HIV/AIDS Skepticism

Pointing to evidence that HIV is not the necessary and sufficient cause of AIDS


Posted by Henry Bauer on 2008/08/12

Peter Duesberg has adduced much evidence supporting the claim that abuse of recreational drugs can cause “AIDS”. Gordon Stewart noted “AIDS”-like symptoms in drug abusers before the AIDS era (p. 103f. in Hodgkinson, “AIDS; The Failure of Contemporary Science” ). A recent publication confirms that crack cocaine can cause AIDS:

“Persistent crack users were over three times as likely as non-users to die from AIDS-related causes, controlling for use of HAART self-reported at 95% or higher adherence, problem drinking, age, race, income, education, illness duration, study site, and baseline virologic and immunologic indicators. Persistent crack users and intermittent users in active and abstinent phases showed greater CD4 cell loss and higher HIV-1 RNA levels controlling for the same covariates. Persistent and intermittent crack users were more likely than non-users to develop new AIDS-defining illnesses controlling for identical confounds. These results persisted when controlling for heroin use, tobacco smoking, depressive symptoms, hepatitis C virus coinfection, and injection drug use. CONCLUSION: Use of crack cocaine independently predicts AIDS-related mortality, immunologic and virologic markers of HIV-1 disease progression, and development of AIDS-defining illnesses among women” (Cook et al., “Crack cocaine, disease progression, and mortality in a multicenter cohort of HIV-1 positive women”, AIDS 22 [2008] 1355-63 ).

Of course the authors of this study don’t admit that it is the cocaine that causes the “HIV-1 disease progression” and “AIDS-related mortality”; they interpret the results as signifying that crack cocaine somehow enhances the evil effects of HIV.

Cook et al. controlled, commendably, for many conceivably confounding variables: heroin use, tobacco smoking, depressive symptoms, hepatitis C virus co-infection, injection drug use (crack cocaine is smoked, not injected). But they failed to control for the single most centrally relevant variable: “HIV-positive”. What would have been the findings had the comparison been between crack users who are HIV-negative and others who are “HIV-positive”?

But, of course, such controls might be very difficult to find, especially with comparable levels of drug intake, because drug abusers test “HIV-positive” as frequently as do TB patients and fast-lane gay men:

Whatever it is that stimulates an “HIV-positive” response–or rather, whatever “they” are, whatever range of molecular species it is that can produce an “HIV-positive” response–, evidently most or all “recreational” drugs are capable of doing so, as well as of causing illnesses that could be called “AIDS”.

Everything in this article by Cook et al., and in other literature cited there, is readily explained on the basis that crack cocaine and other drugs produce an “HIV-positive” response, ill health in general, and specific damage to the immune system. Cocaine has been shown to cause “immune alterations”, “decreasing operation of important immune responses”. It causes “membrane permeability” permitting passage across the “blood-brain barrier”—recall Tony Lance’s report (gay-related-intestinal-dysbiosis.pdf) that “leaky gut syndrome” seems able to produce an “HIV-positive” response as well as illness [WHAT REALLY CAUSED AIDS: SLICING THROUGH THE GORDIAN KNOT, 20 February 2008]. Cocaine has been shown to interfere specifically with the Th1-Th2 balance that seems involved in “HIV-positive” and in AIDS [Culshaw, Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons 11 (#4, Winter 2006) 101-5; Sacher, AIDS AS INTESTINAL DYSBIOSIS, 23 February 2008, and ALTERNATIVE TREATMENTS FOR AIDS, 25 February 2008]. One cited study had already reported crack use as stimulating progression to AIDS. Another study had found “the risk of AIDS-related opportunistic conditions was greater for persistent users  and intermittent  users  during periods of active use, with no difference during periods of abstinence” [emphasis added], consistent with reports that HIV-positive drug abusers revert to HIV-negative when they abstain (Moss et al., AIDS 8 (1994) 223–31). The cited finding that “hard drug use (i.e., cocaine, heroin, methadone, or injection drugs) was significantly associated with AIDS-defining illnesses, but not with change in CD4 cell count, HIV- RNA, or mortality” is consistent with the finding that CD4 counts, viral load, and clinical progression are not directly correlated (Rodriguez et al., JAMA 296 [2006] 1498-1506). The cited fact from another study that “cocaine in combination with alcohol places individuals at increased risk of infection with a number of pathogens, due to additive or synergistic effects resulting in impaired immune function” will seem surprising only to people unaware that alcohol and cocaine are both bad for health.

