|
|
|
||||||||
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.Homosexual males are also at elevated risk for anal cancer. A likely 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 accounts for the increase in cancer among people practicing anal sex. [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 that repeated exposures to semen combined with various sexually 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 the pathogenesis of acquired immune dysregulation among homosexual males" who practice anal sex. [7]
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 role of anal sex in AIDS. [8] Duesberg told the Oakland Tribune: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: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'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: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.'Duesberg ignores other plausible explanations for the fact that women have remained a small minority of diagnosed AIDS cases in the U.S.: (1) anal intercourse is far more strongly associated with HIV seropositivity than vaginal, and (2) the overwhelming majority of U.S. heterosexuals do not practice anal intercourse. As for heterosexual men, unless they are victims of homosexual rape they do not experience anal penetration and thus are not exposed to the hazard of semen entering the bloodstream.According to the hypothesis that AIDS is a sexually transmitted viral disease, AIDS should have long equilibrated between the sexes -- exactly as predicted by the AIDS establishment.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:
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.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.
Inexcusable Errors by Duesberg
Duesberg makes additional errors in his discussion of anal sex. For example, in his book AIDS, co-authored with John Yiamouyiannis, he seeks to discredit the view that HIV causes AIDS by attacking the belief that anal sex is a risk factor. He writes [10]: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. [11] He makes several errors. First, Bolling and Voeller did not write that "10% of all males" prefer anal intercourse. They said that 10% of men are commonly considered to be predominantly homosexual or bisexual. They added: "Only a portion, however, of the homosexual men practice anal sex and a smaller fraction receptively." To this, I 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.To account for the fact that AIDS is a male disease and predominantly a male homosexual disease in the U.S. and Europe, the promoters of the HIV/AIDS theory assumed that the virus first got its footing in the U.S. in male homosexuals...and has remained with male homosexuals 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 should have spread into the heterosexual population...and (2)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.In contrast to Duesberg's statement, Bolling and Voeller did not state that 10% of women "prefer" anal intercourse. They said that 10% of heterosexual women practice it regularly. For this they did not cite literature from peer-reviewed journals. Their reference was a book by Mike Greenly, [12] and their estimate about heterosexual women is made 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 them by bisexual males.
While overstating the degree to which heterosexuals engage in anal sex, Duesberg pretends that AIDS has not spread into the heterosexual population and relies upon this error to support his view that anal sex, in the absence of recreational drug abuse, presents no hazards. While there has been no U.S. AIDS epidemic sustained by the practice of vaginal sex, there have been AIDS cases among heterosexuals, the vast majority of whom have injecting drug users and women practicing anal sex.
Duesberg ignores the fact that Bolling and Voeller disagree with his view that anal sex is not a risk factor for AIDS, along with his implicit argument that anal intercourse is no more likely to transmit HIV than vaginal. They write that "receptive anal intercourse carries the highest relative risk by far for homosexual men" and express concern that it will contribute to the escalation of HIV infection among heterosexuals. Further, in regard to women who practice anal sex, they write: "this pool of women is increasingly endangered."
Additionally, Duesberg fails to point out that Bolling and Voeller note that women who practice anal sex probably have fewer partners and a lower frequency of it than gay males. This provides an explanation for the dramatically lower incidence of AIDS associated with the sexual practices of women, in comparison to gay men. Finally, in his 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 not have sexual practice data "and therefore could not assess this risk in our study." Guinan and Hardy also recognized that bisexual men 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 was equally distributed between the sexes, there are good reasons to 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 sexual distribution. Secondly, the surveys he cites were undertaken before President Clinton lifted the ban against allowing homosexuals 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 degree to which heterosexuals engage in anal sex:Heterosexuals "don't need these chemicals" for sex because, overwhelmingly, heterosexuals in the U.S. do not engage in anal intercourse. Additionally, among those who do, only women are receptive partners, and finally, they have anal sex with fewer men and with far less frequency than gay males who develop AIDS. The low incidence of receptive anal sex among heterosexuals is a prominent factor in explaining the fact that, outside of the injecting drug use population, AIDS victims have primarily been gay and bisexual males.Virtually all of the poppers, the nitrite inhalents, the 'ecstasy', and these types of drugs that are used as aphrodisiacs are used by the segment of the male homosexual community who have hundreds of sexual contacts; these drugs facilitate anal intercourse. Heterosexuals don't need these chemicals to facilitate sexual intercourse. So the drug hypothesis explains ninety percent of the 'maleness' of AIDS in America and Europe.
