Aidsgate –August 2

What causes AIDS if not HIV?

SO… IF HIV DOESN’T CAUSE AIDS, WHAT ARE MILLIONS OF PEOPLE AROUND THE WORLD DYING OF…

The grim news of the AIDS epidemic is never far from the headlines but what is its cause? Why do we have no vaccine or cure despite the spending of $180 billion over 20 years? Could it be that our health institutions have tried too hard for too long to prove HIV to be its cause when it is not?

Despite the long-standing scientific evidence that suggests AIDS is not caused by HIV, as recounted in the last edition of the Ecologist, the health authorities have long only funded research based on the HIV theory of AIDS. Recently they emphasized this by renaming the epidemic as ‘HIV/AIDS’, a change some thought necessary to counteract the spreading influence via the Internet of the professors and scientists who say AIDS is caused by other factors entirely.

Today the UK Health Protection Agency states it is totally wrong to ‘deny’ HIV, affirming that its role in causing AIDS is totally evident since ‘those who are HIV infected [i.e. those who have a positive HIV Test] are far more likely to become ill or die.’ [1]. It bases its entire treatment of AIDS around the truth of this statement – and even goes further. Its treatment guidelines say the HIV test detects not a greater risk, but an inevitability. If positive, you will get AIDS.

But I found to my surprise that many senior professors and Nobel-Prize winners who say HIV is not the cause of AIDS are not disputing that the ‘HIV Test’ can detect a real risk of AIDS. Instead they cite research that apparently shows this test can detect, not HIV, but causes of AIDS for which there are remedies. If they are right, this would be enormously important, and would bring hope to countless thousands, but surely this was unlikely? At first sight it seemed it would be an utterly unlikely coincidence if they were correct. How could a test devised to detect a virus find instead an entirely different cause for AIDS?

But before I could consider this riddle, there was one thing further thing I needed to do. Before considering what could cause AIDS, I had to look again at the clinical symptoms of AIDS. Even if HIV did not exist, the illness called AIDS did exist. I thus consulted the textbooks and health authorities, hopeful that the clinical definition of AIDS would shed light on whether or not there really could be other reasons for this terrible epidemic.

But I discovered its official definition was far more complex and unusual than I had expected. It had been changed over 4 times in the West, and the international health authorities had given Africa an entirely different AIDS definition and clinical symptoms. I had presumed that an African is diagnosed with AIDS because they had the same symptoms as a Western AIDS patient – and was most surprised to find I was wrong.

THE FIRST DEFINITION OF AIDS – 1981-83.

At first AIDS was defined and diagnosed clinically – by the evident symptoms of the complex of illnesses from which its mostly gay drug-abusing victims suffered. These illnesses became known as ‘AIDS Indicating’. Under this definition, most patients had several of these illnesses and did not live a year after diagnosis.

The principal cause of death was a pneumonia (PCP) caused by a fungus that harmlessly lives in some 80% of humans, that had suddenly gone out of control and become a killer. The only time such an large-scale outbreak had been previously recorded in the West was among severely malnourished European children at the end of the Second World War – and likewise among such children in Africa. The victims also commonly had Candida or Thrush, another fungal infection found in most humans – but again out of control, causing not the common mild infection, but a gross growth that blocked the mouth and throat; and also a skin cancer called Kaposi Sarcoma. [2]

On top of these, most victims suffered from multiple sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) - syphilis and gonorrhoea of the penis, the mouth, the anus as well as Herpes, Hepatitis B and tuberculosis (TB).

When a newly invented test was used in 1981 to try to measure the strength of the immune system of the victims by counting how many CD4 Helper T-Cells they had in a ml. of their blood, they were found to have low numbers. This was thought to indicate an immune system in difficulty – but this symptom was not unique to these cases of illness. Similar results were coming from testing the victims of other illnesses – and from testing those suffering from severe drug abuse.

THE 1984 REDEFINITION OF AIDS.