Despite all the previous work referred to, despite the sheer common-sense knowledge that drugs are bad for you [COCAINE AND HEROIN AREN’T GOOD FOR YOU! — a Golden Fleece Award, 13 June 2008], the authors congratulate themselves on the ground-breaking nature of their work: “Ours is the first study to show that use of crack cocaine in a  large,  national  cohort  of  HIV-positive  women  is longitudinally associated with subsequent deterioration in immune status, failure of virologic suppression, development of AIDS-defining conditions, and mortality due to AIDS-related causes, even among those who reported adhering to HAART regimens 95% of the time or more”.

Ample grounds for seeking research grants to take this knowledge even further.


  1. This certainly supports my eyewitness accounts of back in 1987 when several friends and acquaintances consciously or subconsciously decided that an HIV positive diagnosis surely meant death in 2 to 5 years, which led them onto severe crack and cocaine binges up until they were finally put on AZT monotherapy. Sad to say what the results were. Now they’re all part of the statistics. Can I say self-fulfilling prophecy?

  2. heja said


    For some time now I have had an impression that scientists in other fields of research decided to milk the HIV/AIDS cow by studying HIV/AIDS unrelated phenomena in ‘positive’ individuals. This proceeds along the lines of “we were studying the effects of car accidents among seropositive patients and found that car accidents increase health risks”. Your example of negative effects of cocaine use is similar in the sense that you can could study cocaine addiction in diabetics and find very similar results. (Of course your point about the special relation between drug use and seropositivity is well taken.)

    Recently, for example, I read about the research projects at one newly established medical school in the UK. Even though HIV/AIDS was in every second sentence of the description of the research projects, not a single project was to address the actual issue of immunodeficiency…

    For example, one project (…) focused “on the epidemiology of musculoskeletal disease, covering
    rheumatic disease among HIV and hepatitis C patients and aspects of corticosteroid-induced osteoporosis”

    (Note that rheumatism and hepatitis may themselves trigger positive results on the flawed ‘HIV tests’, about osteoporosis I am not sure.)

    Another team from the same medical school got a 5 million Euros grant from the EC “to develop a simple diagnostic test for detecting active tuberculosis, focusing on HIV-infected children and adults in underdeveloped countries.”

    It was added that “This should help reduce transmission and infection among these most vulnerable populations.”

    It is even hard to understand the transmission of which purported pathogen would this help reduce…and why only in “under-developed countries”?

    So I am afraid the corruptive power (not only in financial but also in ideological and ‘good intentions’ sense) of the flawed HIV/AIDS hypothesis has already been expanding broader circles of the research world, governments and financial world.

    Keep up the good and independent work!

    PS. When doing a spell-check on this message I discovered with a relief that ‘seropositive’ has not yet made it to the standard Microsoft Word dictionary 🙂

  3. Henry Bauer said


    Yes, indeed. And I thought of what I said a few posts ago:

    “7. The frightful burdens of guilt and remorse that will be the lot of “AIDS activists” and AIDS organizations and HIV/AIDS researchers when finally they have to cope with the realization that they have horribly hurt innumerable people. That the mainstreamers and their groupies have done harm unwittingly, unknowingly, sometimes only indirectly, will be no source of comfort to them.”
    —-The CASES AGAINST HIV: Strategies for Halting the Bandwagon, 29 July 2008

  4. Henry Bauer said


    Yes, indeed. The career-requirement that academics get research grants is now routine in Britain as well as the USA, so every device is employed to claim relevance wherever there’s money available. And for anything to do with HIV/AIDS, there’s plenty of money. So “researchers” study whether food is good for starving people taking antiretroviral drugs [DRUGS OR FOOD?, 25 December 2007; FOOD IS GOOD FOR CHILDREN, 8 January 2008 and whether you have to treat worm infestation in order to make antiretroviral treament really effective [ARE INTESTINAL WORMS GOOD FOR US? ARE THEY GOOD FOR AFRICANS? FOR AFRICAN CHILDREN?, 30 December 2007]

  5. James Foye said

    These stories seem to be coming out on a daily basis now:

    “AIDS Infection Risk Higher in Abused Indian Women, Study Says”

  6. Dave said

    Does one really need a PhD in epidemiology or toxicology to ask a few simple questions?

