Harvard/Berkeley Biochem PhD Rush Wayne Reappraises
AIDS
Rush Wayne received a PhD in biochemistry
from UC-Berkeley in 1976 after earning a master's degree in biochemistry
and molecular biology from Harvard in 1972, and a bachelor's degree
in biochemistry from UC-Berkeley. He completed three years of postdoctoral
studies at UC-Berkeley in bacteriology/microbiology before embarking
on his current career as an innovator and private business owner in
the field of organic farming near Eugene, Oregon.
I started questioning the HIV-AIDS model because
of how it affected acquaintances of mine (now close friends) Kathleen
and David Tyson. They are the Oregon couple who made international
news for breastfeeding their infant son, Felix, and declining AZT
treatment despite Kathleen's "HIV-positive" status.
I found out about their situation when the news
appeared on the front page of our local newspaper that they had
lost custody of Felix because their views of HIV and AIDS differed
from those of their doctors. I wondered if their position had any
validity.The newspaper mentioned that they had found some information
on the internet, so I decided to take a look.
I am not currently involved in academic research
or teaching in any way, and thus have no students, and most of the
people I consider colleagues are not scientists. I found a copy
of a talk Peter Duesberg delivered to the Cal-Berkeley Alumni association.
Because I did my PhD work at UC-Berkeley, I had heard of Duesberg
and his position years ago, but I had read only the sketchiest of
details from an article in the Daily Cal . This was
not at all convincing--the few arguments the article presented sounded
completely contrived. But now, reading Duesberg's own words, I had
an entirely different reaction. His arguments were very clear and
logical, and I was impressed. I didn't know how they would stand
up to rebuttal, but I was very interested in learning more. The
next week I checked out a copy of Duesberg's book, Inventing
the AIDS Virus , from our local library. I read it straight
through. I was also excited to see that my old lab mate, Nobel Prize
winner Kary Mullis, had written the forward, and that Nobel Prize
winner Walter Gilbert, an impressive teacher of mine at Harvard,
was among the dissenters. I was convinced.
Since then, I've continued to read about the issue,
now and then looking at the actual research articles when I could
get to them. I have been especially fascinated by the articles from
Australian biophysicist Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos--they could
serve as primers on critical reading of research papers. They helped
me look at the establishment papers on HIV in breastmilk, and I
discovered that these studies had no HIV-negative controls.
While first learning about the issue, I read whatever
I could on both sides. If someone criticized the dissenters, I studied
the critique to see if it held water. But I have not found an instance,
when both sides have been able to state their complete case, where
the establishment view has held up. On the contrary, much of the
establishment view seems to be based on bad research and fallacious
reasoning.
I have only spoken with two other scientists about
my views on the HIV-AIDS controversy, both of whom were skeptical
of my perspective. Unfortunately, the sheer volume of material generated
by the establishment makes it an exhausting proposition to evaluate
it all.
Rush Wayne, PhD
Biochemistry, UC-Berkeley
<RushWayne@aol.com>