The first major redefinition of AIDS occurred in 1984, after HIV was declared its cause. To the above list of ‘AIDS-defining illnesses’ the presence of the virus was added as an AIDS defining condition, as detected with another new test, today’s ‘HIV Test’. From now on this test would play a key role in diagnosing ‘AIDS cases.’ As the virus itself was near impossible to locate in patients according to US health authorities, this test was designed to find instead the antibodies said to attack the virus. The test was said to be totally reliable. If this antibody were present, it was firmly stated that the virus must be too. If the person tested had these antibodies, they were grimly told that they were incurably ‘HIV positive’ – and on an inevitable route to death.

This HIV Blood Test was looked on as a great advance. Every doctor wanted a way to predict the onset of AIDS. Now, instead of waiting until people were within 11 months of death, they had a test said to reliably predict even in an apparently healthy person the occurrence of AIDS within 10 years. And, if found positive, the patient did not have to be left nervously waiting for AIDS to strike at any time. The Health authorities had another test that would reveal just when this would be. They could use the above mentioned ‘Helper T-cell’ (CD4 cell) Count to see when the cells that HIV was said to kill dropped to low numbers.

In future all found HIV positive with the first test, would have to come back regularly to see their doctor to have the second ‘CD4 Count’ blood test. It was generally agreed that a count of 500 CD4 cells per ml of blood serum meant that AIDS was near – and that a count of 200 meant it was already or almost present. On average a healthy person had between 300 and 1,400 Helper T-cells per ml. of blood serum– although there are exceptions.

In future, when a person was both ‘HIV positive’ and had a low CD4 Count, they would be diagnosed to have AIDS before any physical symptoms of illness were evident. But this did not mean the former way of diagnosing AIDS was abandoned. People could still be diagnosed with AIDS because they already had an ‘AIDS Indicating’ illness and were seriously near to death. Both ways of diagnosing ADIS were seen as valid – but they could not have been more different.

No other ‘viral’ illness is diagnosed by finding antibodies in the absence of symptoms – and it is just as well! If we diagnosed other illnesses the same way, we would be facing not one pandemic but a score. Take the case of the major AIDS killer disease –– fungal pneumonia (PCP); 80% of us are exposed in early childhood to the fungus that causes it, and consequently nearly all of us are protected by having antibodies against it. If PCP were diagnosed the same way as HIV, on the basis of having antibodies against it, we would all panic. We would think a vast pandemic was about to eliminate 80% of the world’s population. But we do not predict this. The same applies to measles, mumps and many other common illnesses. The presence of antibodies against them is taken as a symptom of health, not of illness.

THE 1985 REDEFINITION OF AIDS FOR AFRICA

In 1984 scientists went to Africa armed with this new ‘HIV Test’ and discovered to their dismay that many Africans tested positive. But most had no sign of the ‘AIDS Indicating’ illnesses. This presented the scientists with a problem. If this virus causes these illnesses in the West, why weren’t Africans falling ill with the same diseases? There was also a practical problem. The HIV test was priced too high to be widely used in Africa.

Both enigmas were resolved when, in 1985 in the West African city of Bangui, the CDC experts with other international specialists agreed on an entirely new definition of AIDS especially for Africa. This listed, not the ‘AIDS Indicating’ diseases of the West, but a new group of ‘Major African AIDS Indicating Diseases.’ Astoundingly, these included the common symptoms of many common African illnesses, including persistent diarrhoea, intermittent fever and an itching skin rash! The presence of just these three symptoms would justify a doctor telling an African that he or she is incurably ill with AIDS. These symptoms are said to indicate the presence of HIV without any need to further test.

When I read this definition, it so astounded me that it took time for its implications to sink in. It seemed almost incomprehensible to believe that all an African needs to be diagnosed with AIDS are common symptoms caused by impure water supplies, by lack of sanitation – and by TB. There was no question that Africans suffer from more of their proper share of the diseases of poverty, and from rampant TB, but in future the same symptoms would be diagnosed as incurable sexually transmitted AIDS, thus terrifying millions of Africans.

The Official Definition of AIDS for Africa

The official World Health Organization ‘Bangui definition of AIDS for Africa’ says a person has AIDS, if they have two from its list of ‘Major Indicating Diseases’ and one from its list of ‘Minor Indicating Diseases’ (in the absence of ‘known causes of immunosuppression, such as a cancer or severe malnutrition.’).

