FROM: members.aol.comaids7.htmlOpen ↗
Part Four:
Anal Intercourse and Immune Dysfunction: Duesberg's Compromise
Michael Phillip Wright Norman, Oklahoma USA Copyright 2001 All Rights Reserved E-mail the Author
In an indirect fashion, anal intercourse is implicated in the development of Kaposi's sarcoma, one
of the diseases on the CDC's "AIDS-indicator" list. This is because nitrite inhalent recreational
drugs, known commonly as "poppers," have been popular in the gay community and are used to
facilitate this practice through relaxation of the anal sphincter. Researchers at the National
Institute on Drug Abuse have recognized that nitrite inhalent abuse is associated with Kaposi's
sarcoma, [1] and HIV-negative gay men with a history of using poppers have developed this
disease.[2] For more on this subject, see John Lauritsen's article at the Sumeria website.
possibility is that chemicals in the lubricants used to facilitate anal intercourse are a factor
associated with this disease. Researchers R.J. Ablin and R. Stein-Werblowsky describe sperm and
seminal plasma as capable of promoting cancer, and suggest that this
[3]
Several researchers have concerned themselves with the immune dysfunction consequent to the direct
entry of semen into the bloodstream, by means of anal intercourse. Joseph Sonnabend has argued
transmitted disease pathogens result in impairment of immune response. Robert Root-Bernstein
concluded that exposure to semen through anal intercourse can initiate lymphocytotoxic autoimmunity.
Another researcher who recognizes the pathogenic effects of semen is Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos,
author of "Looking Back on the Oxidative Stress Theory of AIDS"
Spanish researcher B.L. Benitez, casting doubt on the hypothesis that HIV is the sole cause of AIDS,
writes that several other factors, including alloantigenic stimulation by semen, can account for
immunesuppression in AIDS patients. [4] V. Quagliarello proposed sperm exposure as a possible cause
of AIDS in 1982, [5] and rectally-deposited sperm has been found to be immunesuppressive in rabbits.
[6] In a 1984 article, Giora Mavligit and colleagues studied 30 gay male couples, and concluded that
their results "strongly support the hypothesis that allogenic sperm is an etiologic factor in
Duesberg's Compromise
Berkeley molecular biologist Peter Duesberg is the most prominent of the dissenters who reject the
belief that HIV causes AIDS. Duesberg argues that AIDS is caused primarily by recreational drug
abuse and toxic anti-viral treatments. According to Stephen Epstein, author of Impure Science, in
1988 Duesberg was willing to discuss the possible
I think we are dealing with an environmental lifestyle disease that has hit drug users, hemophiliacs
and some gay communities the hardest. The trauma of anal intercourse could also be a factor. They
could have used too many drugs, been too promiscuous, or had their immune systems weakened by
venereal diseases, foreign antigens and antibiotics.
Epstein reports that such statements by Duesberg earned him severe criticism in the gay press.
"Duesberg lost any chance of sustaining large-scale support in gay communities," Epstein wrote. He
continued:
By February 1988, negative articles about Duesberg began to appear, including the [Village] Voice
article, written by medical reporter Ann Fettner, called 'Dealing with Duesberg: Bad Science Makes
Strange Bedfellows.' Duesberg's view on causation, Fettner wrote, constituted 'a stunning regression
to 1982, when everything under the sun, and gay practices in particular, were being blamed for the
outbreak of the disease.'
Epstein's information raises many questions. Is Duesberg a scientist or a politician? Why should a
scientist care about sustaining "large-scale support in gay communities"? Following the CDC's
example, did Duesberg also change his line and commit self-censorship on the anal intercourse issue
in order to placate the gay community? Readers can be the judge. A likely place to investigate for
the answer would be Duesberg's book Inventing the AIDS Virus, published in 1996. [9] On page 223 he
denies that semen could have an irreversible effect on the immune system. On page 417, following the
example of the CDC, he implicitly adopts the erroneous pretense that anal and vaginal intercourse
are equally infectious while attempting to discredit the viral hypothesis:
exactly as predicted by the AIDS establishment.
