. This fact was not disputed. The HIV-establishment, however, sees the only problem of poverty not having access to the "unchallenged successes" of HIV-science. They use AIDS to place more costly pharmaceutical burdens on South Africa’s shoulders. They are rather neglectful of established facts of poverty contributing to acquired immunity. The dissenting voices, on the other hand, state poverty and its many consequences as relevant in the causation of acquired immunity especially in Africa.

The last day was opened with a presentation by Dr. Wiliam Makgoba, head of the South African Medical Research Council. He showed collected epidemiological data on HIV for South Africa and made some remarkable comments. First he claimed that no AIDS diagnosis is given in his country without prior testing. This claim was proven wrong on several occasions. Either he does not know the facts, or he choose to ignore them? Either way, he presented a sad picture as the head of one of the leading medical organisations in South Africa. When asked if he could tell the panel how many AIDS, TB and Malaria cases and death are actually reported in his country he failed to do so. His colleague Salim Abdool Karim, simply stated: " I don’t know." Again, sad confessions of people who want to be taken seriously on their claims that South Africa is facing an AIDS epidemic and is dying of AIDS. Makgoba also failed to comment on the accuracy of the mentioned HIV-tests and the clinical definition of AIDS in South Africa.

This presentation was followed by feedback of the sub-group to establish experiments. Those interested in shaping such recommendations to the president met in a working group. Other working groups for the first half of the last day were on co-factors and treatment of AIDS.

The treatment group was full of the usual recommendations one can read in any AIDS-panphlet. Fortunately the chairman of that group was made aware of the superficial nature of this group. The only critical voice was conveniently ignored. The recommendations of Dr. Claus Köhnlein, a physician who is successfully treating AIDS-patients who are still are alive after several years were initially not even noted.

The group on co-factors could finally agree that the concept of co-factors does not do justice to the opinions who do not accept HIV as the cause of AIDS. "Co-factors" became "contributing factors". They have been previously mentioned.

The group on experiments agreed that these experiments would consist of ELISA tests, PCR and finally the isolation (purification) of HIV. Both sides (including the CDC!) in that group agreed on these experiments.

After summaries of recommendations by the initial presenters, this part of the Presidential Advisory AIDS Panel was closed. Unfortunately the observers were not given an opportunity to speak. Their feedback surely would have been interesting. The Minister of Health thanked all the panellists and hoped for their continuous support to combat acquired immune deficiency in South Africa.

Final Remarks

Having been able to witness this revelatory panel, especially the subgroup on treatments, I sadly disagree with Prof. Stephen Owen, the main chairperson of that panel. I left with the impression that many members representing the HIV-establishment are not interested in helping affected people. For if they were, they would not censor a man’s wisdom in keeping AIDS patients alive and well. When all they are going on about is how HIV kills their patients. Maybe it is not HIV after all. Maybe it is the same old diseases, effects of poverty and drugs and, where administered, HIV-medication? Maybe the secret of Claus Köhnlein is: conventional treatment combined with fighting the effects of poverty and drug-abuse. Surely no message the pharmaceutical industry and their sponsored researchers want to hear. After all, their shelves are filled with newly invented and patented experimental, toxic drugs waiting for a market.

I agree with Winston Zulu, the only personally affected panellist, AIDS is like a church, either you believe in HIV or you are out. The recently issued Durban Declaration by the HIV-establishment and its supporters (signatories do not need to understand the science, according to the authors) is a sad confession of just that. Already the first and most fundamental claim "Seventeen years after the discovery of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), ....." is left unreferenced. I cannot help but reading this unscientific campaigning letter as their plea to: "Please, let HIV be the cause of AIDS! Please, please trust and believe us and, please, stop asking for scientific evidences to back up our claims!". This attitude has not solved the AIDS-problem, not saved one life! It is time for a re-appraisal by new people.

We hope President Mbeki will carry out the simple agreed experiments put forward by the Perth Group and others. Maybe more fruitful studies will be submitted? IFAS will remain committed for the Minister of Health has promised that our efforts will "not be betrayed".

These most interesting days have demonstrated, that simple arguments will not solve the controversies surrounding HIV and AIDS as long as participants are not hold responsible for their claims.

Much has happened since the HIV-AIDS-dogma was inaugurated almost twenty (20) years ago. Some of us would agree time, money and most sadly human lives have been wasted! HIV, the alleged virus suggested to cause AIDS, helped to fund too many careers. Too many inappropriate interests still push from the dark. Many more meetings like this will have to happen to fully understand the problems of AIDS. Blessed be President Thabo Mbeki for taking the first step! He could have remind ignorant like so many other statesmen equally well documented by the endless efforts of the many AIDS-analysts. He has chosen not to, and that makes him a TRUE LEADER!

Report by Michael Baumgartner, Secretary General IFAS, Thanks to Christian Fiala.

( mub/ifas, bern, s’land, july 2000

International Forum for Accessible Science
IFAS

P.O. Box 486, 3000 Bern 22, Switzerland, phone +41 31 332 3531, fax: +41 31 348 1636

TORONTO

tel/fax:(416) 406-HEAL

Webmaster: Robert Johnston
jaunts@mailcity.com