DR ALAN CANTWELL

PART II

Heyoka Magazine: In your book, AIDS, THE MYSTERY AND THE SOLUTION. 1986, you mention a few of the first gay AIDS cases that had a history of other sexually transmitted diseases like syphilis, gonorrhea, herpes, also bouts of intestinal parasites. Do you think it's possible that as a result of these people taking massive doses of antibiotics to fight off these venereal diseases and through their overuse, misuse, these bacteria that were once susceptible to certain antibiotics became resistant to those antibiotics and suppressed their immune systems which resulted in AIDS?

AC. Let me make clear what I believe. It is HIV, and HIV alone that starts the type of severe immunodepression that is characteristic of AIDS. In "accepted" medical science, HIV is the sole agent of AIDS. If a patient is HIV-negative, this person will NOT be considered to have AIDS. Naturally, various infectious diseases can depress the immune system but NOT to the extent that HIV can. Syphilis and gonorrhea are bacterial infections that are responsive to antibiotic therapy. However, over the decades both infections (with or without HIV) have become increasingly resistant to antibiotics. Many gay men who died of AIDS in the early years did NOT have a history of syphilis or gonorrhea or other infections that you mentioned.
 

HM: What are your thoughts on AIDS dissidents that believe that AIDS in Africa and other poverty stricken countries is the result of poor hygiene, malnutrition, the environment and that AIDS is a result of diseases that are endemic to the regions like leprosy, tuberculosis etc.

AC:  I am a firm believer in HIV as the agent that induces AIDS. Again I reiterate that you cannot have AIDS without confirmative HIV-positive blood tests. In sub-Saharan Africa there are tuberculosis (TB) cases. Some of the patients are HIV-negative, thus they do NOT have AIDS. TB patients who are HIV-positive have TB infection  and HIV infection.  

© Copyright 2006 Neesha Mirchandani

 

HM: Dr Peter Duesberg and others believe that AIDS-related Kaposi's sarcoma is caused by nitrite inhalants, known as "poppers.". That cocaine and the long-term use of amphetamines cause weight loss, immunodeficiency, dementia and other AIDS-defining diseases  What are your thoughts on this?

AC: I disagree with Duesberg and the "dissidents" as do the vast majority of physicians. Duesberg's group believe HIV is harmless, that HIV tests are meaningless, that HIV is not a sexually-transmitted disease, that drugs are the cause. I don't believe any of this.
 

 

HM: Is there any relation between the mycobacteria  you speak of in your book and mycoplasmas such as (bacterium Mycoplasma fermentans) being the possible cause of AIDS?

AC: Before AIDS began, I was studying the "classic" and rare type of Kaposi's sarcoma . KS became well-known later as the "gay cancer" of AIDS. I found bacteria in the tissue and in culture of these tumors that were closely-related to tuberculosis-type bacteria. The type of "pleomorphic" bacteria I discovered in KS tissue was similar, if not identical, to bacteria that I and other researchers had reported in various forms of cancer over the past century. "Cancer bacteria" were found to have a virus-like and a mycoplasma-like phase as long ago as 1950. (See the research of Virginia Livingston MD). Thus these bacteria are consistent with mycoplasma  and/or "cell-wall deficient bacteria" that have been reported in AIDS.

I was able to detect these "cancer microbes" in AIDS-associated cancerous and diseased tissue by using a tissue stain that has been traditionally used for a century to detect TB bacteria. The bacteriology of cancer has always been a taboo subject in orthodox medical science. I have presented evidence for these cancer bacteria in medical journals dating back to the 1970s, and I have also written about these bacteria  in cancer and AIDS in three books, namely: AIDS; THE MYSTERY AND THE SOLUTION (1986), THE CANCER MICROBE (1990), and FOUR WOMEN AGAINST CANCER (2005). None of  this research has been disproven by other scientists. It has simply been ignored.

Four Women Against Cancer

 

HM: How many people, who were part of the experimental Hepatitis B vaccine program in NY and San Francisco, came down with full blown AIDS beginning  in 1981?  Do you know how many were treated with cancer drugs such as AZT or similar drugs?

AC: In the beginning gay men with so-called "gay-related immune deficiency syndrome" died quickly like flies. There simply was no effective treatment. In desperation physicians brought out anti-cancer drugs like AZT in an attempt to ward off the inevitable. AZT was an awful and not effective drug and probably helped to kill some patients off more quickly. However, this all changed in the mid-1990s with the so-called "retrovirals." This multi-drug "cocktail" regimen has proved effective in keeping  many HIV-positive people alive since that time.

 

 

HM: Do you also know what the statistics are of the people who were given the vaccine and how many came down with AIDS and died?

