Aidsgate –August 2
SOÉ IF HIV DOESNÕT CAUSE AIDS, WHAT ARE MILLIONS OF
PEOPLE AROUND THE WORLD DYING OFÉ
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 ÔHIV/AIDSÕ, 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 ÔdenyÕ HIV, affirming that its
role in causing AIDS is totally evident since Ôthose who are HIV infected [i.e.
those who have a positive HIV Test] are far more likely to become ill or die.Õ [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 ÔHIV TestÕ 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 ÔAIDS IndicatingÕ. 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 ÔAIDS-defining illnessesÕ the presence of the virus was added as an AIDS
defining condition, as detected with another new test, todayÕs ÔHIV TestÕ. From
now on this test would play a key role in diagnosing ÔAIDS cases.Õ 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 ÔHIV positiveÕ
– 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 ÔHelper T-cellÕ (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 ÔCD4 CountÕ 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 ÔHIV positiveÕ 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 ÔAIDS IndicatingÕ 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 ÔviralÕ 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 worldÕs
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 ÔHIV TestÕ and discovered to
their dismay that many Africans tested positive. But most had no sign of the ÔAIDS IndicatingÕ illnesses.
This presented the scientists with a problem. If this virus causes these
illnesses in the West, why werenÕt 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 ÔAIDS IndicatingÕ diseases of the West, but a new group of ÔMajor African AIDS
Indicating Diseases.Õ 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 ÔBangui definition of AIDS for AfricaÕ says a person has AIDS, if they have two from its list of ÔMajor
Indicating DiseasesÕ and one from its list of ÔMinor Indicating DiseasesÕ (in
the absence of Ôknown causes of immunosuppression, such as a cancer or severe
malnutrition.Õ).
It names the
following symptoms as the ÔMajor AIDS Indicating Diseases for AfricaÕ, 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 ÔMinor Indicating AIDS Diseases in Africa,Õ 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 Ôsufficient of themselves for a diagnosis of AIDSÕ
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; ÔTB 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.Õ
Éend of box
AIDS
is still diagnosed in Africa by this ÔBangui StandardÕ that conflates the
effects of poverty and common African diseases. The implications are vast. It seems that WHO, the CDC and other
international ÔexpertsÕ, 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 ÔdemocratizedÕ 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 ÔHIVÕ and ÔAIDSÕ are currently said by
government experts to be confined to African immigrants Ôpresumed infected in
AfricaÕ.
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 Ôerror
factorsÕ. 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. ÔThe future of AIDS lies, to a great extent, in combating drug
abuse.Õ
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; ÔIt's just a guess.Õ
'I
was at the meeting' where this number was arrived atÕ, explained a CDC ÔsourceÕ 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...Õ 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?Õ Mason replied, ÔNo, it's not.Õ
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 ÔAIDS defining
diseasesÕ only the original PCP, Candida and Kaposi Sarcoma. Many more
illnesses were added. The CDC
stated that Ôwith laboratory
evidence against HIV infectionÕ, (that is, with a negative HIV test) Ôany of the provided list of diseases
could be diagnosed as AIDSÕ if the patient had fewer CD4 (Helper T-Cells) in their blood than Ô400Õ 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, Ôif 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 ÔanyÕ
of the following list of diseases Ôindicates AIDS without a CD4 CountÕ! 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
ÔAIDS Indicating IllnessesÕ brought on by HIV– as also were Ômultiple
bacterial infectionsÕ in children!
The
new definition conferred an extraordinary status on HIV. Every one of these many ÔAIDS
indicatingÕ 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 Ôhave either a negative HIV antibody testÕ or Ôan opportunistic
disease not listed in the definition as an indicator of AIDSÕ, could still be diagnosed as having AIDS
Ôon consideration of É a history
of exposure to HIV.Õ[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: ÔNew
AIDS Definition Likely to Raise TollÕ. [6]
USA Today ran in 1988 the headline, ÔBy 1991, 1 in 10 babies may be AIDS
victims.Õ[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, Ôwas to
emphasise the clinical importance of the CD-4Õ (T-Cell) CountÕ.
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 190,000Õ 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 Ô 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
conditionsÕ 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 ÔAIDS indicating illnessesÕ 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 ÔAIDS IndicatingÕ 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; ÔAlmost all clinical research required a CDC definition of AIDS or
an HIV symptom to be included in research [for funding to be granted.];Õ Women
were not falling ill with AIDS, but Ôwe donÕt know if women were really
asymptomatic. They simply did not
have male-defined symptoms.Õ She believed; ÔMost women are in the early stages
of the disease.Õ 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; ÔIn 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%.Õ
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 itÕs 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; ÔYou all can catch AIDS!Ó [8]
There has been no change in this tactic in recent years.
In 2004 the UK government reported, ÔRecent increases in new HIV diagnoses have
been largely driven by infections acquired
through heterosexual intercourseÕ. And yet, the small print of the same Report
stated; ÔMen-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 UKÕ
– and that out of 6,606 new cases of ÔHIV infectionÕ 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 ÔcheatingÕ 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 ÔReported deaths [on AIDS statistics tables] are not
necessarily caused by HIV-related diseases.Õ
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 ÔdeathsÕ
in the ÔHIV/AIDS statisticsÕ were not for Ôdeaths from AIDSÕ, as one might be
forgiven to presume. They were for Ôdeaths among the HIV-infected,Õ 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 ÔAIDSÕ deaths recorded for people born in the UK
continue to be of gay men who are chronically drug addicted, dying of the same ÔAIDS
indicatingÕ diseases that killed in the early 1980s – plus, in the last
decade, from a group of illnesses never defined as ÔAIDS indicatingÕ –
cancers, heart failure and liver disease. [11] These are
all acknowledged to be possible side-effects of antiretroviral drugs. [12]
As more and
more sensitive ÔHIV testsÕ are devised,
more and more people are being found to be ÔHIV infectedÕ – giving
the appearance of an ever greater epidemic despite the numbers of AIDS cases
sharply diminishing - as if the cases of AIDS have nothing to do with the
spread of HIV! This has led to a
life expectancy after a positive HIV test Ôexceeding 15 yearsÕ. This drop in
AIDS cases is not due to safe sex – as in the same period the incidence
of STDs has greatly increased. Neither can it be due to antiretrovirals, as the
numbers of AIDS cases have also sharply declined – and these drugs are
only given to such cases.
This pattern
is entirely unlike any other epidemic. In every other virus-caused epidemic, as
the virus rapidly spreads, the cases of illness grow equally – and then
suddenly fall in number as the population develops immunity and eliminates the
virus by producing antibodies. This Ôbell-shapedÕ curve for epidemics is well
established in virology.
But this
discordance is solely the result of our use of the test. If we judged the spread of AIDS solely
by the original AIDS symptoms, AIDS would be seen for what it still is, an
epidemic still mostly confined to a relatively small gay drug-abusing community
(and perhaps also to those ill from the effects of antiretrovirals).
My study of
Government AIDS definitions, epidemic reports and statistics, has disturbingly
forced me to conclude:
¤ The vast
ÔAIDS epidemicsÕ only exist because AIDS was redefined to include many healthy
people and many different illnesses.
¤ The HIV test
results have little correlation with the actual numbers falling ill.
¤ Despite our
Health Authorities insisting that ÔHIV causes AIDSÕ, and on only funding
research based on this doctrine,
in practice the presence of HIV is irrelevant to an AIDS diagnosis.
The US and UK Health
Authorities tacitly acknowledge
this by advising doctors that a negative HIV test is no bar to an AIDS
diagnosis.
¤ With or
without a positive HIV test,
the original complex of illnesses
first called AIDS still inflicts people. The victims are mostly among the same
group that was first affected – heavily drug using gay males.
But none of
the above resolves my original enigma – why the HIV test may sometimes
pick up a real risk of AIDS developing, according both to Government Health
Authorities who believe in HIV and dissident scientists who do not. Does the test provide us with a clue as
to the real cause of AIDS? It is
time to consider it in more detail.
End of First Part.
Small box to illustrate
text above?
From the 2004 UK GovernmentÕs
HIV and AIDS Report – showing the drop in AIDS cases and the increase in
ÔHIV diagnosisÕ after the 1993 redefinition. The line for ÔDeaths,Õ as explained in the article, does not
refer to Ôdeaths from AIDSÕ, but to deaths from all causes among those
registered as HIV infected.
Size of retroviruses contrasted to that of a lymphcyte or white blood cell. The smal dots in upper photo -and the points of the arrows - are like retrovirues - although other particles are extremely similar so cannot be easily told apart.