It names the following symptoms as the ‘Major AIDS Indicating Diseases for Africa’, of which two are required for AIDS diagnosis,

1 Weight loss exceeding 10% of normal body weight

2 Chronic diarrhoea for over a month.

3 A fever for over a month, intermittent or constant.

It names the following as the ‘Minor Indicating AIDS Diseases in Africa,’ of which just one is required for AIDS diagnosis

1 Persistent cough for over a month

2 Itching skin rash (Dermatitis)

3 Recurrent Shingles (Herpes Zoster)

4 Thrush

5 Swollen lymph gland. (Generalised lymphadenopathy)

6 (Only for an African child – Repeated Minor Infections.)

(A patient who has Kaposi Sarcoma or cryptococcal meningitis need to have none of the above – these diseases are ‘sufficient of themselves for a diagnosis of AIDS’ in Africa.)

Thus in Africa, since 1985 to be diagnosed with AIDS, It is sufficient to have persistent diarrhoea, a fever and a persistent itch – all of which could be caused by living in unsanitary conditions – especially if also suffering from TB or one of the major pre-AIDS killer diseases of Africa. Dr Christian Fiala, who researches AIDS in East Africa, reported; ‘TB is very widespread in Africa. It's a bacterial infection that infects the lungs. TB is spread by coughing, and it's highly infectious. The typical symptoms of Tuberculosis are fever, weight loss and coughing. This is exactly what is required for an AIDS diagnosis.’

…end of box

AIDS is still diagnosed in Africa by this ‘Bangui Standard’ that conflates the effects of poverty and common African diseases. The implications are vast. It seems that WHO, the CDC and other international ‘experts’, have created by written fiat the pandemic AIDS emergency that has ever since terrified Africa, vastly concerning all outside that continent who care for what happens to its people – and fooling those journalists who do not think to check how AIDS is diagnosed in Africa before they ring the AIDS alarm bell.

I found the Bangui definition had also ‘democratized’ HIV and AIDS as all these symptoms sre shared by men and women, child and adult, gay and heterosexual, alike – as they all suffer equally from impure water supplies and from TB. Thus by the act of definition, AIDS in Africa, unlike in the West, is not mostly confined to adult gay males in the drug-scene scene but affects all categories of humans. In the UK today, the vast majority of heterosexual and female cases of ‘HIV’ and ‘AIDS’ are currently said by government experts to be confined to African immigrants ‘presumed infected in Africa’.

This redefinition also has apparently deceived experts into believing resolved one of the great enigmas of HIV science – why HIV seemingly behaves unlike any other virus by infecting mostly gay men in the West. You never hear of measles, malaria, TB, as only affecting one gender – or according to whether a person is gay or straight. The HIV scientists needed to show that women and heterosexual people were equally falling ill if they were to maintain with any confidence the HIV theory of AIDS – and a simple act of definition had done this for them.

To make matters worse, individual African countries have felt free to develop their own clinical case definitions for AIDS. Tanzania says just finding one of the above symptoms is all that is required. Uganda for a period allowed just TB to be defined as AIDS. As a result, their AIDS cases leapt up in number.

On top of this the WHO computer team in Geneva vastly increased its allowance for ‘error factors’. While their field reports list a steady number of Africans as testing HIV positive, around 70,000 a year; WHO worked out their annual estimate for AIDS in Africa by multiplying the reported cases by an ever increasing error factor to account for under-reporting. In 1996, WHO multiplied registered AIDS cases in Africa by 12. In 1997 this had jumped to 17. Recently in an 18 month period 116,000 new African HIV cases were registered with WHO, but it estimated, after multiplying by its new error factor, that the real total was 5.5 million.[3]

THE 1987 REDEFINITION OF AIDS FOR THE WEST

Despite the dramatic redefinition in Africa, those dying of AIDS in the West remained over 80% males with most of these gays in heavily drug taking communities. A 1987 CDC study found heterosexuals made up less than 5% of all new AIDS cases – and that these few cases were mostly on drugs. New York City Mayor Edward Koch drew the obvious conclusion. He told a 1987 AIDS commission. ‘The future of AIDS lies, to a great extent, in combating drug abuse.’

