TO READ a biography of the author


TO LISTEN to recorded interviews with the author
AN INTERVIEW WITH THE AUTHOR,
Stephen Davis

Q: "Wrongful Death: The AIDS Trial" contains a lot of information about AIDS and HIV that is well-documented but not necessarily well-known. How long did it take you to research and write this book?

A: Actually, it all started about ten years ago when I initially wrote an exposé about AIDS and HIV and AZT that I published on the Internet in 1997 called "AIDSgate." I got a great response from a lot of people, especially HIV-positives who, they said, muscled up the courage to stop taking AZT as a result of reading my paper. I was also told that "AIDSgate" was one of those sites that convinced President Mbeki of South Africa to keep AZT out of his country, and I've always been extremely proud that my paper might have helped save a lot of lives.

Q: Did you try to publish AIDSgate in printed form?

A: No. It was very short - 10,000 words, if I recall - and it was full of embedded footnotes - really much more of a medical paper, but not good enough to publish in a medical journal, for example. And it was more or less a condensation of the research that Dr. Peter Duesberg detailed in "Inventing the AIDS Virus," along with other Internet sources. So it wasn't original enough to be published. My "gift," as I like to call it, is to take a difficult or complicated or technical concept and re-write it in very simple words and phrases that almost anyone can understand.

Q: Is the AIDSgate paper still available to read on the Internet?

A: There are a couple sites that still have it, I think, but without the footnotes. Plus, there's a copy on this website, here with all the embedded footnotes and the 300 original references, so people can see which references pertain to what topics.

Q: But I still don't understand what motivated you to write AIDSgate in the first place. You're not gay, you're not HIV-positive, and you say you don't have any close friends who are or who died from AIDS…

A: That's all true; and it's allowed me to remain emotionally neutral and objective in my research and my writing. So what was my basic motivation? It came to a head in 1995, '96. I was getting more and more pissed at the way government was making people afraid to have sex. AIDS was just the latest and greatest threat to our sexual pleasure, and they were trying to tell us that AIDS and HIV were sexually-transmitted, contagious diseases that were about to spread wildly into the heterosexual population. In fact, I think the fear of sex was at its highest level around that time, and I didn't believe a word of it. I had enough medical training that I knew AIDS and HIV could not be contagious, nor could they be sexually transmitted. I wanted to do something that would allay people's fears so they could go back to having lots of wonderful sex, since sex is the greatest positive energy and force on this planet. I truly believed - and still do - in the slogan: Make Love, Not War.

Q: A true hippie at heart?

A: Actually, I was never a hippie. During the hippie years I was first in "Up With People," then in the Army, and finally in the Arizona State Senate. I never had long hair until I was forty, for example. But if you really want to get me on a rant...it's perfectly alright today to show lots of blood and gore and killing and fighting and violence on TV, even during primetime and kids' programs, but you can't show a woman's nipple, much less anyone in the act of making love. That, to me, is the sign of a very sick society. Killing another human being has never been and will never be a solution to any problem; so yes, as controversial as this may be, I say: Make Love, Not War, and put that on TV instead of the violence. After all, our kids do copy what they see, and if they see violence, they will be violent. But if they see love, they'll be loving.

Q: Interesting. But let's get back to the reason we're here. You were saying that you wrote AIDSgate to try to disprove what the government was saying about AIDS and HIV, and especially that AIDS and HIV were sexually transmitted diseases…

A: Yes. And as a result of my research on that paper, I began to understand the breadth and depth of this tragedy. This wasn't just about making people afraid of having sex; this was genocide. This was murder. I finally understood that HIV couldn't be the cause of AIDS, and that over 300,000 people had died as a result of taking the drug called AZT to treat AIDS by killing the HIV. I became passionate about wanting to do something about it, and yet my hands were tied to a certain extent.

Q: Why?

A: Since the media was blocking any information that might question the establishment's HIV-AIDS hypothesis, I thought that the best way to expose the medical malpractice of Dr. Gallo and the FDA and the greed and corruption of the drug company now known as GlaxoSmithKline was to have a class-action lawsuit against those defendants and let the truth come out in the sworn testimony. But I couldn't file or even be part of that lawsuit, because I had no legal standing.