AC: First of all, my research indicates HIV came out of the extensive animal cancer virus experiments and transfer of cancer-causing viruses as part of the largely secret and forgotten Special Cancer Virus Program. The Army's biological warfare unit at Ft. Detrick, Maryland, was heavily involved in this Program, where transfer of dangerous cancer viruses were transferred between various animal species, particularly primates, from whence HIV is thought to be derived.  

HIV was developed as a biological warfare agent that was initially tested in American gay men and African blacks. HIV was "introduced" into the gay male population in the late 1970s via the government-sponsored  experimental hepatitis B vaccine trials that began in Manhattan, New York City in 1979.  The evidence for the man-made theory of AIDS is contained in my books: AIDS & THE DOCTORS OF DEATH (1988) and QUEER BLOOD (1993).

It is obvious from follow-up reports in the scientific literature concerning the fate of the gay men in the hepatitis vaccine experiment that most men became infected with HIV. The exact number of men in the experiment who died of AIDS has never been disclosed, citing "confidentiality" as the reason. I know of only two men now living, who claim to have been part of the original experiment. One is HIV-positive; the other negative.

HM: In a recent article your wrote you mention how in 1990 Luc Montegnier suggests in a New York times interview that mycoplasma is a co factor in AIDS. That AIDS is not just caused by a virus alone but by a microbe and a virus working together. Do you know what kind of mycoplasma, or microbe he was referring to at the time and do you know if he still believes in this theory?

AC: A virus like HIV is too small to be seen microscopically. However, the "acid-fast" bacteria I have reported in AIDS-damaged tissue can be easily visualized microscopically in an ordinary "light microscope." Again, I reiterate, my reports of this in the medical literature have been totally ignored by the so-called "AIDS experts." Obviously, this work is "politically incorrect"  because it presents a challenge to the dogma that HIV is "the sole cause of AIDS." Also finding "cancer microbes" in AIDS is a further indication that AIDS is a disease closely related to cancer, and further evidence that HIV came out of cancer research in which scientists passed around unrecognized cancer-causing bacteria between species.

It is exceeding important to recognize that so-called "cancer bacteria" have smaller-sized elements that are virus-like and mycoplasma-like. Luc  Montagnier, who first isolated HIV at Pasteur in Paris, believes that small forms of mycoplasma are indeed necessary for HIV infection to progress to full-blown AIDS. He was criticized for this by various AIDS experts. His work with Mycoplasma penetrans has been mainly ignored, although he and his colleagues still persist in this line of research. To my knowledge, he has never recognized any of my research implicating mycoplasma-like bacteria in AIDS and KS.  Montagnier also has never presented photographs of mycoplasma in AIDS tissue, even though larger forms of this type of bacteria should be able to be identified microscopically. The mycoplasma associated
with AIDS have been identified by immunological and biochemical testing, but never by demonstrating them in the tissue. In contrast, I have always presented photographs showing the appearing of these acid-fast pleomorphic bacteria in AIDS-damaged tissue, in which they appear as tiny, round, coccoid forms of various sizes.

A recent paper of mine entitled "Do TB-like bacteria cause AIDS" is available on the Net. I theorize that HIV may, in actuality, be a tiny virus-like form of a bacterium. Photographs of the AIDS microbe are also included in the paper.

 

HM: Roberto A. Giraldo, MD and others have said the primary tests for the diagnosis of HIV infection are two antibody tests, the ELISA and Western blot, and a genetic test, the PCR or "Viral Load" test. However, the ELISA and Western blot tests only detect antibodies against what are erroneously accepted to be HIV proteins or antigens. Similarly, the PCR or Viral Load test for HIV only detects copies of fragments of RNA that have arbitrarily been regarded as the nucleicacid of HIV. None of these tests detect the HIV virus itself, nor do they detect HIV particles.

AC: I am not an immunologist nor a virologist so  I cannot answer your questions with authority. I can say that the various confirmative HIV blood tests are highly accurate. One can quibble about the precise significance about actually what is being tested, but I can assure you that a well-confirmed positive HIV test is often bad news for eventual depression of the immune system. A depressed immune system can also be evaluated by tests such as the "T cell count" and others.

HM: How seriously do you think someone should take these tests since they only detect antibodies and not the virus itself?

AC: I would take a positive HIV test very seriously for myself. I recently took an HIV test and fortunately I was negative. However,about 15 years I stuck myself with a needle that I had just injected into a lesion of KS from a gay man dying of AIDS. I decided NOT to get tested afterwards. Obviously, I did not become infected. Some AIDS "dissidents" might say that was because HIV is a harmless virus. Other health providers have not been so lucky and have become HIV-positive after a needle stick.

HM: The AIDS dissidents like Peter Duesberg and others claim that HTLV 3 - HIV 1 virus was never been properly isolated by Robert Gallo or Luc Montagnier.  The National Institutes of Health enquiry found that the HUT cell line was cultured with concentrated fluids pooled initially from individual cultures of three patients and ultimately from the individual cultures of ten patients. (Maddox, 1992).  One scientist described the procedure as "really crazy." In essence, it is no different from investigating an outbreak of pneumonia by having all patients spit in separate pots and, when nothing turns up, getting them all to spit in the same pot.
 