But some Gay organisations protested against this as an unjustified assault on their life style. They said it was proved that HIV was the cause – and they wanted a vaccine against it. They had been promised in early 1984 that a vaccine would arrive in 2 years – and it was now overdue. They broke up medical meetings, organised sit-ins in government offices. They demanded medicine. If not a vaccine, anything else that would lengthen their lifespan. Under this pressure, AZT was released in late 1986 as the first antiretroviral drug, despite having failed its safety trials when considered for cancer chemotherapy.

In late 1987 President Reagan named AIDS as a Number One killer, but other voices in the US appealed for some sanity, pointing out that it was already declining among gay men, that accidental falls in the home killed more people, that US suicides exceeded AIDS deaths by 100,000 and deaths from prescription drugs were 1.4 million greater.[4] The CDC in response grimly stated 1.8 million Americans were infected with HIV and about to get AIDS. When the White House asked E. Thomas Starcher, the CDC official who compiled AIDS case reports, to explain this terrifying estimate, he replied to their astonishment; ‘It's just a guess.’

'I was at the meeting' where this number was arrived at’, explained a CDC ‘source’ later. 'We were a subcommittee, and supposed to make these predictions. It was really just off the tops of our heads. We tried to estimate the number of homosexual men in the country. We'd fool around with those kinds of numbers, and then we'd debate what the infection rate would be...’ They then decided to take the percentage figure for the number of drug-abusing gays affected at the 1982 height of the San Francisco AIDS epidemic and apply this percentage uniformly across the whole country.

It then dawned on the Reagan Administration that AIDS among heterosexuals were also much rarer than predicted – despite the CDC classifying automatically all Black patients with a recent African or Haitian origin as heterosexuals (much as still happens). This caused a heated exchange in the White House Domestic Policy Council. The Education Secretary, Bill Bennett, asked James Mason, the director of the CDC, 'You mean this thing is not exploding into the heterosexual community?’ Mason replied, ‘No, it's not.’ Bennett then angrily asked, 'Well, why have you been telling everybody that it is?' Mason could only reply by referring to Africa, where, under the new redefinition, it seemingly affected women equally to men.

But the CDC had to do something as a result of this pressure. It responded by slashing its estimate of the number of Americans infected by two-thirds to a new total of 600,000 (a cut some have mistakenly attributed to the use of the just-introduced antiretrovirals)– and it redefined AIDS in a manner that would put its numbers back up.

Under its new definition, no longer was it necessary to have a positive HIV test before being diagnosed with AIDS – and no longer were the ‘AIDS defining diseases’ only the original PCP, Candida and Kaposi Sarcoma. Many more illnesses were added. The CDC stated that ‘with laboratory evidence against HIV infection’, (that is, with a negative HIV test) ‘any of the provided list of diseases could be diagnosed as AIDS’ if the patient had fewer CD4 (Helper T-Cells) in their blood than ‘400’ per ml. Thus, if one had a negative HIV test, the T-Cell count could substitute. T-cells were said to be killed by HIV, thus low numbers were said to indicate the presence of HIV. It was presumed that only HIV could lower the number of CD4 cells.

The CDC officials were exceedingly generous with their new definition of AIDS – as were the UK authorities who as usual closely followed the American lead. It could now be diagnosed even if CD4 count reported the immune system undamaged, even if HIV itself could not be detected, even if the HIV antibody could not be found – so no wonder the epidemic suddenly was reported as getting much worse on both sides of the Atlantic.

The new guidance to doctors stated, ‘if laboratory tests for HIV were not performed or gave inconclusive results, and if the patient had no other cause of immunodeficiency [defined as immunosuppressive treatment or cancer], then ‘any’ of the following list of diseases ‘indicates AIDS without a CD4 Count’! This list is still current and includes blindness caused by CMV (another virus), the presence of mycobacteria (the cause of TB), bronchitis, pneumonia, a herpes ulcer – and a dozen other illnesses. It also meant a specialist working on any one of these disorders would be able to get research funds from the increasingly large proportion of the medical budget put aside for AIDS research.