It is popularly believed that
a positive result with an HIV test is a sentence of death, a fate that is
leading many heterosexual people,
in the US especially but also now in Africa, to vow to a life of sexual abstinence
and dedication to God to avoid this terrible curse. But in the AIDS-affected drug-taking clubbing scene, where death from the original AIDS
defining illnesses is vastly more common, many see an HIV positive test result
as the inevitable consequence of being true to oneself. A gay culture has grown
up in which an inevitable early death is seemingly accepted, graphically
depicted in recent adverts for safe sex by a gay man depicted as carrying a
cross like Jesus. A positive test
result in the gay community means
one has joined a club in which there is much mutual support and caring. But whenever a trial of a new
antiretroviral drug is announced,
it is swamped by gay volunteers, desperate to find out if it will cure
them.
So what is this most dreaded
HIV blood test? What happens
if after a passionate night you
fear that you might have been exposed to HIV and so decide to seek an HIV
test? If you ask how the this test
works, you will be told that it looks for HIV antibodies in a sample of your
blood, and if it finds them, then you can be sure that the virus is also
present.
This test is normally given
some 2 months after the suspected exposure, on the biological ground that it
takes this long for antibodies to appear.
You may also be told that there are faster tests, available after two
weeks, but currently these are rarely recommended (see the P24 test below).
From this year, you may be offered an immediate sharp short course of
antiretroviral chemotherapy-type drugs prior to an HIV test to hopefully
prevent you being infected – but although approved by the CDC in March,
this is still a relatively rare medical practice.
A blood sample is taken,
normally from your arm, and sent
away to be analysed. The details of how it works are in the separate box, but
briefly; your blood sample is diluted and then mixed with synthetic protein
molecules, Ôantigens,Õ said to be modelled on parts of the virus. If these are attacked by antibodies
present in your blood, this means you have had a Ôpositive HIV testÕ. Further Ôconfirming testsÕ are
then ordered. If these are also positive, you will be told your unwise sexual
act has placed you on an inexorable path to death from AIDS that this can only
be delayed by taking antiretrovirals.
Thus the HIV test looks for
ÔHIV antibodiesÕ, and it is terrible news if they are found present – but what exactly are
ÔantibodiesÕ?
HOW ANTIBODIES DEFEND US
All text books on
ÔimmunologyÕ, the science of our
immune system, begin by describing
antibodies. They are molecules created by certain white blood cells to mark for
destruction foreign particles, whether toxins, viruses or bacteria. The white
blood cells are called lymphocytes since they mostly take on specialised tasks
in the lymph glands after being created in our bone marrow. About ten thousand
million lymphocytes are made every day of our lives. An adult human may possess at any one time a thousand times
this number.
Two types of lymphocytes are
known as T-cells, as they are formed in the Thymus gland. One is the ÔHelper T-CellÕ, also known
as CD4, which HIV is said to kill. It gets its name because it helps ÔB-Cell
lymphocytesÕ recognise foreign particles.
The B-Cells then produce ÔantibodiesÕ against these particles – and long-lived memory cells to
give us immunity in future. The other T-Cell is the ÔSuppressor T-CellÕ (CD8)
that destroys infected cells.
The antibodies are molecules
so tiny that their targets are not whole viruses or bacteria, but features on
the surface of molecules either floating freely or as part of the outer skin of
a virus, toxin or bacteria. Each antibody is tailored to match the shape of one
such feature. When it locks onto such it, it marks the particle it is on for
destruction by other parts of our immune system. If antibodies by error attach to parts of us, this is known
as an ÔautoimmuneÕ illness.
THE ÔHIV TESTÕ AND THE VIRUS
The HIV test is an ÔELISA
test, Õ a tool much used in biology to detect antibodies. But is finding an
antibody the same thing as finding a virus? Despite assurances that this is so in the case of HIV, I had my doubts. I could not help but
remember the failures to find HIV in the original AIDS research, as described
in detail last month. But –
was I being too cynical?
Twenty years had elapsed since then, and the UK Health Authorities
assure us this test finds HIV – and surely this meant they had assessed
it for accuracy? Logically such an assessment would involve the blind testing
of samples to check if it reliably detects those containing the virus . But I
found that it has solely been tested to see if it finds an antibody. Thus, when
the authorities say, as they do, that this test is nearly 100% accurate –
they donÕt mean the test finds the virus.
To use this test not just to
find antibodies, but to infallibly detect the presence of a certain virus:-
1
We must be certain that
the proteins (antigens) used come from this virus.
2
We must know that they
are unique to this virus.
3
We must eliminate the
possibility that the antibody also attacks other particles.
4
We must be sure that the
virus is still present.
5
We must be sure that the
antibody has not made us immune to this virus.
It is absolutely vital to the accuracy of the ÔHIV
testÕ that the proteins used are all correctly identified as from HIV and are
not from anything else. HIV is said to be made up by 10 different protein
particles. This ELISA test can
only tell that one kind of these proteins is being attacked, and not which kind
is being attacked. Thus a mistake
in the identification of just one antigen will make the test inaccurate.
As for the need to be unique, we need to know that the
antibodies detected are not targeting a feature found on particles not from
HIV. If so, this test again fails.
As for the virus being still present – antibodies eliminate
viruses and remain in the blood after they have gone, so the continual presence
of viruses can by no means be taken for granted. On the face of it, this test
can only show that some time in the past our immune system encountered the
proteins presented to it in this test.
This left me completely perplexed at first. Where was the research proving HIV to
be present alongside the antibody – and to be immune to it? I then discovered the alleged proof for
the continual presence of HIV lay
in the observation that people testing positive with this test, had an increased likelihood to get
AIDS. This evidently meant the
antibodies had failed, that the virus was still present – or so the
argument went.
But to my mind, this contained a failure of
logic. It did not eliminate the
possibility that the antibody detected was there to protect us against
something else entirely.
Antibodies make us immune, so what was this one making us immune
against? It evidently does not
make us immune to HIV since HIV is apparently unaffected by it. This left me
faced with a paradox. If it really were an HIV antibody, how could it exist
alongside HIV without marking it for destruction?
We know that the test detects an attack by antibodies
in the blood against a feature on the proteins added to the blood during the test. This much the test really does prove.
But – is the protein attacked really from HIV? This the test cannot tell. It depends on the reliability of
the science that first identified these proteins as uniquely from HIV
– and so I went back to look for it.
The HIV test was patented in 1984, so the work to
identify these proteins had to be done by that time. I found it was published
in the third of the four papers on AIDS published in Science in May 1984. It
told me that the proteins were found when Robert Gallo and colleagues took
samples of blood from AIDS patients and spun these in an ultra-fast centrifuge
to discover if any particles were present that might be HIV. When they
inspected the results, they found
protein particles. When they discovered that these proteins were attacked by
antibodies possessed by nearly half of the AIDS patients tested, it was
presumed this meant that the proteins must come from the AIDS virus.
Gallo wrote that two of the proteins he detected Ôp[rotein] 24 and p41Õ Ômay therefore
be considered the viral structural proteinsÕ as he had found many of them
floating in AIDS patient serum –
an enormous presumption since he had not found them by breaking up HIV.
(The numbers 24 and 41 referred to their molecular weight in thousand
Daltons). Despite a diligent
search, I could find any research showing that they had found these proteins
inside ÔlivingÕ HIV.
Nevertheless, on this seemingly uncertain basis, he patented what was
basically the same HIV test that we use today.
I felt there was something odd about his justification
for this, and when I looked more closely I discovered it was logically flawed.
The proteins were ÔprovedÕ to come from HIV because they were attacked by
antibodies Ôproved to be against HIVÕ,
and that the antibodies
were Ôproved to against HIVÕ because they attack these proteins –
an entirely circuitous argument!
It thus seemed that the theory for the HIV test fails
at the first hurdle. The proteins
used in the patented test were not proven to come from HIV. But, this still did
not explain why positive results with the HIV test may sometimes indicate a
real risk for developing AIDS (if the claims of both health authorities and
ÔdissidentÕ scientists are to be accepted). It only made such claims more perplexing to me.
What so far had I
established? The test
sometimes discovers antibodies are present that attack one of these proteins
– but not that these proteins are from HIV. So, what else could they come from?
I then found one of the top
UK government experts on HIV, Dr
Philip Mortimer, had warned. ÔDiagnosis of HIV infection is based almost
entirely on detection of antibodies to HIV, but there can be misleading
cross-reactions between HIV-1. antigens and antibodies formed against other
antigens [other viruses, bacteria or toxins] and these can lead to false
–positive reactions. [13]
Thus it may be impossible to relate an antibody response specifically to HIV-1
infection.Õ[14] This seemed to be an admission that all
might not be as it seemed with the HIV test, that the antibodies found might
not be against HIV.