Duesberg ignores other plausible explanations for the fact that women have remained a small minority
of diagnosed AIDS cases in the U.S.:
(4) anal intercourse is far more strongly associated with HIV seropositivity than vaginal, and (2)
the overwhelming majority of U.S.
anal penetration and thus are not exposed to the hazard of semen entering the bloodstream. Disputing
Root-Bernstein, on page 247 Duesberg rejects the argument that semen can induce autoimmunity. He
goes a step further and attacks the very notion of autoimmunity:
The autoimmunity hypothesis, however, suffers several fatal flaws. For one thing, autoimmune
reactions have been poorly documented in any disease, not to mention AIDS. In fact, they may never
occur in an otherwise healthy person. Moreover, the immune system works so well precisely because it
has built-in (but poorly understood) safeguards that prevent it from attacking its own host body;
the immune system's inherent function is to attack only foreign particles. For an invading microbe
to induce a self- destructive immune response would be a contradiction in terms.
There are several flaws in Duesberg's argument. First, those who advance the autoimmunity hypothesis
do not argue that only a single "invading microbe" induces the response. Both Root-Bernstein and
Sonnabend base their arguments upon the exposure to semen and numerous infectious agents.
Additionally, the statement that autoimmune reactions "may never occur in an otherwise healthy
person" is meaningless. By definition, one would expect healthy people not to be suffering from
autoimmunity. Finally, Duesberg's attempt to dismiss autoimmune reactions is questionable by virtue
of the fact that a June 2001 MEDLINE search using the keyword autoimmunity yielded 11003 records.
Inexcusable Errors by Duesberg
example, in his book AIDS, co-authored with John Yiamouyiannis, he seeks to discredit the view that
HIV causes AIDS by attacking the
To account for the fact that AIDS is a male disease and predominantly
HIV/AIDS theory assumed that the virus first got its footing in the
because it is transmitted preferentially by anal intercourse... However, this assumption is
inconsistent with the following: (1) about 10% of all males and females prefer anal intercourse
and thus AIDS
of women for both HIV infection and AIDS is the same for those who practice anal intercourse as for
those who practice other types of intercourse.
A man of Duesberg's stature should know better. He claims that "about 10% of all males and
females prefer anal intercourse" [emphasis added]. In support of this he cites David Bolling and
Bruce Voeller.
[5] He makes several errors. First, Bolling and Voeller did not write that "10% of all males" prefer
anal intercourse. They said that 10% of
would add that, before the toxicities of anti-viral drugs became a factor, AIDS among gay men had
primarily stricken that "smaller fraction" who were receptive partners. In contrast to Duesberg's
statement, Bolling and Voeller did not state that 10% of women "prefer" anal intercourse. They said
that 10% of
literature from peer-reviewed journals. Their reference was a book by
dubious by Laumann's survey data discussed in Part Three. The use of the word "prefer" is also
questionable in light of evidence indicating that many women engage in this practice because it is
suggested to
population and relies upon this error to support his view that anal
While there has been no U.S. AIDS epidemic sustained by the practice
vast majority of whom have injecting drug users and women practicing
Duesberg ignores the fact that Bolling and Voeller disagree with his
implicit argument that anal intercourse is no more likely to transmit HIV than vaginal. They write
that "receptive anal intercourse carries
concern that it will contribute to the escalation of HIV infection
Additionally, Duesberg fails to point out that Bolling and Voeller
a lower frequency of it than gay males. This provides an explanation for the dramatically lower
incidence of AIDS associated with the
reference section, Duesberg fails to indicate that the work cited is a letter, not an article.
