Biochem Prof Jim Hudson Reappraises AIDS
British Columbia, Vancouver, Professor Jim Hudson
in 1967 relieved his PhD in molecular biology from Canada's University
of Alberta, Edmonton, after receiving bachelors and masters degrees
in biochemistry from Britain's University of London. Following a
one-year post-doctoral fellowship at the Swiss Institute for Cancer
Research in Lausanne, where he investigated animal viruses, he joined
the microbiology faculty as an assistant professor at the University
of British Columbia in Vancouver. In 1990 he transferred to his
current position as full professor in the Department of Pathology
and Laboratory Medicine. His commentary below provides evidence
of yet another fully credentialed, professional scientist who has
independently reached the same conclusions as those who have called
for a complete reappraisal of the HIV explanation of AIDS.
I enjoyed very much David Rasnick's account of the
AIDS Gordon conference (May 1999). It is just as well that somebody
knowledgeable and critical still attends AIDS meetings, in order
to bring some objectivity and balance to them. I personally stopped
going to AIDS meetings several years ago -- I could no longer stand
the stress of restraining myself from getting up and shouting "rubbish!"
However, I must take issue with certain terminology
used freely in RA .
My first point concerns the use of the term "viral
load measurement." We must remember that the techniques used
for these so-called measurements do not allow us to equate these
numbers with any viral attribute whatsoever. None of these investigators
isolate actual viruses or viral genomes; all they do is add some
primers to a PCR mixture and pretend that the printout represents
None of this has been proven, and furthermore the
PCR technique was never conceived as a quantitative measure of anything
In view of this we should always qualify our usage
of the term "viral load," otherwise we fall into the trap
of subscribing to their hypothetical nonsense.
My second point concerns the editorial boxes accompanying
Rasnick's article. They concerned HIV mutations and drug resistance.
The problem stems from the fallacy of equating PCR sequences with
authentic viral genomes derived from real viruses. Most of the classical
calculations of virus mutation rates, e. g., for polio virus, influenza
virus, etc., were based upon studies of real viruses and their isolated
genes. HIV may be a real retrovirus (it seemed to be when I was
using something with that name in my studies on natural antivirals),
and it probably mutates at the same rate as the other RNA viruses
But nobody knows what PCR amplified sequences really
are. (Perhaps some of them are just bits of retrotransposons --
"jumping genes" -- which are found abundantly in the human genome.)
Consequently, in most of the studies on purported mutation rates
in "HIV" we cannot be certain what the numbers represent.
Therefore, we should not accept these speculative "mutation
rates" as meaningful.
Regarding drug resistance, a normal RNA-virus mutation
rate such as those exemplified by the viruses involved in influenza,
polio, etc., would suffice to ensure that the conventional gene-directed
approach to antiviral therapy is doomed to failure every time.
My background, documented by authorship of over
100 published scientific papers, includes research on various animal
viruses, particularly murine (mouse) cytomegalovirus and other herpes
viruses. In the last 15 years my emphasis has been on the antiviral
effects of medicinal plants. For two years I included so-called
HIV as one of my target viruses, but only because I got some of
the funding earmarked for HIV. Before I realized that HIV wasn't
even a pathogen, though, this funding disappeared when the granting
body realized how unconventional my research was -- i.e., using
natural products instead of toxic, patentable pharmaceuticals.
From the outset I was never convinced that HIV had
a role to play in AIDS, since the so-called evidence was unacceptable
to me. However, I learned to keep my views to myself for a long
time until I realized that there were many other "dissidents"
and doubters out there, many of whom I suspect were prompted into
declaring their opinions after Peter Duesberg's catalyzing actions.
I tend to favor the concept of three major "causes" of
AIDS in the West: multiple microbial onslaughts in promiscuous anal
intercourse; drug-induced immune suppression in "drug abusers";
and immune dysfunction (possibly autoimmune induced) in hemophiliacs.
All of these can be exacerbated by adverse social conditions (do
many rich people get AIDS?).
I do not believe there is an AIDS epidemic in Africa
or Asia. People there are still dying from the combined effects
of chronic infectious diseases plus malnutrition, poverty, and other
factors, just as they always have.
Hudson can be reached at 604-875-4351 or jbhudson@