I asked myself – what did we know about the illnesses
that first started the AIDS epidemic?
Was it possible that these antibodies are really present to fight the
specific causes of these illnesses?
Over 70% of all AIDS patients in the West have major fungal infections.
TB is caused by mycobacteria.
Fungi and mycobacteria are major causes of death among AIDS patients. It
couldnÕt possibly be the antibodies are present to attack them?
This at first seemed highly
unlikely – for it was just too obvious. Surely these possibilities would have been the first to be checked when AIDS was first investigated?
Then, while searching AIDS
literature, I came across scientific research that demonstrated that this is
exactly what is happening! Much to
my amazement I discovered that it had been long known that these same
antibodies attack the causes of the classic AIDS illnesses – both
mycobacterial and fungal!! For me, discovering this was like finding the final
missing piece in a jigsaw. The
primary research on mycobacteria was in a paper produced by a scientific team
that included Myron Essex of Harvard, a member with Gallo of the US
GovernmentÕs AIDS task force, and a co-winner with him of the prestigious
Lasker Award.[15] Other scientists had elaborated and
further established their findings. They reported that the antibody detected
with the ÔHIV testÕ targets a carbohydrate structure common to many particles,
including particles of fungi and mycobacteria, and to the thrush fungus better
known as yeast! [16] They consequently warned against
relying on the HIV test in Africa
where mycobacteria and fungi are widespread, saying this meant even the
contacts of TB patients would falsely test positive for HIV.
This to my mind was an
enormously important discovery. The proteins testing Ôas if HIVÕ were from the
classic AIDS diseases, as well as from very minor fungal infections. All patients with AIDS (and millions
of healthy people) are infected by the fungus that causes Thrush.[17]
Thus it seems the ÔHIV testÕ may
detect the early stages of major AIDS-related illnesses, as well as common
minor infections of no great seriousness, all without any need for HIV to
exist. Fungal infections are everywhere.
Is this why many thousands more test positive with this test than get
AIDS?
Suddenly I realised this was
the missing link that I had been seeking, that linked AIDS in Africa and in the
West. It was not a virus –
but identical features on proteins. With the same features on proteins produced
by the mycobacteria that cause the African epidemic of TB and on the fungus and
yeast infections inflicting gay communities in the West, no wonder the same
blood test found the same antibodies in both populations.
When I dug deeper, I found since the time of EssexÕs
research , many other sources had been identified for proteins that test
positive with the ÔHIV blood testÕ. Today the manufactures of the test warn of
these – and report that they
include having had a recent flu or tetanus vaccination, malaria, kidney failure, rheumatoid
arthritis, herpes, hepatitis and even having had many children! [18] It seems that healthy placentas could
produce proteins with the feature that is targeted by the same ÒHIV antibodyÕ!
The relationship between
having had many pregnancies and testing positive is particularly disconcerting
for South Africa. The World Health
Organisation currently makes its estimates for HIV infection in South Africa by
testing blood from mothers stored at ante-natal clinics and then applying the
proportion of positive readings to the whole country. It could be multiplying a
thousand fold the consequence of such women testing positive without being ill.
Thus, the more I looked, the
more contradictions I found. I even discovered that Professor Montagnier, HIVÕs
official discoverer, stated in 1997 that one of the particles treated as if it
is part of the virus, p41, is in every human cell – as a chemical called
Actin. If antibodies are attacking
this, then an autoimmune disease is present, not AIDS. At a recent AIDS conference, Professor
Papadopoulos-Eleopoulos of Western Australia presented a transparency
contrasting the results of tests for ÔHIV antibodiesÕ on leprosy, TB and AIDS
patients. It appeared the results were indistinguishable from one another. All
the samples tested as if positive for ÔHIVÕ. She was repeating part of the 1985
experiment by Max Essex referred to above. [19] His finding has since been confirmed by
a host of other studies. Could this
be why WHO does not rely on HIV tests in Africa?
As I looked at the
implications of this, I realised that this might also be why it is stipulated
that blood samples from patients be diluted 400 times before being tested with
the ÔHIV blood test.Õ This is a
highly unusual requirement. When other antibodies are tested for with the
ELISA, such as those against syphilis, no dilution is done at all. Could it be that without dilution, so many of us would test positive for ÔHIVÕ that the results would be unbelievable?
When an AIDS researcher, Dr Roberto Giraldo, tested this with his own blood, he
found without dilution, he was HIV positive, and with dilution, HIV negative.[20] His discovery has apparently been
confirmed by research showing "normal human serum contains antibodies
capable of recognizing the carbohydrate moiety of HIV envelope (glyco)proteinsÕ
– meaning proteins found with the ÔHIV testÕ are so common that we all
have been exposed to them. [21]
What if the reactions recorded with the HIV test are weak
or indeterminate? Then the
technician is told to take into consideration the risk group to which the
person tested belongs. If the person is African or Gay – then the
official advice is to send on the sample for further testing. If the person is
in a low risk group, their sample is not sent for further testing and they are
told they are ÔHIV negativeÕ. This practice can but increase the number found
ÔHIVÕ positive in pre-defined risk groups.
But, despite all this, the UK authorities do admit
that a ÔmaximumÕ positive result with this test is Ônot a reliable basis to
make a diagnosis of HIV infection,Õ and that Ôfurther testing is essentialÕ. After a positive result in the HIV test, the same test is
repeated. If it is again positive, then a Viral Load test is done on the same
sample. Finally a P24 test is done.
Only if all these are ÔpositiveÕ will you be told that you are ÔHIV
positive.Õ
So how do these confirmatory
tests work?
BOX
THE HIV
ÔELISAÕ Blood Test.
It does not
look for HIV in your blood but for antibodies said to produced by our immune
system to attack HIV. If such an antibody is present, then it is said the virus
must be too.
The test
involves these stages.
1. Removing the
red blood cells by allowing them to clot out. Since the test is a search for
antibodies , what are needed are the white blood cells – or lymphocytes – among which are the B-Cells that produce
our antibodies
2. Diluting the
remaining serum by 400 times.
3. Pouring the
diluted serum over a board to which are attached antigens. These are synthetic proteins modelled
on those said to be parts of HIV. These are the bait that will hopefully
attract the right antibodies. The
antigens are left for half an hour immersed in the serum, then the boards are
washed free of everything but the antigens fixed into position and the
antibodies that have stuck themselves onto them.
4. Then over
these is poured a further solution containing an antibody from another species
(Gallo used ones from goats) that will attack/adhere to the human antibodies.
Joined to these is an enzyme that will change colour or fluoresce according to
how many antibody reactions have taken place – thus the meaning of ELISA
– ÔEnzyme-Linked ImmunoSorbent AssayÕ.
5. The final
stage is measuring the colour change against a colour density measure, with
numerical cut-off points deciding if it is positive, indeterminate or negative.
6. If negative,
you are told straight away. If
positive the test is repeated on the same blood sample. If positive again, then
further confirmatory tests are ordered – the Viral Load Test and a P24
test in the UK (in the US instead a Western Blot test)
1. THE p24 TEST
The p24 test only looks for an antibody to one
protein, the p24 – thus it does little to extend what is found with the
ELISA. It is performed in the same way, but with just this one protein added,
not a mixture.
For some time it has been recommended for infants
– on the basis that the other ÔHIVÕ proteins may be passed on from mother
to child . It is also sometimes used to give a quicker result than does the
ÔHIV testÕ. The p24 protein is
said to be detectable from two weeks after a suspected HIV infection – as
against 2 months for the antibodies found with the ELISA. It is also the routine test used in screening
blood supplies for possible HIV infection. Finding p24 is rapidly becoming the key HIV test alongside
finding the antibody. ItÕs use is now being extended to more and more
situations.
I suspect that its increasing use is because p24 is
easy to find. This is not
surprising, given this protein is common in the human population, including in
healthy people found not to be HIV infected! The official AID Vaccine Clinical
Trials Group reported; "The presence of p24 band was common among
low-risk, uninfected volunteers and complicated the interpretation of the
Western blot test results" In
another experiment, p24 was found in seventy out of a hundred HIV-negative and
healthy people;[22] while, in yet another experiment, p24 was found only
in 24% of ÔHIV positiveÕ people.[23]
The UK official HIV testing guidelines, while making
this an approved confirmation test, admit that a positive result with this test
gives no certainty of HIV infection. Philip Mortimer, a top UK government
expert on AIDS, has reported; ÔExperience has shown that neither HIV culture
nor tests for p24 antigen are of much value in diagnostic testing.Õ[24] No
wonder, if p24 is widespread in the healthy. It is thus disturbing, to say the least, that despite it not
being Ôof much valueÕ, that the UK should approve it for use on infants and
make it an official confirmatory test for all.