Duesberg relied upon researchers Mary Guinan and Ann Hardy [13] for his claim that "the risk of
women for both HIV infection and AIDS is the same for those who practice anal intercourse as for
those who practice other types of intercourse." Guinan and Hardy were not so sure. They acknowledged
the vast consensus in epidemiological literature that receptive anal intercourse increases risk for
AIDS in gay men. They speculated: "but apparently not for women." Publishing in early 1987, in the
very next statement they admitted that they did
and injecting drug users are the two groups of men most likely to transmit HIV to women.
Duesberg disputes the view that there is an overwhelmingly greater prevalence of HIV infection among
American men than there is among women. For this he relies upon surveys of HIV prevalence among
applicants to the U.S. Army and the Job Corps. Not questioning his claim that within these
populations the distribution of HIV positivity
wonder whether these groups are representative of the entire U.S. youth population. First, both of
these applicant groups will be heavily impacted by inner city minority youth, where HIV positivity
associated with injecting drug use is a large factor in equalizing the
to enter the armed services. This prohibition eliminated a large factor which would result in an
unequal distribution.
Duesberg vs. Duesberg
In Chapters 21 and 22 of AIDS Duesberg defends his argument that in the U.S. and Europe the disease
is caused by the long-term consumption of recreational drugs. [14] He writes that "hard"
recreational drugs (cocaine and heroin) are the culprit, and that 75% of such substances consumed
are used by men. He adds: "Females lead in the soft drugs." At this point, he chooses to scale down
his earlier perception of the
Virtually all of the poppers, the nitrite inhalents, the 'ecstasy', and these types of drugs that
are used as aphrodisiacs are used by the
hypothesis explains ninety percent of the 'maleness' of AIDS in America and Europe.
intercourse. Additionally, among those who do, only women are
with far less frequency than gay males who develop AIDS. The low
factor in explaining the fact that, outside of the injecting drug use
Duesberg and Fred Cline
Openly gay writer Fred Cline is a friend of Duesberg and is scornful
relationship to Duesberg and, apparently, his ability to influence him, an exploration into the
nature of Cline's thinking is justified.
history, even though they are not necessarily gay, especially when isolated from women," writes
Cline. He adds: "This is well known." He
children. Cline does not entertain the likelihood that whatever truth
and prostitution.
In a similar article in the AIDS dissent magazine Continuum, Cline's argument emerges in clear
focus. He believes that, since there is no
receptive partners: [15]
experience and various other sources would tend also to lay this myth to rest....gay men who have
regular medical checkups for venereal disease, who do not use hard drugs such as poppers and
amphetamines, and who live a balanced life with some attention paid to their health,
brothers and sisters who are apparently going at it in this manner with no ill effects.
to judge its merits for himself, without any help from me. The fantasy
reflects a belief that, unfortunately, is all too common within gay
In the 1990s, Cline was a participant in an AIDS dissent email
has for all of human history been practiced universally. In posts to the list, he wrote:
There is a curious taboo against speaking of anal intercourse although, at this point, I hope you
are convinced that it is almost universally practiced. Posted 12/6/96
Man has been buggering since the beginning of time, so that if semen were poisonous (i.e. caused
cancer and AIDS, etc.) we would have ceased to exist as a species thousands or millions of years
ago. It doesn't make any sense to me that the very substance that gives us life would also be
poisonous. [Posted 2/13/95]
that, on the contrary, it provides nutritional benefit. He added: "And as for losing zinc, then I
would say get buggered and get some zinc!" Cline believes that nearly all of us straights are
secretly gay:
I challenge all of you straights to begin to understand the gay experience and that means to begin
to understand the latent
Cline's post dated 11/6/95]
Cline writes that "millions and billions" around the world engage in
It was actually Mel Gibson who said that he did not like gay men because they "take it up the ass."