The new definition went on to say that if a person had a positive HIV test, then AIDS could be diagnosed if they had just one of another long list of illnesses including; septicaemia, pneumonia, meningitis, TB, bone or joint infection or an abscess of an internal organ caused by streptococcus or other common bacteria. All these had became ‘AIDS Indicating Illnesses’ brought on by HIV– as also were ‘multiple bacterial infections’ in children!

The new definition conferred an extraordinary status on HIV. Every one of these many ‘AIDS indicating’ illnesses had existed for hundreds of years before HIV was first diagnosed. Each of had its own cause; a bacteria, virus or a fungus which had to be present for the illness to be diagnosed. But HIV was said to cause AIDS without being found present. If it were not present, it presumably could not be killing our T-cells – and yet AIDS was still diagnosed. No justification for these decisions was given by the CDC.

Finally the CDC added, that people who did not fall under this definition of AIDS because they ‘have either a negative HIV antibody test’ or ‘an opportunistic disease not listed in the definition as an indicator of AIDS’, could still be diagnosed as having AIDS ‘on consideration of … a history of exposure to HIV.’[5] This last clause totally astonished me. Under this anyone with flu could be diagnosed as having AIDS despite being HIV negative, if a friend consistently has tested HIV positive.

No wonder there was an enormous public panic immediately after this redefinition! The Chicago Tribune warned: ‘New AIDS Definition Likely to Raise Toll’. [6] USA Today ran in 1988 the headline, ‘By 1991, 1 in 10 babies may be AIDS victims.’[7] In Italy this new definition was estimated by scientists to have put up the AIDS figures by 188%. In the US it was more like 280% - but with this redefinition came a watering down of the risk factor. With so many now said to have AIDS without having the original deadly AIDS Indicating diseases, the average life span after diagnosis increased without any need for medicine.

THE 1993 REDEFINITION OF AIDS

In 1993 the last redefinition of AIDS took place, one still applying in the West. All the AIDS indicating diseases added in 1987 were re-indorsed as AIDS indicating – with more diseases added – but the major reason for this redefinition was, the CDC explained, ‘was to emphasise the clinical importance of the CD-4’ (T-Cell) Count’.

In future the CDC would diagnose AIDS in people who had none of the symptoms of AIDS Indicating illnesses. All that would be needed was to find less than 200 CD4 white blood cells per ml of their blood. The CDC explained they were seeking the estimated 120,000 to 190,000’ Americans who had a CD4 Count of below 200 without knowing it. When it found them, it would add them to the list of people with AIDS. This, the CDC said, would more than double the number of reported AIDS cases, for ‘ the population of HIV-infected persons with CD4+ T-lymphocyte counts of less than 200/uL is substantially larger than the population of persons with AIDS-defining clinical conditions’ i.e. than those who were actually suffering from AIDS.

The CDC further stated that this would enable the far wider use of AIDS drugs. All with a CD4 count below 500, were to be seen as possible candidates for antiretroviral drugs – and those below 200 as for drugs against fungal pneumonia as well – despite no symptoms of fungal pneumonia appearing.

This time the UK contradictorily only partially followed suit. It said a person should have one of the ‘AIDS indicating illnesses’ to have AIDS in the absence of HIV – but after a positive test, it accepted a CD4 counts below 200 meant the person had AIDS even if not feeling ill – and should be put on antiretrovirals and drugs against fungal pneumonia.

Previously all AIDS patients had to have one or more life-threatening diseases, but by 1997, according to the CDC, 61% of all new AIDS patients did not suffer from any AIDS defining illness at all – and yet were being put on chemotherapy-type antiretrovirals for the remainder of their lives – in the expectation that they were sure to die soon otherwise!