Peter Duesberg

 

I also read that antibodies to the germs that cause the diseases present in 90% of AIDS patients also react with the so called HIV proteins. (Muller et al., 1991; Kashala et al., 1994)  Doesn't that mean that antibodies to bacteria that cause TB, Leprosy are being mistaken as being antibodies to this so called HIV?

AC: I could never understand why Duesberg and his group deny HIV because it has never been cultured satisfactorily. Some viruses are notoriously difficult to culture or to even recognize when they contaminate vaccines. Recall that half the U.S. population was injected and infected with a monkey virus (SV-40) that contaminated the polio vaccines of the 1950s. At the time, the vaccine makers didn't have a clue that the vaccines were contaminated with this cancer-causing virus!  (This is also another reason not to discount HIV-contaminated vaccines as the method of "introduction" of HIV into gays and blacks.

Although, in general,  bacteria are easier to culture than viruses, Duesberg should know that the bacteria that cause syphilis and leprosy have never been cultured to the satisfaction of the medical community. Yet, bacteria are universally accepted as the cause of these diseases.

I agree with the dissidents when they question the authenticity of a cell culture of HIV based on mixing blood from various AIDS patients and then seeding this pooled blood into a cell culture consisting of CANCEROUS white blood cells in order to "manufacture" enough HIV to develop and HIV test. Yes, that was atrocious but it proved successful. Although the HIV test, like all lab tests, is not perfect, it is/was essential in stemming the tide of the epidemic. Can you imagine if we had NO test to detect HIV infection? For a truly shocking expose of the lab birth of HIV, you must read Pulitzer Prizewinner John Crewdsen's SCIENCE FICTIONS: A SCIENTIFIC MYSTERY, A MASSIVE COVER-UP, AND THE DAK LEGACY OF ROBERT GALLO.

HM: Why do 30% of individuals transfused with HIV negative blood develop antibodies to the same p24 protein nearly every HIV researcher uses to "isolate" HIV? (Genesca et al., 1989)

How come healthy, non-HIV-infected mice injected with blood from similar mice, or mice injected with extracts of a common human bowel bacterium, develop some of the same antibodies?

That 50 percent of dogs have developed HIV antibodies?

Why does transfusion of one's own, irradiated blood produce the same antibodies? (Kozhemiakin & Bondarenko, 1992)

AC: Again, these are questions for immunologists. However, the implications between HIV "cross-reactivity" to other bacteria could lend some support to my suspicion that HIV might actually be a very tiny virus-like form related to cancer-causing and TB-like bacteria.

HM: Do you think its possible that an HIV retrovirus does not even exist. That what Gallo found are particles of reverse transcriptase. Since reverse transcription is not only a property of retroviruses.  That normal cells also contain enzymes which reverse transcribe RNA and so does hepatitis B virus, a virus that infects T-cells as well as liver cells and is present in a considerable number of AIDS patients?

 

AC: I repeat. Whatever HIV "is" (and people can still debate this) it indeed "exists." It is "new." It never existed in mankind until it was "introduced" in the late 1970s. A lot of AIDS "science" is impenetrable to most people. In my view, this is because a lot of AIDS education is baloney. AIDS educators will never hint at the truth about AIDS: That HIV in America did NOT come from Africa; nor did it come from monkeys in the jungle. AIDS began, not in Africa, but in the U.S. There was NO African epidemic until 1982 at the earliest (read Montagnier's book VIRUS). Furthermore, AIDS is a covert world depopulaton program, and that is the reason the "origin of HIV" and the "science"  surrounding  HIV is so politically-charged and so illogical.

HM: What I don't understand is why they determined that this HTLV 3 was the so called cause of AIDS in the first place. If other viruses and bacteria were also in the blood, why was this Leukemia virus considered the cause?

AC: In my view, the scientists knew that HIV was seeded into gays. After all, this was the kind of virus the Special Virus Cancer Program wanted to produce in order to MAKE cancer and to DEPRESS/DESTROY the immune system!! This is clear from the annual reports of the Program, which  I have read.  I write about this extensively in my two books on man-made AIDS. One can also Google: Special Cancer Virus Program.

The scientists wanted the disease to spread, and they wanted to blame gays (and later blacks). That is why the U.S.  government was so unconcerned initially about the mass gay deaths. Read Randy Shilts's book AND THE BAND PLAYED ON for proof of this. The scientists did  NOT seriously look for other viruses because they knew HIV was the main one they had developed and seeded.
 

 

AIDS "science" only makes sense when you begin to realize "they" wanted the disease to happen and they still do. And AIDS is just ONE of other "emerging diseases" and "emerging viruses" designed for world population control.  Of course, most people refuse to even consider these ideas. That is why genocide programs are so effective.

