- Paperback: 64 pages
- Publisher: Inland Book Co (June 1, 1986)
- Language: English
- ISBN-10: 0943742056
- ISBN-13: 978-0943742052
- Package Dimensions: 8.4 x 5.2 x 0.2 inches
- Shipping Weight: 1.6 ounces
- Average Customer Review: 6 customer reviews
- Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #12,686,950 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
Enter your mobile number or email address below and we'll send you a link to download the free Kindle App. Then you can start reading Kindle books on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.
To get the free app, enter your mobile phone number.
Death Rush: Poppers And AIDS
Use the Amazon App to scan ISBNs and compare prices.
Customers who viewed this item also viewed
What other items do customers buy after viewing this item?
Top customer reviews
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
Sorry, John, I bit your head off but this is a highly volatile (puntended) subject and I doubt there will ever be conscencus.
You raise some interesting points. Perhaps I can enlighten on some other developments since "Death Rush" was written, 28 years ago?
Calling "Death Rush" 'absolute hogwash' and 'complete rubbish' is unfair, and it does not read as paranoid although 'scaremongering' may be fair on the AIDS issue.
Alkyl Nitrites ARE volatile, mutagenic organic chemicals and they DO produce Nitrosamines which can lead to Cancer.
They can sometimes cause pains in the armpits which are where the Lymph nodes are. A correlation between ANs and Lymphoma may be required here in 2014 as we look at the use of IsoPropyl Nitrite (which is, imho, a very unpleasant chemical) after the banning of Isobutyl in 2007/8 and the WORLDWIDE occurence of "Poppers turning s***".
Many leading UK eye surgeons have DEFINITELY noted damage to the Foveal area of the eye and its surrounding cones, vision has been lost due to the new Isopropyl poppers. This has a history, a youth in 1983 in Holland was blinded with vision fading over 3 days after lightly using poppers. I will find the reference and attach later.
Poppers DO cause Nitrosamines to be produced and these CAN lead to Cancer, Methemglobinemia (sp?) DEFINITELY occurs and the blood is oxygen starved with over-use, the Intra-Occular pressure in the eye IS increased causing damage.
Macrocytosis (enlargening of the Erythrocytes or Red Blood Cells) is seen in some individuals.
There is a suggestion that the Liver, Pancreas, Kidneys, Lungs, Eyes, Brain and heart are adversely affected, the extent has not been published. My gut instinct is to avoid the product or use lightly with excellent nutrition and supplements, especially antioxidants like Grape Seed Extract, Green Tea, Selenium and Vitamin C. The mouth, oesophoegus, throat and lungs are where poppers hit first - these areas should be looked after and monitored. I have spoken to Doctors about poppers use and most household General Practitioners have no opinion (1993-2006) or advised caution, although upon referencing the eye and immune issues, with nitrosamines, many advised extreme caution and were unsurprised Isobutyl had been banned and did not encourage the use of Isopropyl.
Pancreatic Cancer is almost always fatal and there may be a link but bear in mind there are Nitrosamines in many foods and drinks, alcohol, cigarettes and so poppers might be viewed as a "bad habit" a la drinking and smoking. Our body deals with millions of Oxidative chemical reactions per minute, it's an amazing mechanism unrivalled in our own mechanics.
For sure, there is a hell of a lot more Nitrosamine in Poppers than in, say, a beer. You get the same headache if you do enough, though!
I don't mean to scare anybody, I just don't want you to get ill. It's your choice.
Men are finding it harder and harder to quit Poppers and indulge in play without them, maybe as they have always been around and health risks not loudly raised until 7 years ago, apart from banning Amyl. And there goes Isobutyl...
Any document, a short book/pamphlet with references, that says AIDS is not caused by the HIV Virus is, in my opinion, seriously mistaken and bears scrutiny. I cannot speak to whether it damages the Thymus as said, but I will err on the side of caution. I have not seen this myself but it may be feasible. Any updates on this serious issue would be of great interest.
I want to call attention to this piece and to suggest you all Google "poppers nitrosamines million antioxidants" and have a look at the results. You will find articles on the health hazards and also this piece which debunks the AIDS connection in "Death Rush"
(from the "VirusMyth" website)
although, to be fair, some of "Death Rush" is backed up by studies and it's probably time for a reappraisal in light of some of the forum posts where poppers users in the medical profession have described discovering their "mangled red blood cells".
Use of "Poppers" in healthy, HIV negative humans engaged in safe sexual practice for periods IN EXCESS of 40 years can be seen as a lot of the "70s Disco scene" guys are around, but not everybody. In this age of Monsatan, you gotta be very careful about what it says on the label and I'm not trusting Isopropyl and neither is my Optometrist!