    1. Does the use of crack cocaine impair a person’s immune system in general?

    2. Does the use of crack cocaine reduce CD4 cells, in particular?

    3. Does the use of crack cocaine cause (directly or indirectly) any opportunistic infections such as pneumonia, dementia, tuberculosis, etc., etc.?

  7. Henry Bauer said


    Yes, indeed. This business of abused women and HIV deserves further discussion, I plan to get to it at some time in the future

  8. Henry Bauer said


    P.S. You asked about osteoporosis. McDonald reminded me of earlier posts about HIV+ and bone fracture. TALKING OF HIV’S MAGICAL POWERS…, 29 DECEMBER 2007’s-magical-powers…/
    noted that HIV+ women have been found to break bones more often; and
    reported that antiretroviral drugs do the same thing!

  9. Macdonald said

    Prof. Bauer mentions the absurd-sounding claim by Cook et al. to be the first to demonstrate that drug use is,

    “longitudinally associated with subsequent deterioration in immune status, failure of virologic suppression, development of AIDS-defining conditions, and mortality due to AIDS-related causes, even among those who reported adhering to HAART regimens 95% of the time or more”.

    It cannot be emphasized enough that this IS groundbreaking! Among other things, it reveals the political nature of HIV/AIDS science, since never before have researchers dared conclude that drug use is a direct causal factor in developing AIDS.

    A quick look at the history of the few studies that have been done on the causal relationship between ,drug use and a positive HIV test and/or progression to AIDS shows that in the ’80s and early ’90s, when the Establishment still felt the threat from Peter Duesberg, drug abuse remarkably carried with it no risk. None whatsoever. In the words of the “AIDStruth team”:

    “M. S. Ascher and his team examined the drug use data of several research cohorts and found no correlation between drug use and AIDS”.

    Kaslow et al. put it just as strongly, denying a causal role for all psychoactive drugs:

    “Kaslow RA, Blackwelder WC, Ostrow DG, Yerg D, et al. No evidence for a role of alcohol or other psychoactive drugs in accelerating immunodeficiency
    in HIV-1-positive individuals. A report from the Multicenter AIDS Cohort Study. JAMA 1989;261(23):3424-9.”

    Based on a handful of similar studies NIAID closes the case:

    “Observational studies of HIV-infected individuals have found that drug use does not accelerate progression to AIDS”.

    In their eagerness to single out HIV as the only culprit, the AIDS Establishment have repeatedly exonerated drugs of any kind, including non-psychoactive drugs, such as AZT. The only role allowed for recreational drugs was that they “disinhibit” the users and make them more likely to practice risky behaviour.

    This narrative is very much prevalent even today, but reality cannot be denied forever. With all the new post ’93 HIV-drugs coming out, and supposedly causing the much-hyped increase in HIV+ life-expectancy, it has slowly become obvious even to HIV scientists that drug users don’t do as well as those leading a healthy lifestyle. Hence a second narrative arose: Drugs disinhibit you AND they make you skip the AIDS meds.

    There is of course very little hard evidence of this. The narrative has chiefly been established because it has been seen as obligatory—by the authors of the snowballing numbers of studies showing various correlations between drug use and progression to AIDS—to express their bafflement at this great scientific mystery, and to offer poor drug-adherence as the most likely explanation.

    The narrative has been duly picked up by the various AIDStruth surrogates. Here is for instance science blogger and “anti-denialist” Orac offering us his insights about a brand new study, which shows that life expectancy for an HIV+ is an average of ten years shorter if s/he is also an IV drug user:

    “Being an IV drug abuser is good for the loss of around 10 years. It’s unclear exactly why, although it’s been speculated that the difference between IV drug abusers and those who do not abuse IV drugs may be due to poorer compliance with therapy in the former group.”

    In light of this, I think it is readily apparent that Cook et al. with their unequivocally stated conclusions have broken one of the great taboos in HIV science. Odds are the team is not going to find this newsworthy, but fact is that the significance of Cook et al. can hardly be overestimated. Their study is revolutionary, not only because the authors dare question the unquestioned, but also because they definitively show that the early studies used to discredit Duesberg were highly flawed if not outright fraudulent.

    Ascher et al. and Kaslow et al. showed no—zero, zippo, zilch, nada—correlation between drug use and progression to AIDS. That has already been found to be an untenable claim, which is why the “drug users have poor treatment compliance” narrative was invoked. But Cook et al. show a direct causal relationship — and a strong one at that — between Crack use and the various molecular markers as well as clinical endpoints.