2. THE VIRAL LOAD TEST.
This is the second of the two UK confirmatory tests
given after a positive ELISA. Like
all the other tests, this does not look for HIV itself. Nor does it count viruses, as from its
name one might think. It looks instead for tiny fragments of genetic code said
to come from HIV. This test in
recent years has been incorporated with the ELISA test and is done on the same
blood sample. It is used both to
confirm a positive ELISA and to monitor the health of a person already found to
be ÔHIV positiveÕ, especially those already on antiretrovirals.
It
studies these tiny fragments mostly with a technique called Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR)
designed to multiply these fragments many millions of times to make them far
easier to study and count. As this test cannot find RNA (the genetic codes of
retroviruses) but only DNA – the serum has the enzyme RT added to it to
turn any RNA present into DNA code.
As such vast multiplication is involved, any error is also multiplied by
millions of times – so the prior proper identification of fragments is
absolutely vital to this testÕs validity.
But when I researched how and when these fragments
were identified as being part of the HIV genome, I found such classic virology work had never been done.
Instead I found some of these fragments were originally located floating loose
when Gallo unsuccessfully searched blood serum from AIDS patients for the AIDS
virus. They are exceedingly small
fragments, most much smaller than even a single gene.
If you are found to have 10,000 such fragments of
putative HIV code per ml of your blood, then you are said by the authorities to
be on a slow path towards death from AIDS. The UK health authorities say:
ÔAlthough the precise values of the viral load remains a matter of debate, a
viral load of less than 10, 000 copies is associated with relatively low
progression rate [towards death from AIDS] If you have over 50,000, you are
Ôlikely to progress much fasterÕ towards death. Such large numbers of tiny
particles only equate, it should be noted, to the presence of one or two entire
virus genomes at the very best. They are also located in blood in which the putatively vastly larger HIV has not been
found.
Large numbers of such fragments may not mean that you
are ill. In a scientific study of
47 ÔHIV positiveÕ patients who had
refused to take anti-retrovirals and remained healthy, 30 were found to have
viral loads Ôhigher than 10,000 copies/ml and 3 had viral loads higher than
500,000 copies/ml.Õ [25] Thus perhaps such high numbers can be found in
healthy people. It should be noted that it is entirely natural and healthy to have many such codes in our
blood. Whenever a cell of ours
normally dies, its DNA is washed
away as fragments in our blood. As around 30% of healthy DNA is made up by code
originally brought into our cells by retroviruses, this means a lot of this
normal waste contains retrovirus codes.
Yet with a reading of 10,000, you may be told that you
should start immediately on powerful antiretrovirals, drugs also sold as
chemotherapy for cancer, and informed that you must take them for the rest of
your life, for, as the UK AIDS Treatment guidelines warns; Ôfollowing the
cessation of therapy [with anti-retrovirus drugs] the wild-type virus rapidly
emergesÕ - as revealed not by
finding the virus, but with these same tests.
Why these tests often record a rise in viral load, and
a decrease in CD4 cells, when antiretroviral treatment is ended, I am not sure.
Perhaps it is because that these drugs have created much damaged DNA that is
rapidly removed when permitted by the end of treatment? Perhaps the CD4 cells
drop in number since our immune system has converted them into killer CD8 cells
to get rid of foreign particles or damaged cells?
The scientist who won a Nobel Prize for inventing PCR,
the main tool used to do this count, Dr Kary Mullis, had emphatically and
somewhat angrily stated that it is highly misleading to use his test like this,
for it cannot count viruses. But I
think the test fails one ultimate test.
It is based on us knowing precisely what is the HIV genome. If the virus was never isolated, then
how on earth can anyone identify these fragments as definitely coming from its
genome? It seems that, as with the
ÔHIVÕ proteins, these are only said to come from the virus because they were
found floating freely in the blood of AIDS patients, of people typically
infected with a multitude of pathogens, and whose blood is full of
disintegrated cells.
There is finally one other test that is used, usually
after ÔHIVÕ diagnosis, to measure the damage thought done by HIV and to predict
the onset of AIDS.
THE
T-CELL COUNT.
This test may well be ordered
by your doctor immediately you are found ÔHIV positiveÕ, Again, this does not
look for HIV. It tries to measure
the state of health of your immune system by counting the number of CD4 Cells,
ÔHelper T-CellsÓ in a millilitre sample of your blood. It is now said that if
you have less than 200 of these per ml. of blood, this is a definite sign both
that HIV has been killing these cells, and that you are starting to get
AIDS.
Healthy people were found to
typically have a wide range of T-cell numbers– from 237 to 1817 in one
study.[26] However the relationship between
these numbers and the efficacy of our immune system is not so easy to
determine. A recent study of ÔHIV+Õ people found many remained Ôfree of
illnesses and of AIDS over three years after their CD4 counts fell below 200Õ
and the CDC itself estimated in 1993 that up to 190,000 Americans had levels
this low without showing signs of illnesses.[27]
Other studies have shown that
when CD4 cells fall in number, the
number of CD8 cells in the blood often goes up commensurately, so that the
total number of these cells remains the same. It has been deduced from this that our immune system can
change CD4 into CD8 and vice versa
as needed. Popovic mentioned this reverse ratio in his 1984 paper prior to it
being edited. He stated, Ôthis results in reverse ratios of helper to
suppresser T cell lymphocytes.Õ This statement was crossed out by Gallo. (It should be noted that a similar
reverse ratio between CD4 and CD8 numbers is also observed in other illnesses.)
In any case, the CDC does not
regard the number of T-Cells a person has as the critical element. It stated in
2002 "If a person has been diagnosed with an AIDS Indicator Disease, then
that person meets the 1993 AIDS Surveillance Case Definition, regardless of the
CD4 count." Many factors can cut the number of T-Cells. For example, an
article published in Science in December 2004 reported that 1 part per million
of benzene fumes can cut the CD4 cell numbers in blood by 15 to 18%.[28] Other studies indicate that nitrate
inhalant drugs, and crack cocaine, can dramatically cut the number. Even stress
can lower the number.
A study of patients in
intensive care in hospitals concluded that low levels of CD4 cells need not
involve HIV and were no measure of severity of illness: ÔOur results
demonstrate that acute illness alone, in the absence of HIV infection, can be
associated with profoundly depressed lymphocyte concentrations. Although we
hypothesized that this depression would be directly related to the severity of
illness, this relationship was not seen in our results. The T-cell depression
we observed was unpredictable and did not correlate with severity of illness,
predicted mortality rate or survival rate.Õ[29]
In short, no relationship has
yet been established between the severity of illness and the numbers of
T-Cells.
In Summary: None of the
tests find HIV. What are looked for are antibodies, proteins, genetic code
fragments and white blood cells.
WHEN YOU ARE TOLD YOU ARE
HIV POSITIVE.
But despite all these flaws in
the tests, your life may hinge on
what results the tests give you. Undertaking the test is thus a highly risky
business. If they report you are
HIV (antibody) positive, and have
a low CD4 count, you may soon come
under considerable pressure from doctors that in good faith trust the accuracy
of the tests and wish to prolong your life with antiretrovirals. They will tell you that you are about
to get AIDS.
But after being found
positive, your CD4 count may stay
high for years. When AIDS is about to strike is not determined by when you fall
ill, but by using these same tests. You will be tested every six months to
reveal how fast you are proceeding towards AIDS.
When your CD4 count falls, and
your viral load is high, you will be probably told by your doctor that you must
now start to take antiretrovirals – or otherwise you will soon die of
AIDS. This will come as a shock
– for you are probably still feeling well, with no symptoms of AIDS. But
nonetheless, at this point considerable pressure may come on you to start
taking these powerful chemotherapy-type drugs.
If you are pregnant, the
pressure to take the drugs may be intense. If you do not take them, you are
said to risk giving AIDS to your child. In the US a newly born child can be
taken without a court order from an HIV positive mother, put in a home and
forcibly dosed with antiretrovirals if the mother has refused to take them.
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
These drugs are today the
major Western answer to the AIDS epidemics – but none of them are
cures. Dr Anthony Fauci, Head of
the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, confessed in 2000.
ÔThere is no hope for a cure for AIDS with the current drugs.Õ [30]. Attacking HIV had failed to stop AIDS. Antiretroviral treatment was said
to add 2 years to a personÕs life expectancy after diagnosis with AIDS,
bringing it up to an average of 7 years
from the 5 years that followed from the 1993 AIDS redefinition.
But do people live longer because more of them are apparently
healthy when put on the drugs?