Duesberg and Fred Cline
Openly gay writer Fred Cline is a friend of Duesberg and is scornful of the idea that anal sex presents health hazards. Because of his relationship to Duesberg and, apparently, his ability to influence him, an exploration into the nature of Cline's thinking is justified.In his article "A Second Look at Anal Sex and 'AIDS'" Cline expresses the belief that heterosexual men are also receptive partners in anal sex. "Men have been having intercourse with other men throughout history, even though they are not necessarily gay, especially when isolated from women," writes Cline. He adds: "This is well known." He also states that "anal sex is common" amongst 100 million street children. Cline does not entertain the likelihood that whatever truth that statement contains results from rape by adult homosexual males 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 widespread AIDS epidemic among heterosexual men, anal sex cannot be implicated in AIDS, because heterosexual men are also anal sex receptive partners: [15]
Any heterosexual man reading Cline's argument is, of course, competent to judge its merits for himself, without any help from me. The fantasy that heterosexual men are willing to be anal sex receptive partners reflects a belief that, unfortunately, is all too common within gay culture: the myth that all straights are repressed bisexuals.Straight men are not supposed to engage in receptive anal sex. My 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, should have no more problem with anal sex than their heterosexual brothers and sisters who are apparently going at it in this manner with no ill effects.In the 1990s, Cline was a participant in an AIDS dissent email discussion list and used the list to promote his fantasy that anal sex has for all of human history been practiced universally. In posts to the list, he wrote:
Cline not only believes that anal sex is free of health hazards, but 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: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]Cline writes that "millions and billions" around the world engage in anal sex, and they are mostly straight:I challenge all of you straights to begin to understand the gay experience and that means to begin to understand the latent homosexuality that is present in 95% of you. [last line of text in Cline's post dated 11/6/95]
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 factor of anal sex as a risk factor for AIDS:
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: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 ]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]For the 10,000th time I will tell you to get off the subject. [of anal sex]
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]
List member Yola Chambers objected to Cline's online conduct:In a post in which he described other list members as "gruesome," Cline dismissed Chambers with these comments: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 12/5/96]Cline had these harsh words for another list member with whom he disagreed about a different issue: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 took joy in telling list members about how much he loved to have anal sex: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 shit from Shinola. [Posted 11/30/96]For the innocently uninformed, a clysterphiliac is one who takes erotic pleasure in enemas. In the same post, Cline denounced the anal sex discussion as "idiotic" and accused Philpott of being "cruel" to gay men for participating in it.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]
"Not a Matter of Choice"
In an online review of a book by Neville Hodgkinson, Cline once again condemns the view that anal sex presents the hazard of immunesuppression. He also expresses the belief that among some gay men the compulsion to have anal sex is so strong that the behavior should not even be considered voluntary:Cline and Prison Rape...the casual reader will get the impression that anal sex can cause AIDS. Not only is this far from the truth; it is also based on the wrong idea that anal sex, as with homosexuality itself, is only a matter of choice. There are those who are anally oriented who can ONLY get sexual fulfillment in this manner -- it is not a matter of choice. 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 kind of human sexuality should be thought of as unwholesome or pathogenic -- that idea itself is pathological.
It is a common stereotype that male homosexuals are effeminate and 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 the more violent members of the male homosexual population reside in American prisons, where they become sexual predators abusing and 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 in total denial of the horrendous problem of homosexual rape in 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 receptive anal sex. Finally, on the discussion list, Cline claimed to 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 anal sex issue to be deplorable. Notwithstanding this harsh judgment, 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
1. Harry Haverkos, et al., "Nitrite Inhalents: History, Epidemiology, and Possible Links to AIDS," Environmental Health Perspectives 102, No. 10 (1994): 859.
2. Alvin E. Friedman-Kien, et al., "Kaposi's Sarcoma in HIV-Negative Homosexual Men," The Lancet 335 (January 20, 1990): 168-169.
3. RJ Ablin and R. Stein-Werblowsky, "Sexual Behavior and Increased Anal Cancer," Immunology and Cell Biology 75, No. 2 (1997): 181-3.
4. BL Benitez, "Are the Viruses Really the Causal Agents of AIDS?" Gaceta Medica de Mexico 127, No. 1 (1991): 75-84.
5. V Quagliarello, "The Acquired Immunedeficiency Syndrome: Current Status," Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine 55, No. 5-6 (1982): 443-52.
6. JM Richards, et al., "Rectal Insemination Modifies Immune Responses in Rabbits," Science 224, No. 4647 (1984): 390-2.
7. Giora Mavligit, et al., "Chronic Immune Stimulation by Sperm Alloantigens," Journal of the American Medical Association 251, No. 2 (1984): 237-241.
8. Steven Epstein, Impure Science: AIDS, Activism, and the Politics of Knowledge (University of California Press,1996), pp. 117-188.
9. Peter Duesberg, Inventing the AIDS Virus (Washington, DC: Regnery, 1996)
10. Peter Duesberg and John Yiamouyiannis, AIDS (Delaware, Ohio: Health Action Press, 1995), p. 53.
11. David Bolling and Bruce Voeller, "AIDS and Heterosexual Anal Intercourse," Journal of the American Medical Association, 258, No. 4 (1987): 474.
12. Mike Greenly, Chronicle: The Human Side of AIDS (New York: Irvington, 1986).
13. 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.
14. Duesberg and Yiamouyiannis, p. 98.
15. Fred Cline, "Anal Sex & AIDS: A Dissenting View," Continuum 4, No. 4: 18-19.