But those dudes who hit up on Isobutyl regularly for 45 years, well, some are still around. Check the sites and forums, get opinions, discuss, exchange, draw your own conclusions!
There is, to my knowledge, no watertight link, except White Blood Cell count depression, between poppers and HIV infection or the development of AIDS. Conversely, exposure to the HIV Virus has resulted in countless deaths, specifically in Africa and other underdeveloped places where such a "luxury lifestyle item" like Poppers is not used. Yes, there are variant forms, it seems but I do not have the figures on that.
I'll maintain that if the causative agent is a virus, it will propagate, but if it's a chemical and it's not introduced to the population, then how can it be blamed? The HIV virus has been found in a corpse from 1959. Sometime in the 1930s a form of simian immunodeficiency virus, SIV, jumped to humans in central Africa. The scientific research behind this is widely known. HIV infection will kill you, Poppers may make you breathless and feel dizzy/sick with heavy abuse, may lower your immune response (reversible) for a few days, but caution is definitely advised.
I am not so negative about the observations in this book as I was 2 years ago, but I do not subscribe to some of the interpretations and am interested in more research and the telling reports from users on forums which do scan with what is said in the book.
I refer back to my original text where I said to look at:
"A highly mutagenic and complex retrovirus with an incredibly resilient protein re-coding system that is the most serious threat to humanity we have come across yet, along with Ebola and Swine/Bird flu and BSE (admittedly a Prion)... or do we blame a simple Solvent inhalant that was used to treat Angina Pectoris for decades?"
And I offer that Alkyl Nitrites are far from simple if you don't know all the chemical risks.
The danger of viruses is only TOO REAL and I advise people to catch up with the latest findings, although how the HELL Ebola has been allowed to get out is a bigger worry. Self-awareness, prudence and safe, responsible sex is the best answer, and National vigilance.
I have re-read the text and it does make valid points but I reinforce my recommendation that people do not avoid correct advice/treatments where AIDS is concerned. I am aware of Messrs Lauritsen, Wilson, and Mann and their POSH movement which was an over-reaction and did a lot to divide the community, we need to be more accomodating to others' opinions.
Hank Wilson and John Lauritsen are, of course, entitled to their opinions and views (although they are outdated and I disagree with them on AIDS, I will nod on various other issues). I recall their colleague, the late Cass Mann was drummed out of court for trying to get Poppers banned. It may have been his style of presentation or lack of data but the info was not checked at a nationwide level and, until 2006, poppers remained legal. "A" ban has now come into place. It is hard to say with certainty what risk Poppers actually pose, I lament the passing of Isobutyl and the coming of Isopropyl. I would have preffered it if we had the right to choose. Cigarette packets carry warnings and big, scary pictures of lungs, maybe beer should have cirrhotic livers and street brawls on it, but people still smoke and drink, we still have the choice but not with IBN.
Read up on the LATEST facts, this piece is a bit out of date now.
Some of the science is sound.
I most like the picture of the Rush bottle and the tits!
"I join with my colleagues in shock and disgust to condemn this piece of absolute hogwash! A most paranoid piece by two scaremongers . . . Use of 'Poppers' in healthy, HIV negative test control humans engaged in safe sexual practice for periods IN EXCESS of 30 years have shown absolutely NO EVIDENCE of HIV infection or the development of AIDS. Conversely, exposure to the HIV Virus has resulted in countless deaths, specifically in Africa and other underdeveloped places where such a "luxury lifestyle item" like Poppers is not used."
What Phillips and the other negative reviewers fail to mention is that the book consists mainly of its bibliography -- a set of descriptions of clinical studies published by the following "scaremongers" and "zealots" following "scientific data that was not measured under correct standards":
MMWR (Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report); Journal of Forensic Sciences; New England Journal of Medicine; Annals of Internal Medicine; The Lancet; American Journal of Emergency Medicine; Clinical Toxicology; Sexually Transmitted Diseases; Cancer Research; Ugeskr Raeger; Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health; Cancer Immunology/Immunotherapy; Research Communications in Chemical Pathology and Pharmacology; Pharmacotherapy; Federation Proceedings; Preventative Medicine; Journal of Analytical Toxicology; Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine; Bolletino Societa Italiana Biologia Sperimentale; The Medical Journal of Australia; American Journal of Psychiatry; Journal of the American Medical Association; Oncology; and the British Medical Journal.