Alternatively, is a benefit of the drugs themselves – or the
treatments given alongside them? If a patient has TB, drugs against TB are
given precedence over antiretrovirals in the West. The same goes for drugs for
fungal pneumonia, for decades the
main killer of ÔAIDS patientsÕ.[31] In Botswana quite sensibly it
has been laid down that clean water supplies have to be provided to potential
AIDS victims, not just antiretrovirals – and that nutrition should also
be cared for. Such measures can
undoubtedly help– but what about the antiretrovirals themselves? What do
they do exactly?
THE
ANTI-RETROVIRAL DRUGS
These
drugs do not target HIV itself – and not even the family of retroviruses.
They target instead the parents of retroviruses, the cells of our body and the cellular basis of organic
life. This is not an undesirable side effect – it is the way they are
designed to work. It is hoped that
by stopping our cells producing retroviruses, or even from dividing, they will stop the birth of HIV. They are thus said to
eliminate the production of all retroviruses – including the vast number
of harmless and useful ones produced by our cells as part of us. These self-made viruses are thought to
repair damaged DNA, but their extinction is rarely if ever deplored – or
even considered as a risk factor. They are not valued it seems, because their
role is not understood by all.
They
target our cells in a manner equivalent to dropping a 2000 kg bomb on a house
to kill a mouse, by targeting the most basic processes of cellular life, the
production of our DNA; the very process by which our bodies grow, are healed
and our cells replaced, in the near suicidal hope that, by stopping this most
vital process, they also may stop the production of ÔHIVÕ!
At least
4 of the AIDS antiretrovirals are also marketed for chemotherapy against cancer
– but for cancer they are only administered for a short period, to
minimalise their very damaging side effects. For AIDS, the
patients are supposed to keep on taking them until they die.
Since the drugs
work by blocking the synthesis of DNA, the first cells to be eliminated are
those that reproduce most often, and thus need new DNA most often – such
as bacteria. Thus the initial impact of taking these drugs may seem very
beneficial, since they may clear up opportunistic infections.
But this
beneficial stage usually does not last more than a few weeks. The drugs by
blocking cellular processes soon start to seriously damage the cells of our
immune system, since these also reproduce quickly – thus doing the very
damage that is blamed on HIV. As
they interfere with DNA, they can also produce cancer. A
medical study found; Ôopportunistic infections, AIDS-associated malignant
conditions and other non-infectious diseases É often appeared shortly after the
introduction of HAART.Ó[32]
ÔHAARTÕ is the normal way for
these drugs to be administered today. It stands for ÔHighly Active Anti
Retrovirus TherapyÕ. It can produce heart attacks. A study found ÔThe incidence
of MI (heart attack) in HIV infected patients increased in our cohort after the
introduction of HAART.Õ[33] Anther major study concluded of HAART:
Ôthe treatment benefit is temporary and confers no long term survival
advantage.Õ[34]
HAART
involves normally a combination of three antiretrovirals, thus its alternative
euphemistic name of ÔCocktails.Õ The British HIV AssociationÕs (BHIVA)
guidelines for HAART, written by a committee dominated by doctors funded by
major Anti-Retrovirus drug manufacturers, [35] currently advises HIV+ patients
without symptoms of AIDS, but with a CD-4 count between 200-350, to start on a
HAART consisting of two Nucleoside RT Inhibitors, and one other kind of
anti-retroviral.
The major
types of antiretrovirals are as follows:
Nucleoside RT
Inhibitors. These include the first anti-retrovirus
drug, AZT (marketed as ÔRetrovirÕ or ÔZidovudineÕ). It is a product of failed
cancer research. When first invented it was set aside as too dangerous to use
for cancer, but in 1987, after a three month controversial safety trial that
became Ôunblinded,Õ or seriously flawed, it was marketed for long-term use for
AIDS by the company we now know as Glaxo Wellcome. Since AIDS is seen as an emergency, it has since become common to release these drugs
without adequate long-term studies. A study in Lancet in 2000 reported; Ôthe severity of the
HIV epidemic led to accelerated licensing of many antiretroviral agents, often
with very little known about long-term safetyÕ. [36]
This drug uses a
synthetic look-alike of thiamine, one of the four basic building blocks
(ÔnucleosidesÕ) of our DNA. The typical daily dose provides every cell within
us with some 10,000 of these artificial particles. [37] Our cells then try to use these to
build DNA, as if they were the real thing. But they are not – so our DNA
production is blocked. These drugs are aptly also grimly known as
ÔTerminators.Õ
It particularly
targets our bone marrow, where its first victims include the fast growing
T-Cells, thus suppressing our immune system exactly as HIV is supposed to do.
Inevitably the drugs then start to impede the production of the slower cells
within our bodies, including those of our livers, kidneys and other organs.
Such damage would be totally unacceptable – if it were not presumed that
all patients found ÔHIV positiveÕ were already doomed.
The
damage over years can be enormous, despite the best efforts of the monitoring
doctors. It so impedes cell replacement that patients may start to look
skeletal, an effect increased by the severe malnutrition caused by it killing
stomach flora. Consequentially Glaxo Wellcome sells the drug with a warning
that Ôprolonged use of Retrovir [AZT] has been associated with systematic
myopathy [body wasting] similar to that produced by HIVÕ. In other words, AZT
produces a disease clinically just like AIDS.
When first
introduced, many died on doses up to five times as large as given nowadays, but
these deaths were said to be due to HIV cleverly mutating. Every death while on
these drugs is blamed on the virus. Today ÔAIDSÓ deaths are avoided or delayed
by the practice of taking patients off them whenever they become critically
ill, on the grounds that the virus Ôhas gained resistanceÕ to the drugs, rather
than the drugs have created the critical state. Some weeks later, when the
patients have recovered some strength, the patients are mostly put back onto a
different ÔcocktailÕ– to repeat the process again and again.
The drugs also
damage the DNA of the mitochondria that provide essential energy to our cells.
NRTI anti-retroviral drugs Ôinhibit
mitochondrial DNA synthesis,Õ.[38] thus vitally weakening all internal organs and our immune system.
The drugs thus create the same kind of damage as that produced by nitrite
inhalants, one of the most toxic recreational drugs known – an irony, as this drug is also suspected of
causing AIDS.
A
recent study reported; ÔMitochondrial toxicity of some nucleoside analogues,
when used alone or in association, is now well established. These molecules can
cross the placenta, such that the foetus is often exposed for several months.Õ
Animal trials show it can affect the brains of embryos..[39]
Despite this finding, these drugs are still given to pregnant mothers in Africa
– in order to prevent their embryos getting ÔHIVÕ!
A medical
reference work entitled Drug Information for the Health Care Professional (1996) reported;Õ it is often difficult to
differentiate between the manifestations of HIV infection and the
manifestations of zidovudine (AZT). In addition, very little placebo controlled
data is available to assess this difference.Õ Thus a doctor would find it very
hard to distinguish a death caused by these drugs from a death from AIDS.
Glaxo
Wellcome made in 2003 over $317 million from AZT sales. The drug has now
brought the company over $2.5 billion in total. Several hundred thousand people
are now on AZT, according to the New York Times.
ÔTrizivir,Õ a ÔcocktailÕ of three Nucleoside RT Inhibitors including
AZT made by Glaxo Wellcome, comes with the warning; ÔDoes not cure or prevent
HIV infection or AIDSÕ. When it was launched, several deaths occurred within a
year. These were blamed on Ôhyper-sensitive reactions.Õ The company told the Financial Times: Ôclinical trials
have indeed shown that it has a potential for side effects É patients have died
from using it.Õ[40] In its first two years of use, this
cocktail brought the company around $350 million in revenue. Its current US
price is $1,170 for a monthÕs pills, making it one of the most expensive.
These do much the
same, but their target is to disable RT (Reverse Transcriptase), the enzyme our
bodies use to move genetic codes into our DNA, one of the most basic processes
in the life of every cell. These drugs spread in us synthetic particles that
attach to RT, thus preventing it from doing its work. The intent is to stop the
process by which HIV is thought to enter
our cells, by preventing all retroviruses, mostly our own, from doing so. Yet RT is now known to be not only in
all retroviruses, but in every cell of our body, giving vital flexibility and
adaptability to our DNA, helping our cells do vital repair work.
One of these drugs is
Nevirapine. In 2002 President Bush
made this the centrepiece of US aid to Africa, as it had been especially
recommended by the CDC for HIV positive pregnant women. But the CDC had warned
earlier, on the 5th January 2001, that Ôhealthy health care workers stuck by
[possibly infected] needlesÕ should not be given this as ÔNevirapine can
produce liver damage severe enough to require liver transplants and has caused
deathÕ. A 43 year old laboratory worker had Ôsustained a needlestick injury
after drawing blood from an HIV negative but hepatitis C positive patient. She was immediately put on an
anti-retroviral ÔcocktailÕ including Nevirapine, and consequently Ôrequired a
liver transplant 35 days later.Õ[41]
Nevertheless the drug is
still strongly recommended for pregnant mothers in Africa (but not in the US.)
