Below is a review of Dr. Al Bayati's research on AIDS by physicians and scientists.
Dr. Al-Bayati welcomes any scientifically founded challenges to his report.
Comment by Professor Otto G. Raabe, Toxicologist, UC Davis:
"Although others have previously questioned the validity of the hypothesis that Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) is caused by a retrovirus called HIV, it took an expert toxicologist and pathologist, Mohammed Ali Al-Bayati, to implicate the widespread medical use of corticosteroids and related therapeutic drugs as the major causative agent in the U.S. AIDS epidemic. These powerful drugs are currently widely used to treat a host of various inflammatory diseases.
Rather than beginning his analyses with a preconceived hypothesis, Dr. Al-Bayati used the techniques of differential diagnosis to let the biomedical data, epidemiological profiles, and other relevant information implicate the causative factors. In his rigorous evaluations, infection with the virus called HIV never surfaced as a necessary or even likely causative agent!
The HIV hypothesis, a staunchly defended thesis among its proponents, assumes that AIDS is caused by an infectious retrovirus. Since the AIDS epidemic began among homosexual men, the search for the AIDS virus was centered on this group. The discovery of this virus among these men fit into the virological hypothesis and it demonstrated properties that might be postulated to affect the human immune system. The declaration that the chosen virus was indeed the cause of AIDS was accompanied by the naming of this virus as the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV). Given this name, the HIV hypothesis suddenly became a self-fulfilling proposition and a classical example of the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent.
A few years ago I had the pleasure of meeting and briefly working with Peter H. Duesberg, a brilliant virologist and Professor at the Berkeley campus of the University of California. Dr. Duesberg's extensive credentials include pioneering work with retroviruses. His personal studies of the newly discovered AIDS virus led him to the conclusion that the virus called HIV was really quite harmless. On this basis he postulated a number of alternative explanations for the various cases of AIDS including the use of recreational drugs by homosexual men and the effect of the highly toxic AZT used to combat the illusive HIV. Duesberg's carefully reasoned arguments seem to have met with rejection and derision among the proponents of the HIV hypothesis and developers of anti-HIV drugs and treatment modalities. Duesberg's attempts to obtain funds to do toxicological studies of chemical agents, such as recreational drugs, that might explain the AIDS epidemic, were repeatedly rejected.
A significant fraction of our Nation's health research funding is earmarked for AIDS research. Remarkably, AIDS research funding exceeds cancer research funding by NIH even though up to 40% of Americans may sometime develop cancer and all the AIDS cases to date represent only a few tenths of one percent of the population. What I believe to be most remarkable about this generous research effort to cure AIDS, however, is that virtually all of this funding is actually only for HIV research. Limited attention, if any, has been given to investigating alternative mechanisms in the pathogenesis of AIDS.
Recently I have tried to discuss alternative mechanisms and causes of AIDS with various medical practitioners whom I know. Remarkably, the suggestion that HIV may not actually be the real cause of AIDS is invariably met with a response akin to anger. Why would a physician be angered by the possibility that the HIV hypothesis is incorrect or threatened by studies of possible alternative causes of AIDS? I am not sure, but as a scientist I must support an open search for the truth using the widest possible avenues of valid scientific investigation. New ideas are important to the progress of science, and sources of funding for research that objectively deals with nonconventional biomedical approaches are essential to the development of a complete understanding of complex issues.
Dr. Al-Bayati's detailed evaluation of the world-wide AIDS epidemic approaches the literature head-on and lets the chips fall where they may. Because of his objective use of differential diagnosis and his sensitivity and understanding of both pathological and toxicological factors, he is able to convincingly demonstrate that the convergence of several factors other than HIV represent the true causes of AIDS. This book deserves careful attention, especially from physicians who must decide the course of medical treatment for their various patients."