    This is devastating to the credibility of all earlier HIV research, as well as most of the newer. It is impossible that an unbiased research approach would take almost 30 years to detect stuff like, “Persistent crack users were over three times as likely as non-users to die from AIDS-related causes…”

    It is noteworthy that some new studies using old data still come up with the old conclusions as well. For instance, Chao et al. (2008 ) examined the effect of drug use in both HIV+ and HIV- subjects:

    “we used clinical and laboratory data collected semiannually before 1996 to avoid potential effects of
    antiretroviral treatment (. . .) We found no clinically meaningful associations between use of marijuana,
    cocaine, poppers, or amphetamines and CD4 and CD8 T cell counts, percentages, or rates of change in either HIV-uninfected or -infected men.”

    In the light of Cook et al., it seems that a case can be made for questioning the reliability of all such pre-ARV data, and by extension all studies relying on them.

    Click to access Chao2008.pdf

  10. heja said


    That various drugs (HIV drugs being one but not the only type) can cause osteoporosis or other abnormalities in bone structure, I have no doubt.

    The question I had in mind is whether having osteoporosis puts someone at a higher risk of getting a positive result on the damn test. I guess the answer is “yes”, since osteoporosis is likely related to nutritional or absorptional abnormalities. I heard a story that the lack of stomach acid can cause both osteoporosis, severe malnutrition and, as a consequence, fungal infections, for example.

  11. Here’s some relevant links to papers and internal documents which, due to passage of time, some people may not be aware of. A lot of these studies come from Duesberg’s 1992 Pharmacology and Therapeutics paper, and the documents are from Serge Lang’s HIV/AIDS archive:

    “The mental development and psychomotor indices of 8 HIV-infected and 6 uninfected infants were observed from 6–21 months of age. The mothers of each group were HIV-positive and had used intravenous drugs and alcohol during pregnancy (Koch, 1990; Koch et al., 1990; T. Koch, R. Jeremy, E. Lewis, P. Weintrub, C. Rumsey and M. Cowan, unpublished data)…. The degree of neurological retardation of the infants correlated directly with maternal drug consumption: 80% of the mothers of infected infants were “heavy” and 10% occasional parenteral cocaine users and 33% were “heavy” and 33% occasional alcohol users during pregnancy; 45% of the mothers of uninfected infants were “heavy” and 30% occasional parenteral cocaine users and 35% were “heavy” and 30% occasional alcohol users; and 21% of the HIV-free mothers were “heavy” and 58% occasional parenteral cocaine users and 12% were “heavy” and 44% occasional alcohol users. In addition 66% of the HIV-positive and 63% of the negative mothers reported the use of opiates during pregnancy (T. Koch, R. Jeremy, E. Lewis, P. Weintrub, C. Rumsey and M. Cowan, unpublished data).”

    “Even with the current increase in the abuse of cocaine in the older population, the rise does not match the epidemic increases noted in the late 1970’s. However, sharp increases have been noted in treatment admissions, emergency room cases, and mortality associated with cocaine abuse. Between 1981 and 1985, the number of DAWN non-fatal emergencies associated with cocaine increased 3-fold from 3296 to 9946, and cocaine related deaths showed a similar 3-fold increase from 195 to 580. Recent reports of heart attacks in relatively healthy individuals have been attributed to the abuse of cocaine and have heightened awareness of the severe consequences of a drug once thought to be benign.” “Epidemiology of Drug Abuse: An Overview”, Nicholas Kozel and Edgar Adams, Science, 21 November 1986.