It is apparently better for Africans as it is slightly cheaper – at about
$180 a monthÕs dosage. Most single anti-retrovirals cost $280-700 for 4 weeks,
with Cocktails costing $650 -$1020.
The US Administration has
very recently approved a ÔgenericÕ and cheaper cocktail for use solely in
Africa. This will be made in South Africa with permission from Glaxo. It is
made up by AZT, Nevirapine and Lamivudine..[42]
These antiretrovirals targets
another vital enzyme in us, protease. This is used by our cells to divide,
enabling the creation of more cells – again an essential part of life.
Dr David Rasnick, a protease
specialist, reported these antiretrovirals Ôcause a massive cholesterol
increase which frequently leads to heart attacksÉ. [43] they do most damage
to the liver. [44]
As a result liver failure is now the number one killer of AIDS patients.Õ[45] He adds that they also Ôcause
lypodstropy – a deformation of fat. [It] moves out of the face, arms and
legs, which become veiny sticks, the face become skeletal. The fat collects into a Ôbuffalo humpÕ
on your upper back. The belly becomes extended and bloated.Õ (ed – see
photo supplied) Another study noted
that ÔHyperlipidaemia [unnatural fat distribution] at degrees associated with
cardiovascular morbidity occurred in 74% of protease-inhibitor recipients.Õ [46]
A new type of anti-retroviral
drug is a Fusion Inhibitor. This
attaches itself to the outside of our T-cells, thus hopefully preventing HIV
connecting to them and infecting them. But it also blocks the access to our
T-cells of many other particles, often preventing it from doing its work in
protecting us. Its very use is thus a council of despair.
A recent study concluded; ÔIt
is safe to conclude that a cure is extremely unlikely with the current approach
to treatment...There is growing concern about the long-term toxicity and
adverse effects of therapy, including liver damage and mitochondrial toxicity
caused by nucleosides, the most studied anti-HIV drugs. After drugs are
approved, fewer organized efforts are made to monitor them for long-term
toxicities...the quest for HIV treatment is fuelled by the expensive,
technologically oriented approach used in wealthy countries.Õ[47]
Most who take these drugs die
on them, usually after three courses of these drugs have failed, and after
undergoing a final period of up to six antiretrovirals at once called ÔSalvage
Therapy.Õ But their doctor will assure them, and may well believe, that they
have lived longer by taking the drugs.
ANTI-RETROVIRALS
FOR THE HIV NEGATIVE
The CDC in January 2005 recommended that an HIV negative person go on a
ÔcocktailÕ of these drugs for 28 days immediately he or she has had Ôunsafe
sex.Õ To have a chance of being effective, they must be taken within 72 hours
of the incident – or later, it added, if the risk is serious – so
the drugs can get to the virus before it fully infects us.[48]
Lisa Grohskopf of the CDC explained; ÔThe new guidelines are designed
for use in specific situations, such as an occasional lapse in safer sex
methods, a broken condom, rape or one-time sharing of needles.Õ Ronald O.
Valdiserri of the CDC added, in language reminiscent of the moral push of the
Bush Administration, Ôthe drugs are not a substitute for abstinence [and]
mutual monogamy.Õ[49]
The CDC, for these HIV negative people who fear infection but who have
no sign of illness, recommends
short intense courses of triple
cocktails including AZT on the Ôassumption that the maximal suppression of
viral replication É will provide the best chances of preventing infection.Õ[50] This drastic course it only recommends because it tentatively
thinks these drugs Ômight reduce the risk of infection.Õ (In all there were 65
ÔmightsÕ and 22 ÔpossiblesÕ in its statement authorising this treatment.) In
making this recommendation, it has adopted a suggestion made last year by
Robert Gallo, the first to claim to find HIV.
This statement means in future the manufacturers of these drugs will be
able to drive up demand simply by building on our fear and paranoia. [51] Although the CDC
says seek guidance from your doctor if you are not sure about your degree of
risk, a broken condom suffices in its judgement. This change in practice is
likely to lead to a vast increase in the use of these drugs.
THE SIDE EFFECTS
The
CDC in January 2005 listed the Ôexpected frequency of signsÕ of ÔAcute
Anti-Retroviral SyndromeÕ (falling ill from the drugs). It said 97% will be fevered, 74% get
lymphadenopathy, 70% a painful rash - with lesions, mouth and genital ulcers,
32% diarrhoea, 27% vomiting, 13% weight loss, 12% thrush – and 12%
dangerous neurological diseases, possibly leading to dementia or death. In
other words, these drugs produce most symptoms of AIDS in the West – and
produce all the symptoms needed for an AIDS diagnosis in Africa.
But
the CDC surprisingly left out of this list acute liver failure. In 2002, at the
14th International AIDS Conference in Barcelona, Dr. Amy Justice of Pittsburgh
University, produced one of the first surveys of the main cause of death in
AIDS victims. She had studied the records of nearly 6,000 AIDS patients in the
US and found Ôthe most common cause of death among HIV positive people is liver
failureÕ. These patients were all on antiviral medicines. When asked if she
felt these drugs were involved in their deaths, she replied she did. ÔIt is the
dark side of these drugs.Õ [52]
Another study reported; ÒA
comprehensive retrospective review of more than 10,000 adult AIDS patients
participating in 21 different AIDS Clinical Trials Group (ACTG) studies
[confirms]... that antiretroviral therapy is associated with a high rate of
severe hepatotoxicity [liver damage], regardless of drug class or combination.Õ[53] Another report stated; ÒLiver disease
has become the leading cause of death among HIV patients at a Massachusetts
hospital.Õ[54]
Many
of these drugs are Ôsafety testedÕ today on a ready supply of American children
(and now also African children). Children taken into care in New York are often
used by drug companies, including the giant British firm Glaxo-Wellcome, as
Ôtest-bedsÕ for research on AZT and other drugs. This was documented in a film
called ÔGuinea-Pig KidsÕ transmitted on the BBC in December 2004 and by the
prior work of investigative journalist Liam Sheff. He discovered that children in a Roman Catholic Home in New
York were having these drugs administered to them through tubes into their
stomachs when they refused to take them orally. Nine childrenÕs homes have
recently been used for such drug trials around New York. [55]
Today
only 1% of the $6.5 billion spent annually on AIDS research goes on vaccine
research. Nearly all is spent on vastly more profitable antiretrovirals. By
2003 the annual US market for these was worth around $15 billion.
I will finish with the
testimony of one of those who now believes these drugs gave him AIDS, and who
has recovered much of his health since stopping taking them.
ÔI was
ÕdiagnosedÕ in 1989. I was prompted to test after my partner at the time
decided to get the test and it came back positive. Mine was positive also
– CD4 count 462É ÔI had no symptoms, but was told; ÔUnfortunately, the virus is already
destroying your immune system. You must start AZT immediatelyÉ Later, I was
told I would start to get sick in about 18 months, and then I would get very
sick within 2 years – and die.
All I
remember for the first several months or so is sleeping, throwing up, an
unimaginable nausea, and an unending headache. I got weaker by the day. I lost
a lot of my hair.Õ
ÔAfter a
year I thought ÒWell, if I only have another year, IÕm not spending it like
this.Ó So I stopped the pills.
I slowly
got better over the years – I may have made a full recovery that time, I
donÕt know. I started living again, though, for sure. Oh...my CD4 count NEVER
went above 500 during the whole experience.
But he
remained HIV positive. ÔIn Õ97, I started Ôthe cocktailÕ. Sounded nice enough.
It consisted of Crixivan, Epivir, and Zerit (instead of AZT because according
to my Doc I had had a ÔbadÕ reaction to AZT.)
ÔBefore I
knew it I had moderate/severe lipoatrophy (fat loss) and myopathy (muscle
loss). My arms had stretch marks at the bicep area and looked like
shrivelled balloons. I remember my arms always being tired because I held my
body up with them when I sat down due to the fact that I sat on bone.
ÔMy face
was the worst: hollow cheeks and temples and no fat anywhere. When I
smiled, the skin looked like someone pulling back curtains on a
stage. I looked extremely shrivelled up and old for my age. My eye sockets were
hollow, my eyes looked sunken in. I always looked kind of scared, like an
animal caught in a car light. Eventually, I knew it was the ÔmedsÕ, but was
terrified to stop.