Q: Which means?

A: It means, as you said, that I myself was not gay or HIV-positive, and neither were any of my family or loved ones, and so I personally had not been damaged in any way by the actions of Dr. Gallo, the FDA, or GlaxoSmithKline. I had no legal right to file a lawsuit against them or be part of a class-action suit. So all I could do was to suggest in my AIDSgate paper that someone else find a good attorney and file the suit themselves.

Q: And did they?

A: From what I understand, yes. There were a number of suits filed against GlaxoSmithKline by various individuals, for example, for the deaths caused by taking AZT. All of them apparently were settled out of court for large sums of money, but with the stipulation that GSK did not admit any wrongdoing and the settlement amount could never be made public. That's pretty standard in today's legal system. But it also meant that no sworn testimony was ever taken or made available to read, and it kept the whole drug disaster under wraps.

Q: So you didn't accomplish your purpose with AIDSgate?

A: Oh, no, I don't think that's true. In 1996, GlaxoSmithKline began drastically reducing the dosage of AZT it recommended, so that by 1997 the deaths from AIDS dropped in half. And then half again in 1998 as AZT was limited to a low, non-lethal dose. I like to believe that AIDSgate may have played a small part in stopping the murder by AZT, along with a number of other AIDS researchers like John Lauritsen, who wrote "Poison By Prescription" way back in 1990.

Q: But you weren't successful in getting your class-action lawsuit filed and getting the truth on the record through sworn testimony, as you put it…

A: No, I wasn't, and it's true, I was very disappointed. But I didn't know anything else I could do. And then in 2003 I went to Lake Tahoe to write a book about men and why we behave the way we do, as a wedding present for my daughter, and instead I woke up one morning thinking, 'If no one is going to file that AZT lawsuit, why don't I write a movie as if the lawsuit had actually taken place?' Two months later I had a four-hour, two-part made-for-TV mini-series that was a Runner-Up in the TalentScout Screenwriting competition that year.

Q: So you took it to Hollywood?

A: As best I could, yes. It's not easy, to say the least, to get a screenplay in front of the right people. But even if I had, I doubt anyone would have produced it, or any TV network would have run it. It was far too controversial and would have required major "huevos" to actually put it on film. Even Michael Moore wouldn't look at it. Besides, in my screenplay, I used all the real names of people, and that would have caused problems and probably would have resulted in a court order not to show the film.

Q: You could have made up names, like you eventually did for the novel…

A: True, but there was another problem. I wasn't willing to give up control of the script, which you have to do if someone takes out an option on it. It would have been very easy for a production company to buy it, have GlaxoSmithKline then offer them obscene amounts of money not to produce it, and the whole thing would have been put on a back shelf somewhere and died! And I wouldn't have been able to do anything about it. Which is why I published this novel as print-on-demand, so that I retain all power and control over my work.

Q: You think a major publisher would have sold out to GlaxoSmithKline, if they came knocking?

A: Obviously, I can't say for sure. But if a company like GSK threatens to sue you and keep you tied up in court, costing you a lot of money, it would take enormous dedication not to give in. And a publishing company is in the business of making money, not financing a crusade. So I couldn't blame them if they caved. But I, on the other hand, welcome any and all lawsuits from Dr. Gallo, the FDA, or GlaxoSmithKline. I'm judgment proof - I don't own anything and don't make any money - so I would jump at the chance to actually go to court and get all this on the sworn record. In fact, I'm hoping somebody does sue me, for any reason at all!

Q: You apparently aren't afraid of losing…

A: In a libel and slander suit, truth is always a defense. In other words, if you've told the truth, you can't be found guilty of libel or slander. And I've told the truth in this book, backed by over 900 medical and scientific research papers, books, studies, videos, you name it.

Q: Did you yourself read all 900 of the references in the back of the book?