    “Perhaps the most interesting aspect of cocaine use and the immune function are the effects on natural killer (NK) cells. Studies by us (data submitted for publication) and others have shown cocaine to increase NK cell activity. This is best explained by its effect on the neuroendocrine system. Cocaine in vivo binds to specific sites on brain membranes, resulting in multiple neurochemical actions. These include altered metabolism of neurotransmitters such as serotonin, dopamine, acethylcholine, and norepinephrine. Cocaine causes inhibition of the reuptake of these neurotransmitters by presynaptic nerve endings causing a prolongation of their actions. In addition, cocaine stimulates the release of beta endorphins, adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH) and corticosterone. The above mentioned catecholamines, ACTH, beta endorphin, and corticosterone are all powerful modulators of the immune system. Beta endorphin, epinephrine, and norepinephrine are potent stimulants of NK cell activity. This ‘unnatural’ stimulation of NK cell activity as an immunotoxic side effect of cocaine may not have the desirable or ideal consequences associated with immune stimulation. While NK cells have been recognized primarily for their cytotoxic reactivity against malignant cells, microorganisms, and virally infected cells, it is now evident that these cells also have powerful immunoregulatory roles. These include regulation of cells in the bone marrow and antibody production…. Immunomodulation by cocaine could thus play a vital role in immunodeficiencies and as reviewed by us earlier is a complex issue. The various effects of cocaine on immune function have been summarized in Table 2 [table lists: decreased lymphocyte proliferation, reduced number of T cells, increased number of B cells, increased NK cell activity, increased number of NK cells]”, “Aids, drugs of abuse, and the immune system: a complex immunotoxological network”, R Pillai et al., Arch. Toxicol. 65: 609–617 (1991).

    “A variety of pulmonary complications related to the use of freebase cocaine have been reported in the medical literature. Pulmonary barotrauma, hypersensitivity pneumonitis, pulmonary hemorrhage, obliterative bronchiolitis, asthma, and pulmonary edema, have all recently been described…. Further reporting of freebase related pulmonary complications, as well as the development of appropriate animal models, is needed.”, “A Review of the Respiratory Effects of Smoking Cocaine”, NA Ettinger et al., American Journal of Medicine, December 1989.

    For further evidence of the effects of cocaine abuse on “crack babies”:

    “Physiological and neurological deficiencies, including mental retardation, are observed in children born to mothers addicted to cocaine and other narcotic drugs (Fricker and Segal, 1978; Lifschitz et al., 1983; Alroomi et al., 1988; Blanche et al., 1989; Root-Bernstein, 1990a; Toufexis, 1991; Finnegan et al., 1992; Luca-Moretti, 1992).”, “AIDS Acquired by Drug Consumption and Other Non-contagious Risk Factors”, Duesberg, 1992.

    To see what actually went down with regard to the Ascher commentary, look at Lang’s files:

    The Ascher Commentary
    “Warren Winkelstein examined [Duesberg and Ellison’s] paper and was unable to contradict any of our conclusions. Indeed, he further confirmed our finding of HIV-free AIDS cases with a previously published paper of his…”

  12. Henry Bauer said


    The actual evidence is a correlation : more “HIV+”, more osteoporosis. Since HIV+ doesn’t mean infection by a harmful agent, the proper interpretation is that either the condition of osteoporosis stimulates the physiological “HIV+” response, or that whatever cause the osteoporosis stimulates the physiological “HIV+” response.

    MacDonald, Darin:

    Many thanks for these informative augmentations!

  13. Dennis L. said

    Hello Henry Bauer,
    There is no question in my mind that crack cocaine is a contributing factor to AIDS in the Black community. I once sent you an article on the study that ‘Crack causes AIDS’ back a few months. I’m glad you addressed the issue. Peace

  14. Thomson said

    Crack cocaine contribution to AIDS is like adding fuel to the fire. People need to be made aware about its dangerous effects. Its effects are like neither you can live or die. [sic]

  15. Henry Bauer said


    The point is that crack cocaine, and other “recreational” drugs, can by themselves cause “AIDS”: suppressed immune system, weight loss, prone to all sorts of illnesses and infections.

  16. Jim C said

    If the recreational drug use and subsequent “HIV+” test results or “AIDS-like” diagnosis hypothesis is true, would it not also be true, then, that permanent cessation of illegal drug use would result in not only a return to HIV-negative status, but a return to overall good health (with the exception of permanent cardiovascular or stroke damage, for example) as far as “AIDS” symptoms and opportunistic infections are concerned? But yet this does not appear to be the case, does it?

    I still believe that while illegal drug use (particularly cocaine) may indeed lead to “HIV+” test results or “AIDS-like” symptoms and/or diagnoses (like the malnutrition that accompanies cocaine use) there HAS to be some kind of separate, infectious agent responsible that is merely helped by these drugs to enter and subsequently infect the human body and wreak its havoc. Anyone care to explain this to me?

    • Henry Bauer said

      Jim C.:
      Damage is not necessarily reversible; for instance, damage from long-term smoking may show up long after smoking ceased.
      I don’t think drug abuse is the only cause of immune deficiency or AIDS-type illnesses, there are umpteen reasons for testing “HIV+” and for the dozens of illnesses nowadays counted as “AIDS-defining”.