HM: Why do you think that other scientists have not looked into the bacterial causes of AIDS?

AC: Great question and I wish I could answer it simply. Cancer is big business as everybody knows. Doctors and drug companies make a lot of money off cancer, even though they know little about the disease. Chemo, radiation, surgery. This is many doctors' livelihood. If it were learned that cancer is basically an infection with a germ you could easily see in cancer, how would that affect the paradigm? I believe AIDS was man-made and now it is big business -- and lots of people are making money from it. Yes, a lot of people die. But how many people REALLY care about THAT?  A lot of people are making money off the unjust Iraqi war. A lot of soldiers have been killed and maimed. How many people REALLY care about THAT??

HM: Do you think its possible that the Hep B and African smallpox vaccines you speak of as being possibly the origin of AIDS were not contaminated with a bovine sheep visna virus but with a mycobacteria?

AC: I can't speak for Africa because I've never been there. However, on May 11, 1987, the London Times ran a headline story incriminating the World Health Organization, entitled "Smallpox vaccine triggered AIDS virus." Robert Gallo was quoted as saying: "The link between the WHO program and the epidemic is an interesting and important hypothesis. I have been saying for some years that the use of live vaccines such as that used for smallpox cam activate a dormant infections such as HIV/"

 

Virginia Livingston

HM: Do you know if anyone has tried making vaccines for treating AIDS patents with Kaposi's sarcoma, made from their own bacteria, such as the vaccines Virginia Livingston made for people with cancer?

AC: In order to make an AIDS vaccine against bacteria, such as the kind I found in KS, scientists would first have to recognize that these bacteria exist in the KS tumor. At present, cancer-type bacteria are not recognized in AIDS, or in cancer.

I realize, at present, that I basically stand alone in my belief that bacteria cause cancer and AIDS (the icons in this research are all now dead), but one must remember that doctors stopped looking for bacteria in cancer a century ago. They have never looked back. This, of course, is tragic and bad science, and one need only to recall the same thing happened regarding bacteria as the cause of most stomach ulcers. The bacteria were always there, but scientists refused to look for them or to consider them as pathogens for a century. The reason was that doctors believed that bacteria could not live in the acid environment of the stomach. Unfortunately, a lot of people died as a result of this foolish and erroneous belief.

 

HM: You mention Royal Raymond Rife in your book. Did Virginia Livingston ever mention meeting with Royal Raymond Rife and what your thoughts on what happened to this brilliant man?

AC: Virginia Livingston was a dear friend and mentor and taught me most of what I learned about bacteria in cancer, and this research quickly segued into my AIDS research. She and Rife both lived in the San Diego area. I believe she knew him. Rife was not a medical doctor, but he apparently had a fantastic microscope he designed whose magnification allowed him to see bacteria in cancer and other diseases and their transformation from one kind of microbe into another. He devised a treatment for tumors based on sound waves and frequencies.
He was perceived as a threat (why am I not surprised?) by the AMA. His microscopes have been lost, and his work still steeped in controversy. He died a broken man and an alcoholic. You can learn more by Googling him and by reading Barry Lynes' book THE CANCER CURE THAT WORKED; 50 YEARS OF SUPPRESSION.

HM: Do you know if Virginia Livingston ever met with Wilhelm Reich? Did he work on his research before hers?

AC: Livingston must have heard about Reich. He was a famous, many would say infamous, psychiatrist and cancer researcher. His book THE CANCER BIOPATHY  is a must read for anyone interested in the bacterial cause of cancer. But they never met, and neither seemed aware that they had mutual interests regarding bacteria in cancer. I think I am the first to bring them together in the pages of THE CANCER MICROBE. I think both physicians will eventually become scientific giants of the twentieth century, although at present they are still regarded by many as "quacks." I suppose I am mostly regarded that way also.

But, at age 73,  I am acutely aware of how much I don't know and how little I do know. I don't have tremendous faith in doctors. Most are closed-minded and follow the herd. If you read the history of medicine you realize doctors have believed the silliest things. It's undoubtedly still true. I also trust what I see.

Since my earliest days as a dermatologist in the 1960s, I have been showing my colleagues unique "acid-fast bacteria" in disease like scleroderma, lupus, sarcoid, and various kinds of cancer. Although I was ecstatic to make these discoveries and to confirm the work of other scientists that preceded me, I never did succeed  in convincing any physician that these observations were tremendously important. No matter. Medical history teaches us that physicians are extremely slow to accept revolutionary ideas. After all, it was only little more that a century ago  that doctors finally accepted the fact that bacteria could actually cause disease. Before that, doctors could never conceive of the idea that those tiny microscopic buggers could kill a grown man!!

Part 1 Alan Cantwell MD