ÔAfter
three and a half years I had had enough. I figured I was the living dead
already, so what the hell – again I threw out the meds. By now it was
Crixivan and combivir (which is AZT and something else, maybe Epivir –
yeah back to AZT because unfortunately I had a worse reaction to Zerit than I
had to AZT).
ÔThen -
nothing. I held my breath – waiting for IT. Oddly, I began to feel
better. I got stronger – and calmer. Around a year and a half after
stopping, I was rubbing my eyes and realized the skin on my face was thicker. I
thought about it and realized I had been sitting down without the use of my
arms for a while without realizing it.
ÔItÕs
been 3 years since I stopped the meds. I can still see scars from that time
– my body is not the body I used to have. But itÕs better. IÕm back at
the gym.Õ[56]
Final
part
UNRAVELLING AIDS
Throughout this research I
have become more and more convinced that the major explanation for AIDS in the
West lies in the missing ÔRisk Group for AIDSÕ, the one no longer mentioned in government
reports, not because it does not represent the majority of those born in the UK
who get AIDS, but because it does not fit with the HIV theory of AIDS.
The Key Omitted Risk Group – those on
Inhalant Drugs and Crack.
Government statistics admit
that, among those born in the UK, AIDS is still mostly affecting drug-abusing gay men – but why? The most common drug they take is
Ôpoppers,Õ an inhaled nitrite
– but most people think little risk is attached to this. Are gay men at risk for AIDS because of
anal sex, or because of the
poppers that they take intensely, scores of time a night, in the gay rave
scene? We cannot tell from government AIDS statistics, since these only list
injected drugs as a Risk Factor, omitting all taken orally or by sniffing,
apparently since only dirty needles
are compatible with HIV. They say the risk is from HIV contaminated
needles – with oral drugs only a factor in that they remove inhibitions.
I find this strangeÉfor every
scientific study I could find made in the UK and US over the past years has
found 70 to 100% of those who get AIDS are on poppers – and only 10 to 20%
on injected drugs.
There is a vast amount of
evidence linking inhalant drugs with AID. The link established long ago by the
CDC which reported in 1982 that a
study of Õ50 American male homosexuals with AIDS and 120 at risk for AIDSÕ
revealed the following pattern of intensive drug use (with many taking a
cocktail of six or more drugs when they go clubbing or partying.). [i]
Nitrite
inhalants [poppers] 96%
Ethyl
chloride 35–50%
Cocaine
50–60%
Amphetamines
50–70%
Phenylcyclidine
40%
LSD
40–60%
Crystal
Metaqualone 40–60%
Barbiturates
25%
Marijuana
90%
Heroin
10%
Drug-free None
reported
All the way through the AIDS
epidemic, study after study has repeated these findings. The Atlanta AIDS study of 1983 found
96% of AIDs victims were on the ÔpoppersÕ
while only 10% took heroin;[57] [58],
the San Francisco AIDS study of 1987 found 82% were on poppers and only 3% on
heroin, [59]
the Vancouver AIDS study of 1993 found 98% were on poppers, [60],
the Chicago AIDS 1993 study found over 71% were on them, the Lancet study of
1993 reported that 88% of UK AIDS patients had taken them and the
London-Manchester study of 1996 of 685 people at risk of AIDS, found 80% were
on poppers – and only 25% on heroin.[61] In nearly all cases, AIDS is associated
with a considerable amount of nitrite inhalants being very frequently taken as
an integral part of the gay partying or rave scene. Crack Cocaine is the next
most popular drug , followed closely in recent years by Crystal – and it
seems these too are statistically associated with AIDS to a vastly greater
degree than heroin. Gays not
regularly on inhalant drugs or crack rarely if ever got AIDS.
Other drugs taken in
combination with poppers make these drugs even more dangerous. A 2002 survey in
San Francisco found one third of clubbing gay men were taking nitrite inhalants
with Viagra, as the later counters the male impotence caused by the inhalants.
Dr Jeffrey Kausner warned in the UK Aids journal in 2002 that poppers and
Viagra together is a ÔlethalÕ combination as they magnify each otherÕs effects.
[62] . In Australia and the USA crystal
methamphetamine (revved up ÔSpeedÕ) is now epidemic in the gay clubbing scene,
and, according to one AIDS foundation, it Ôeats T-cells for breakfast, lunch
and dinnerÕ.[63] Again the risk from these is not
recorded in the UK AIDS statistics.
And, as mentioned in last
monthÕs article, over a hundred
toxicology studies on poppers were published in scientific journals in the
first years of the epidemic, showing that these drugs severely damaged the immune
system with lethal consequences Ôcausing anoxia [oxygen starvation] of vital
organsÕ leading to death, oxidised blood – preventing it from carrying
oxygen, gave low numbers of CD4 T-cells, mutated DNA and RNA, destroyed
vitamins and oxidized blood.
The use of poppers has
recently spread to UK women, although it is not known if this is associated
with AIDS. From the mid 1990s clubbing women took them, not just for their
buzz, but because they give ÔsexyÕ dilated eye pupils! After two week, the drugs reportedly
cause blackouts (due to lack of oxygen in the blood).[64] The women then
take a few days off before starting with them again. In UK schools children
have been reported selling popper ÔsniffsÕ at 10p each.
Why are the ill effects of Poppers not reported? Could it be because the drugs make you
ÔHIV PositiveÕÖ
It seems that Gallo and
Popovic could have launched quite a different theory about AIDS, if they had
not been so wedded to their virus theory. Another answer was right there, in
their experiments, but not noticed.
They could not find the virus
in the T-cells it was supposed to infect. Gallo has since admitted, "We
have never found HIV DNA in T-cells".[65] They only could
find proteins and enzyme they thought ÔindicatedÕ the presence of their AIDS virus
after they added to blood serum a chemical Ôgrowth factorÕ. Perhaps they should have looked harder
at this ÔGrowth FactorÕ? We now
know it is an oxidising agent – and that poppers are also oxidising
agents. Could the AIDS test be detecting antibodies against proteins produced,
not by a virus, but by the oxidation of human cells?
In a ground-breaking recent research paper, laboratory mice were found, when dosed with nitrite poppers in the equivalent amount per
body mass as taken by human party goers, to produce antibodies that test
positive in the HIV test as if the nitrites were HIV. [66] This to my mind was an enormously
important discovery, for it explains how the damage done by poppers could evade
the attention of the health
authorities. It had long been a mystery to me how this had happened. If the
toxicologists were right, this damage should be obvious. But – if the
drugs made you HIV positive, and gave you AIDS, then the virus would be blamed
not the poppers!
No wonder the effects of
these drugs has not been noticed, including by nearly all drug education
programs; no wonder that the
HIV/AIDS establishment misinterpreted the results. If this research paper is
right, then a toxin may have done
much of the damage attributed to HIV.
These inhaled nitrites were
also found to cause in the mice a sharp in the numbers of CD4 immune cells
– thus causing the very damage blamed on HIV. [67] Their mitochondria was also damaged, as
with nitrite inhalants, thus
damaging the way oxygen energy is passed around the body. But – there was something else in
this experiment also of great importance, something not offered to AIDS victims
by any antiviral drug. When the
sick mice were treated with antitoxins, they mostly recovered.[68] They even stopped being positive for
HIV . [69] It is thus possible that AIDS has a
cure!
This possibility has
unfortunately not attracted
research funds up until now. If oxidation is partly to blame, then we
should have been treating AIDS patients with antioxidants, as twice Nobel Laureate
Linus Pauling said he had been doing with good results many years ago.
I am not suggesting that
inhaled drugs cause all AIDS cases, for there is evidence of other toxins that
could do much the same, including corticosteroids. Once it is admitted that a drug can suppress the immune
system and thus cause AIDS, there is a wide range of other toxins that also
should be investigated.
It is surely time for the
non- HIV theories of AIDS to have
the needed research funds so they can be properly and independently
investigated? We have spent an absolute fortune, getting on for $200
billion, to find a remedy for AIDS
by chasing a virus. We surely owe
it to the gravely ill to look
without prejudice at all options.
It should be noted that this
is not a new theory. The basic
work on nitrite inhalants was done over twenty years ago by scores of
toxicologists and is
supported today by a number of
eminent senior professors whose work has been disregarded until now, for no
other reason, as far as I can judge, than
because it does not fit in with the HIV theory of AIDS.