Phillips is saying that those studies have been invalidated by later and better ones ("use of Poppers . . . by control humans . . . in excess of 30 years"). But what "control humans" in what studies? As Peter Duesberg points out on page 7 of his book Inventing the AIDS Virus:
"The period of research into the cause of AIDS lasted only three years. It started with the identification of AIDS in 1981 and officially ended in April 1984 with the announcement of the "AIDS virus" at an international press conference . . ."
1985 is the year of the latest studies listed in Lauritsen's 1986-published book. The first two are from 1978. One of those, funded by W. Jay Freezer, the then un-iced manufacturer of the popper brands "Rush" and "Bolt", concluded that poppers were essentially harmless. How? Because it measured -- or said it did -- only ambient exposure of workers in factories where poppers were manufactured. I live in Los Angeles, and in researching and writing this review, an ad for "Rush" appeared on the sidebar of my Amazon comment-page for Lauritsen's book, lending credence to his claim that the Freezer-paid "study" was used by the state of California Department of Health to allow the unregulated sale of poppers as long as the "room odorizers" were not advertised as a drug or sold to minors. (As for Freezer, he has been odorizing his own room -- courtesy of AIDS of course -- since 1985, hoisted, as it were, by his own petar [sic -- Google: "wordnik petar"].
As for Phillips' observations about Africa, Duesberg and others have pointed out that African "AIDS" is an entirely different set of diseases with entirely different symptoms. For example, pulmonary Kaposi's sarcoma (of the mouth, throat, nose, and lungs) which has increased along with AIDS but which, according to Duesberg, Kaposi himself never saw a case of, tracks the ingestion-path of the popper-gas sniffed and then inhaled from its canister. Poppers users -- nearly all of them homosexual men who reportedly sniff the stuff to relax their anal sphincter muscles and thus heighten their mutual orgasms during their bleedin' anal intercourse -- suffer widely from this form of Kaposi's and are probably the only people who do. Comparatively few such cases were and are found in Africa, although it is not unknown.
What's especially interesting is Phillips' comment about "control humans." It has no doubt occurred to many people that since poppers are legal to sell and use, they could be subject directly to the kind of rigorous human testing that Phillips implies has already taken place, but which has not taken place outside of his own imagination or dis- or re-arranged memory. That testing could be along the lines of Koch's Postulates, only this time the disease agent would not be a bacteria or virus, and is already purified. There should be no shortage of volunteers among the gay community, both as active sniffers and control non-sniffers, both camps HIV-positive and non-HIV positive.
Of course, the sniffers would certainly develop AIDS and die, thus helping to destroy the HIV=AIDS orthodoxy and at least partially obliterate the credibility of Western science for a long, long, long time -- an outcome the current generation of biohackers is probably going to bring about anyway, and rather soon at that.
Only a profound personal and professional and depressingly familiar form of dishonesty -- the kind created by yet another "monstrous morale hybrid" -- the generic model is described by Jane Jacobs in her book Systems of Survival: A Dialogue on the Moral Foundations of Commerce and Politics -- could dismiss as "absolute hogwash" the studies described in this book. I doubt that any of Phillips' colleagues would attach their real names to a similar critique, and I notice that they have not. As a review it is comparable to Nicoli Nattrass's own profoundly dishonest book of sorts, entitled The AIDS Conspiracy: Science Fights Back. (See my one-star review of that effort, entitled "A Blatant Lie".)
Some people will do anything to avoid admitting they were incorrect about something, yet one would hope that after 20 years of spreading fear and misinformation linking poppers to HIV/AIDS, these authors would finally have the courage to fess up and/or shut up. Apparently not.
Anyone with any common sense or intelligence can tell from the statistics: If poppers caused AIDS or HIV, then the infection rates would still be skyrocketing everywhere poppers were sold and used. It's exactly like when people were afraid you could get AIDS/HIV from kissing; if that were true, we'd all have it. The numbers just aren't there.
On second thought, I take back what I said about using this publication for toilet paper. I don't wanna insult any toilet paper manufacturers...this trash isn't worthy of being compared to toilet paper.
The scientist who gave AIDS its name, Bruce Voeller, Ph.D., was quoted in a Mariposa Education & Research Foundation White Paper in 1986, saying that "I can also tell you that the intense campaigns against use of volatile nitrites conducted by Hank Wilson in San Francisco... and John Lauritsen in New York, are slim in scientific merit."
Written by anti-popper zealots who were both unable and unwilling to be objective about the subject, the authors' theories were subsequently invalidated by later research. The book (more properly called a phamplet) remains out of print it seems, which is where it belongs.