--Professor Otto G. Raabe, University of California, Davis, June, 1999
Comment by Dr. Joseph Mercola:
'For many this will be new information, although Dr. Duesberg and Dr. Horowitz have been taking similar positions for many years. Dr. Al-Bayati provides a solid piece of scientific support for the position that HIV does not cause AIDS. Exposure to steroids and the chemicals in our environment, the drugs used to treat AIDS, stress and poor nutrition are the real causes.'
--June 2001 (entire issue)
Comments on Dr. Al-Bayati's Report by Dr. Harold E. Buttram, MD, FAAEM:
One expert to comment is Dr. Harold E. Buttram, MD, FAAEM (Fellow of the American Academy of Environmental Medicine). He reviewed Al-Bayati’s report and wrote this letter in response:
"For the past several years I have had the privilege of becoming familiar with the work of Dr. Mohammed Ali Al-Bayati through mutually shared cases involving alleged parental child abuse in the form of shaken baby syndrome (SBS). In these cases, each of us wrote medical reports defending parents whom we believed were falsely accused.
Regarding my own background, in the past six years I have written approximately 80 medical reports in defense of parents whom I believed to have been falsely accused of violent physical child abuse, largely involving charges of SBS. With few exceptions in these cases, I have observed a troubling pattern of abandonment of the usual thoroughness one finds in medical centers once suspicions of SBS were raised. In most cases that I have reviewed, in my opinion, there have been varying degrees of negligence in working through differential diagnoses, sometimes missing the most obvious of alternate non-traumatic causes.
In the present case of the autopsy report on Eliza Jane Scovill, in my opinion, there is a similar pattern; that is, diagnostic assumptions have been made based on superficial evaluation with little if any attempt to investigate other possible causes of the child’s three-week illness culminating in death.
Regarding Dr. Al-Bayati, I consider him to be a master craftsman in a broad field of medical expertise. His workups are exhaustive and meticulous, yet plainly written so as to be accessible to reasonably educated non-medical people. He makes no statements or claims that he does not document in the medical literature.
In the case of Eliza Jane Scovill, I first reviewed the autopsy report, which did in fact give rise to personal concerns and doubts. However, after going through Dr. Al-Bayati’s report point-by-point, he put all doubts to rest. There is no question in my mind that his report accurately describes the true causes in the death of Eliza Jane Scovill."
--Harold E Buttram, MD, FAAEMQuakertown, PA, USA, October 30th 2005
Comments from Dr. Andrew Maniotis (Dr. Maniotis is a Professor of Pathology and Program Director in the Cell and Developmental Biology of Cancer at the University of Illinois at Chicago):
"Dear Ms. Maggiore:
As a Professor of Pathology at the University of Illinois at Chicago, one of the nation’s largest medical schools, I analyze many similar reports in the course of a single week.
From my experience in this area, I find Al-Bayati’s report on Eliza Jane Scovill to be one of the most thorough and well-studied investigations I have ever reviewed. If more pathologists used Al-Bayati’s same logical and scientific methodology, I believe there would be little need for inquests, charges of medical malpractice and fraud, and certainly less medical error in autopsies, diagnosis, treatment, and critical care practices.
I would only emphasize what Dr. Al Bayati developed quite adequately from a technical standpoint in noting how the independent neuroconsultant failed to perform the proper controls for the p24 staining of the microglia and neurons in this case. It should not escape the attention of readers, especially those not familiar with the technical language of these of reports, that the detection of the p24 antigen is not in any way diagnostic of the presence of HIV, or any other virus or pathogenic state. Positive staining for p24 in this instance, as in all cases reported in the published literature, is without scientific basis since positive staining can also be found in normal tissues and contexts.
I believe Al-Bayati’s analysis and report represents the state of the art in terms of methodology, completeness, and accuracy, and serves as a textbook model of how to conduct a differential diagnosis."
--Andrew Maniotis, PhD.Professor of Pathology andProgram Director in the Cell and Developmental Biology of Cancer,Department of Pathology, Anatomy and Cell Biology, and Bioengineering,University of Illinois at Chicago, USA, November 21st 2005