  17. Tracy D. Ellis said

    Thought I would share my personal experience.

    Around my early-to-mid-20s (I’m 42 now), I loved to snort meth a couple nights a week. It was fun and dirt cheap, 20 bucks worth, and I would be flying for 12 hours. The come-down however took like 36 to 48 hours or more to feel remotely OK in the mind and body. It was not just the drug but all the “cuts” from the dealers wanting to add weight to the deal. The “cut” came in an endless variety, say, from baking soda to rat poison.
    Anyway, speed made it impossible to eat or sleep, and when high I would get critically dehydrated, but — hey, when you are in your early 20s you know you will live forever and my body took it OK until that fateful day I went to the STD clinic to do my civic duty (no symptoms) and was told I had advanced HIV and an AZT monotherapy deficiency. The doctor was surprised I had never previously had any kind of STD.
    Anyway, my trip to the clinic was a sign that I was getting tired of the drugs, but after the diagnosis, all thoughts of sobriety left my mind.
    I found that AZT+Meth (at the time I thought AZT symptoms was my AIDS) would kill me super super fast, so I made a compromise and switched to crack cocaine. Mainly because I could get high on crack and still sleep and eat the same day. For me at the time the main drawback was crack was way more expensive and addictive.
    Today I am addicted to my yoga mat and feel so fortunate. Hell, without our government telling me I was on death’s door (and try not to touch anyone on your way out), I may never have found my spiritual path.
    What gratitude to my enemies? Gah — my ego hates that sh_t 🙂


    I would like to add that at “street level” where I lived, Reagan’s “war on drugs” made all the fancy overseas pot dry up and made cocaine three-to-five-hundred percent cheaper.
    I grew up in LA and Orange County California, so in the eighties in my town cocaine was de-classified from a rich man’s high to something the gangs could afford to “rock up” and sell as ready-made smoke-able coke. Evil, evil stuff… Changed the face of the ghettos dramaticaly.
    Looking back, I see how we got off on the danger of making the score as much as on the crack.

    • Henry Bauer said


      I can only marvel at your strength of character. All best wishes for many, many years on that yoga mat.

  18. Doug S. said

    Another team from the same medical school got a 5 million Euros grant from the EC “to develop a simple diagnostic test for detecting active tuberculosis, focusing on HIV-infected children and adults in underdeveloped countries.”

    It was added that “This should help reduce transmission and infection among these most vulnerable populations.”

    It is even hard to understand the transmission of which purported pathogen would this help reduce…and why only in “under-developed countries”?

    I assume the pathogen in question is tuberculosis. And since most TB tests check for an immune reaction, AIDS could easily cause false negatives. And “under-developed countries” are specifically mentioned because people in developed countries can pay for expensive complicated tests, and the grant is for developing a simple diagnostic test that works on someone who has a weak immune system.

  19. reisakti said

    I think from the first use of illicit drugs have an impact on HIV-positive and HIV negative, if you use drugs too much will cause the deadly disease and not just cocaine, but also other forms of drug abuse that let’s say heroin, ecstasy, and so forth.
    However, I think if the research is done as you’ve described above I became more understanding and aware of the effects of cocaine. Thank you.

  20. AIDS = Auto Immune Deficiency Syndrome

    You need to understand the meaning!

    Almost ALL DRUGS, in some way, compromise your immune system!

    AIDS = Auto Immune Deficiency Syndrome

  21. Emma said

    Funny, in Australia we don’t have much of an issue with drug users and HIV/AIDS. Perhaps you lot should consider the USA’s limited needle exchange programmes and things like archaic laws that mean sex workers caught with “too many” condoms can be charged with solicitation even if they have done nothing else (ie being a victim of stop and search policing), all issues that would increase an addict to blood borne pathogens.
    After all if illicit drug use, especially long term use, resulted in HIV/AIDS like problems then that would be the case here too, correct? And yet it’s not. Hmmmm.

    • Henry Bauer said

      Dosage matters. Frequency of use matters. Individuals react in different ways, for instance statins are tolerated fairly well by some people while others have been crippled by them.
      Gordon Stewart described AIDS-like symptoms in the heaviest drug users in the 1970s, before the HIV/AIDS connection was ever made.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s