Well, if that is the case he would have to hate millions, if not billions of people around the globe--
most of them STRAIGHT, as I have pointed out. So we have established that this is a widespread
practice, both historically and geographically. [Posted 12/7/96 ]
Cline exhibits disdain for any researcher who makes a case for the pathogenicity of semen entering
the bloodstream. In his AIDS Bibliography he writes that Robert Root-Bernstein "has ceased to be a
serious contributor to the AIDS debate." On numerous occasions during his participation on the email
list, Cline showed contempt for researchers and list members who dared to discuss the unmentionable
First of all, I believe that all these theories about gay men becoming sick from too much anal
intercourse were dreamed up by the scientists involved based on their false notions of what it is we
do in bed (and sometimes NOT in bed, too). [Posted 12/7/96 ]
In another post he stated flatly: "I refuse to believe that semen per se can cause illness." [Posted
11/9/95] Cline made numerous threats and insulting comments to list members, such as Paul Philpott,
who discussed the pathogenic consequences of the direct entry of semen into the bloodstream. Here
are a few excerpts of a post addressing Philpott:
For the 10,000th time I will tell you to get off the subject. [of anal
I will continue to harass you in this forum.
Frankly, I am really getting very, very tired of your ranting on this subject. You have only
convinced most of us how irrational you are about it, so that I can only turn to your own
psychological makeup for an explanation.
You are, therefore, with your arguments, only providing ammunition for the bigots on the right who
would love to outlaw us again.
Some people have even gone so far as to see you as an agent provocateur. You have certainly wasted
much of our time on this really peripheral subject. [Posted 12/6/96]
Cline loved to use the word "diabolical" to describe those with whom he disagreed: " I cannot
abandon myself to such a diabolical idea (THERE, I said it again)." [Posted 12/6/96]
List member Yola Chambers objected to Cline's online conduct:
First of all, Fred darling, with all due respect, many of your responses are quite hostile. I can
safely say that Paul is not a homophobe, and even if he was, what does that have to do with what
*you* stated above? Neither Paul, nor anyone else on this reflector, as far as I can see, has
supported eugenics or ethnic cleansing...etc in the name of science. Therefore, there really is no
need for pointing fingers, jumping to conclusions, or making false accusations about who's a
homophobe or anything else.
I don't understand your bitterness Fred, nor do I see any point in trying to. Please keep it to
yourself. There's nothing wrong with constructive criticism, but you're just plain abusive! [Posted
5/1/1]
In a post in which he described other list members as "gruesome," Cline dismissed Chambers with
these comments:
You are part of the problem. You poke your head out of the swamp like an alligator and don't tell us
anything about yourself or how long you have been lurking. [Posted 12/5/96]
Cline had these harsh words for another list member with whom he disagreed about a different issue:
Frankly, I have given you enough time and will ignore you from now on. I have no other choice,
because there are others who will listen and you can't tell [censored] from Shinola. [Posted 11/30/96]
Cline took joy in telling list members about how much he loved to have
Well, I am having a glass of wine as I write this (too bad I don't also have the added pleasure of
being buggered at the same time!) and I have been drinking all my adult life, as well as
buggering, and I am 67! I also have a lady friend who is a clysterphiliac and has been "taking it
up the ass" for about forty years without a condom and from many different men (she is STRAIGHT).
[Posted 12/6/96]
For the innocently uninformed, a clysterphiliac is one who takes erotic pleasure in enemas. In the
same post, Cline denounced the anal
gay men for participating in it.
"Not a Matter of Choice"
In an online review of a book by Neville Hodgkinson, Cline once again
immunesuppression. He also expresses the belief that among some gay
should not even be considered voluntary:
AIDS. Not only is this far from the truth; it is also based on the
matter of choice. There are those who are anally oriented who can ONLY
They will be driven to it by their psychological compulsions (which may even be BIOLOGICAL) and
to tell them that they might die in the process is nothing short of diabolical. I will not
believe that any
pathogenic -- that idea itself is pathological.