Three illnesses were added in 1993 to the 1987 list of 23 ‘AIDS Indicating’ Diseases. These were TB, bacterial pneumonia and invasive cervical cancer. The addition of TB would have a gigantic impact in Africa – since it was already in the grip of a major TB epidemic, but also among Afro-Americans who also widely suffered from TB. Pneumonia was another major killer disease that would put up the AIDS numbers As for the addition of cervical cancer – this was the product of political lobbying by determined lesbian women in solidarity with their gay brothers. It came about because they accepted the government prediction that millions of Western women were about to get AIDS.

Until then very few women had been diagnosed with AIDS, but this could not last, or so thought Maxime Wolfe in 1992. She explained; ‘Almost all clinical research required a CDC definition of AIDS or an HIV symptom to be included in research [for funding to be granted.];’ Women were not falling ill with AIDS, but ‘we don’t know if women were really asymptomatic. They simply did not have male-defined symptoms.’ She believed; ‘Most women are in the early stages of the disease.’ By shaming the CDC with accusations of chauvinism, they apparently succeeded in having cervical cancer added to the AIDS list, despite no relevant evidence. The result was; ‘In the half-year following [the redefinition], over 9,000 cases in women were reported. The number of women said to have AIDS in the US went up by 300%.’

Thus AIDS has been greatly changed since it was first defined – but despite all this, it is still mostly the drug-abusing rave scene gays that die of AIDS in the West. You would not realise this however from the statements of the public health authorities. They emphasise the percentage rise in heterosexual cases among Westerners – without saying how many fewer these are in comparison to cases among gay men.

The Wall Street Journal investigated in 1996 the CDC claim that AIDS posed an equal danger to heterosexuals - and found that 90% of all AIDS cases were still among drug abusing gay males. The CDC was forced by the Journal to acknowledge it’s fund raising drive had deliberately exaggerated the risk to heterosexuals. It excused this by saying if it acknowledged the gay nature of the disease this would increase homophobia – and make it near impossible to raise AIDS research funds from Congress. It had thus adopted as its slogan; ‘You all can catch AIDS!” [8]

There has been no change in this tactic in recent years. In 2004 the UK government reported, ‘Recent increases in new HIV diagnoses have been largely driven by infections acquired through heterosexual intercourse’. And yet, the small print of the same Report stated; ‘Men-having-sex-with-men (MSM) remain the group at greatest risk of acquiring HIV infection within the UK, accounting for an estimated 84% of infections diagnosed in 2003 that were likely to have been acquired in the UK’ – and that out of 6,606 new cases of ‘HIV infection’ in 2003, only 43 cases were among women born in the UK, and only 57 among UK born heterosexual men.

By vastly inflating what can be called AIDS in the absence of the original severe illnesses, the life expectancy of AIDS patients was automatically increased – again by redefinition rather than by the use of medication. By 2001 life expectancy after diagnosis with AIDS had gone up from the 11 months of 1984 to over five years.

Under this watered-down definition, such a low rate of AIDS deaths is now being reported in the West that our government health agencies have been driven to what can only be called ‘cheating’ to keep up the appearance of a devastating epidemic. From 1993 the CDC recorded in its statistics every death of a person found HIV positive as if they have died of AIDS. [9] A 1997 CDC report made the rate acknowledgement that ‘Reported deaths [on AIDS statistics tables] are not necessarily caused by HIV-related diseases.’

Likewise in the UK. When I looked at the most recent official AIDS statistics, those for 2003, I found a sharp decline in AIDS cases had happened after the 1993 redefinition, from around 1,900 cases in 1993 to 766 in 2003.[10] The death statistics likewise fell from around 1800 in 1993 to 475 in 2003 - to less than half the total for the hospital super-bug. Then I looked in the small print in these statistics – and found the figures for ‘deaths’ in the ‘HIV/AIDS statistics’ were not for ‘deaths from AIDS’, as one might be forgiven to presume. They were for ‘deaths among the HIV-infected,’ leaving open the actual cause of death. This makes these UK figures not only highly misleading, but meaningless.

However from other research it seems most ‘AIDS’ deaths recorded for people born in the UK continue to be of gay men who are chronically drug addicted, dying of the same ‘AIDS indicating’ diseases that killed in the early 1980s – plus,