A: Oh my god, no. That's what a research team is for! It's true that I was trained as a Physician's Assistant, but I still wouldn't be able to understand all the technical material in those studies. Fortunately, the people who do understand, like Dr. Duesberg and David Rasnick and Harvey Bialy and the entire Group for the Scientific Reappraisal, and many others, explained it all to me through their work, and so I listed all the references they used as well as the ones I read myself. But I still have trouble pronouncing some of the words and names in those papers!

Q: And these 900 references prove what?

A: They prove, without any doubt, that the virus we have been calling HIV did not, can not, and will not ever cause AIDS, and that it was just something Dr. Gallo made up and announced at a press conference for his own glorification and financial gain - actually hoping and expecting to get a Nobel Prize from it all. What happened next is that the FDA wrongfully approved an anti-cancer drug called AZT as the treatment for AIDS, and we also started giving this AZT to people who were simply HIV-positive but had no symptoms - were not sick. The problem is that AZT causes AIDS because it destroys a person's immune system, allowing them to get an opportunistic disease and die. So AZT hastened the death of thousands of homosexual men who actually had AIDS - probably from using poppers - and literally killed hundreds of thousands more men and women who didn't have AIDS but got it as soon as we gave them AZT. And all this happened in the years 1987 to 1997.

Q: That would make quite a movie! But when you couldn't get your screenplay produced, you re-wrote it as a novel…

A: Yes. As they say, the names have now been changed to protect the innocent. But I want to make sure people understand: just because most of the characters have fictitious names, the words they say are absolutely factual. True, this kind of lawsuit could not actually occur these days, but the sworn testimony of every witness is exactly what you would hear if the lawsuit in fact happened, backed up by these 900-plus references.

Q: You come down pretty hard on Dr. Robert Gallo. I'm surprised he hasn't sued you himself...

A: Gallo called me - a couple times - threatening exactly that.

Q: What did you say to him?

A: I begged him... PLEASE sue me. As I said, truth is always a defense, and a libel and slander suit against me would give me what I was hoping for: a chance to get the truth on record. But I guess Gallo's attorneys persuaded him that he couldn't win, and he would be opening a huge can of worms; so he never filed the suit.

Q:Two years after you published Wrongful Death, you wrote Are You Positive?...

A: Yes, I discovered in my research for Wrongful Death that there were very serious problems with the so-called HIV tests, and that there was a good chance we were telling a lot of people they were HIV-Positive and about to get AIDS when in fact their test result was most likely wrong. And just like we did with AZT more than a decade ago, we pressured these people to start taking the so-called anti-retroviral drugs, now called HAART. But even the AIDS "experts" have found in their own scientific research that more people are still dying from the side effects of HAART - mostly from liver failure - than are dying from any HIV/AIDS-related illness. So we're still taking a perfectly healthy person, running a non-specific antibody test on them that can falsely react with more than 70 known medical conditions other than HIV, telling them they're HIV-Positive, and shoving drugs into their mouths that eventually kill them. Seems like nothing's really changed, has it?

Q: But you wrote it as another novel...

A: Yes, and I did that for a couple reasons. First, it's an effective way to work a lot of technical information into the story without being dry and boring. And secondly, there were cases exactly like this springing up around the world. In fact, I spent a week with a team of lawyers in Canada showing them how to mount this defense - the only defense that could work - for their client accused of first-degree murder.

Q: What happened in that case?

A: Turned out that the defendant was not only scared as hell, but a little... well, his elevator didn't go all the way to the top floor. He later fired this team of attorneys as a delaying tactic and they never had a chance to present the case in court.

Q: So what do you hope to accomplish with these books?

A: I'd like to sell 20 million copies. And it's not about the money. It's about the fact that 20 million people or more would finally know and understand the truth, and that would mean it would be harder for another Dr. Gallo or another GlaxoSmithKline to do what they did with AIDS and HIV. It might also mean we can put a stop to the murder that's happening in Africa, especially to the mothers and their babies. It's one thing to wipe out 300,000 young American men; it's another to kill millions of innocent women and children by continuing to give them AZT after all the evidence shows how toxic and fatal it is. Frankly, I don't know how the top brass at GlaxoSmithKline can sleep at night.

Close This Window