Cline and Prison Rape
weak. The reality is that the hypermasculine "butch" style is idealized within gay culture, and the
"femmes" are objects of scorn. Although many of them do not consider themselves to be "gay," some of
exploiting weaker men. Perhaps they are driven by this involuntary compulsion which Cline has
described. One of the more shocking things about Cline is that he appears to be
American prisons. Reviewing the Hodgkinson book, he writes: "...there are many anthropological
studies [none of which he cites] indicating active anal intercourse amongst 'straight' males. Of
particular interest is the almost universal acceptance of this in prisons." A more realistic
viewpoint on this matter "of particular interest" to Cline is presented in this account of the
brutal gang rape experienced by prisoner Stephen Donaldson.
Cline and Duesberg
Cline, who admits that he is not a scientist, appears to have a considerable degree of influence
with Duesberg. In his Continuum article he writes that Duesberg does not believe semen to be
immunesuppressive. Duesberg even appears continually eager to assure Cline of his benign view on
this matter. "On numerous occasions," writes Cline, "he has personally restated this position to me
up to the present." [15] Duesberg definitely takes Cline seriously, for he has listed him in the
acknowledgements of his book. [9] Additionally, Cline is the first to be mentioned in the list of
people acknowledged in an online article on the drug-AIDS hypothesis by Duesberg and David Rasnick.
They credit him for "information and advice."
In a post to the email discussion list (12/7/96) Cline also states that his Continuum article
was read and approved by Duesberg . This is the article in which Cline claims that straight
men engage in
have had "extensive discussions with Peter Duesberg" who "confirms what I say about anal
insemination having NOTHING to do with AIDS" [Posted 12/5/96].
Final Comment on Duesberg
For the record, I do not dispute Duesberg's view that recreational drugs and toxic treatments
have a role in the development of AIDS. On the other hand, I find his capitulation to the gay
community on the
because he was the first to open the door to those who would question officially-promoted views
about AIDS, he should be invited to testify for the Congressional inquiry I propose.
Go To Part Five
RETURN to Table of Contents.
REFERENCES
6. Harry Haverkos, et al., "Nitrite Inhalents: History, Epidemiology, and Possible Links to AIDS,"
Environmental Health Perspectives 102, No. 10 (1994): 859.
7. Alvin E. Friedman-Kien, et al., "Kaposi's Sarcoma in HIV-Negative
Anal Cancer," Immunology and Cell Biology 75, No. 2 (1997): 181-3.
8. BL Benitez, "Are the Viruses Really the Causal Agents of AIDS?" Gaceta Medica de Mexico 127, No.
1 (1991): 75-84.
9. V Quagliarello, "The Acquired Immunedeficiency Syndrome: Current Status," Yale Journal of
Biology and Medicine 55, No. 5-6 (1982): 443-52.
10. JM Richards, et al., "Rectal Insemination Modifies Immune Responses in Rabbits," Science 224,
No. 4647 (1984): 390-2.
11. Giora Mavligit, et al., "Chronic Immune Stimulation by Sperm Alloantigens," Journal of the
American Medical Association 251, No. 2
(12): 237-241.
13. Steven Epstein, Impure Science: AIDS, Activism, and the Politics of Knowledge (University of
California Press,1996), pp. 117-188.
14. Peter Duesberg, Inventing the AIDS Virus (Washington, DC: Regnery,
15)
16. Peter Duesberg and John Yiamouyiannis, AIDS (Delaware, Ohio: Health Action Press, 1995), p. 53.
Intercourse," Journal of the American Medical Association, 258, No. 4
(17): 474.
18. Mike Greenly, Chronicle: The Human Side of AIDS (New York: Irvington, 1986).
19. Mary Guinan and Ann Hardy, "Epidemiology of AIDS in Women in the United States: 1981 Through
1986," Journal of the American Medical Association 257, No. 15 (1987): 2039-2042.
20. Duesberg and Yiamouyiannis, p. 98.
21: 18-19.