One leading such dissenter,
Professor Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos of Western Australia, sent in her paper on Oxidation and AIDS
for publication at the same time as Gallo sent in his Science papers.[70] But, when his appeared first, she
received hers back from the editor with the request that she re-consider it in
the light of GalloÕs. This delayed its publication until 1988 when GalloÕs
theory was seemingly unchallengeable. Her detailed paper argues that oxidation
explained AIDS without requiring the presence of HIV.[71]
She had, like Gallo, had
previously worked on cancer. She
had however more success than he in discovering the cause of many cancers. She found cancers could be caused by
radiation destroying the capability of the body to carry oxygen to vital
organs, publishing a paper on this in 1982. She then now saw something similar
happening among drug-taking men. Poppers, she noted, were made up of a nitrite
acid that would destroy the ability of human cells to absorb oxygen. She
theorised that this could be one of the causes of AIDS – adding that
severe long-term malnutrition would do much the same damage to the bloodÕs
capability of carrying oxygen, thus explaining similarities between AIDS in
Africa and in the West.
Since then with colleagues in
the ÔPerth SchoolÕ she has produced papers on AIDS in Africa, on AIDS among
mothers, on antiretrovirals, stubbornly slowly gaining ground against the HIV
theory.[72]
Many of the latter exponents now acknowledge the role of oxidation – but
as a co-factor with HIV. Others, such as the equally prolific and incisive
Professor Peter Duesberg of Berkeley, also question the HIV=AIDS theory,
blaming instead chemicals, drugs and malnutrition. Gallo has acknowledged of
Duesberg that Ôhe knows more about retroviruses than any man aliveÕ.[73]
Other recent research
indicates that an ÔHIVÕ protein found to be attacked by antibodies with the
ÔHIV TestÕ might itself help cause
AIDS without any need for it to come from a virus. The ÔHIV TAT proteinÕ
reportedly caused in mice a Ôsubstantial loss of redoxÕ,[74] meaning a very
serious loss of cellular energy. This paper suggests this protein damages the
immune system and creates the oxygen-starved conditions in which the original
AIDS diseases flourish. It found a Ô50% drop in glutathioneÕ, an energy
chemical vital to us, and Ôan increase in [the] fibroblast growth factorÕ
implicated in causing Kaposi Sarcoma. But while this paper is fascinating, it
occurs to me that it would be interesting to discover from whence came this
protein. It too could relate to the drugs taken.
What then of Africa
today? In that continent the
effect of long-term near-starvation resembles that of poppers and crack
cocaine. Over time near-starvation,
retrovirals and inhaled drugs all create oxygen-deprived conditions
within us and prevent us absorbing food. Thus people suffering from the African
disease ÔSlimÕ have the same skeletal look as Western drug-addicts suffering
from terminal AIDS.[75]
The US Bureau of the Census,
in its International Database 2001, stated that during the AIDS epidemic,
between 1980 and 2000, the
population of Africa south of the Sahara has not shrunk but increased rapidly
from 378 million to 652 million – but we know also from other sources
that many millions suffer from unhygienic water supplies, malnutrition and
warfare – as well as epidemics of TB and malaria.
According
to the latest official South African statistics, those issued in 2005 for 2003,
TB is the greatest killer in South Africa, particularly among younger adults.
It killed four times more at 12.1% than were reported for AIDS at 2.7%. Flu,
pneumonia, heart diseases and even diabetes killed far more than AIDS. There
were also disturbing signs of increase in the diseases of poverty in South
Africa, with malnutrition being among the major causes of death for children
aged under four.[76] However Pro-Retroviral groups and organisations gained much
publicity in Western media by adding together AIDS and TB, on the basis that
ÔTB is an AIDS illnessÕ.
Conclusion to HIVGATE and AIDSGATE
It
has taken me over 7 years to travel from accepting without question that HIV
causes AIDS to discover that most people including myself had been misled. It
has beeen very hard to accept that so many scientists of good faith could be so
wrong. I must confess I had no idea how a single flawed hypothesis could do so
much damage.
I
now realise that science today is so specialised, that every generation of
scientists needs to be confident that those who came before them have got
things right for they cannot repeat it all again. All I can conclude now, after assessing every aspect of the
research, is that a substantial part of modern virology has been built on a
false trust. Since the government health institutions did not
withdraw the foundation papers of
AIDS science after they were discovered to be erroneous and deliberately
misleading, many scientists are today basing their research into HIV in trust
onthese papers.
The
consequence of this trust can created the largest health disaster of our times.
In
1987 the Mayor of New York came to the conclusion, after studying the work of
toxicologists, that AIDS could be eliminated by drug education. But ever since
then, our government health professionals, in whom we put our trust, have
ignored everything discovered by
toxicologists that linked AIDS with inhalant drug abuse as well as with severe
malnutrition, corticosteroids and other toxins.
Putting
this right, could have an enormous effect on Africa, a vast lifting of the spirits of its people, far greater
than anything so far achieved by LiveAID.
We all know how devastating it must be for an individual to be told they
are HIV positive and will inevitably die of AIDS, how tense and sick this
belief can make them – so what does it do to the morale of a continent to
be told that it is incurably blighted?
If
you would like to help, please make sure this article, with its sister article,
last monthÕs ÒHIVGATE[Ô , is photocopied and reprinted – and put up on
your web-site, if you have one. The author gives the rights for reproduction
for non-profit use freely – as long as her credit to the work is
preserved, her website address (www.vaccines.plus.com is given with the article - where much
of the supporting research can be
found– and she is emailed beforehand so that she knows what is happening!
==========
The only international
politician so far to take note of the theories of the above mentioned
Ôdissident scientistsÕ has been President Mbeki of South Africa. For this, Mbeki has been
internationally maligned, forcing him to issue the following letter.
President
Mbeki of South Africa on AIDS.
ÔOur
search for these specific and targeted responses is being stridently condemned
by some in our country and the rest of the world as constituting a criminal
abandonment of the fight against HIV-AIDS. Some elements of this orchestrated
campaign of condemnation worry me very deeply.
It
is suggested, for instance, that there are some scientists who are
"dangerous and discredited" with whom nobody, including us, should
communicate or interact. In an earlier period in human history, these would be
heretics that would be burnt at the stake!
Not
long ago, in our own country, people were killed, tortured, imprisoned and
prohibited from being quoted in private and in public because the established
authority believed that their views were dangerous and discredited. We are now
being asked to do precisely the same thing that the racist apartheid tyranny we
opposed did, because, it is said, there exists a scientific view that is
supported by the majority, against which dissent is prohibited.
The
scientists we are supposed to put into scientific quarantine include Nobel
Prize Winners, Members of Academies of Science and Emeritus Professors of
various disciplines of medicine!
Scientists,
in the name of science, are demanding that we should cooperate with them to
freeze scientific discourse on HIV-AIDS at the specific point this discourse
had reached in the West in 1984. People who otherwise would fight very hard to
defend the critically important rights of freedom of thought and speech occupy,
with regard to the HIV-AIDS issue, the frontline in the campaign of
intellectual intimidation and terrorism which argues that the only freedom we
have is to agree with what they decree to be established scientific truths.
Some
agitate for these extraordinary propositions with a religious fervour born by a
degree of fanaticism, which is truly frightening. The day may not be far off
when we will, once again, see books burnt and their authors immolated by fire
by those who believe that they have a duty to conduct a holy crusade against
the infidels.
Signed
THABO
MBEKI
More EXPERTS
Dr.
Charles L. Geshekter, Ph.D., three-time Fulbright scholar. Professor of African
History, California State University, Chico. Former chair of the History of
Science, Pacific Division, of the American Association for the Advancement of Sciences.
He has served as an adviser to the U.S. State Department and several African
governments.
ÒThe
scientific data do not support the view that what is being called AIDS in
Africa has a viral cause. The World Health Organization defines an AIDS case in
Africa as a combination of fever, persistent cough, diarrhoea and a 10-percent
loss of body weight in two months. No HIV test is needed.
ÒThe
scandal is that long-standing ailments that are largely the product of poverty
are being blamed on a sexually transmitted virus. With missionary-like zeal,
but without evidence, condom manufacturers and AIDS fund-raisers attribute
those symptoms to an ÔAfrican sexual culture.Õ
ÒTraditional
public-health approaches, clean water and improved sanitation above all can tackle
the underlying health problems in Africa. They may not be sexy, but they will
save lives. And they will surely stop terrorizing an entire continent.Ó
Professor
Daniel J. Ncayiyana, the editor of The South African Medical Journal; ÔI
am quite confident in my own mind that many cases identified as AIDS (according
to their symptoms) are not AIDSÉThe numbers given must, of necessity, include
people who possibly have other conditions.Õ [77] .
Professor
P.A.K. Addy, Head of Clinical Microbiology at the University of Science and
Technology in Kumasi, Ghana: "Europeans and Americans came to Africa with prejudiced
minds, so they are seeing what they wanted to see...I've known for a long time
that Aids is not a crisis in Africa as the world is being made to understand.
But in Africa it is very difficult to stick your neck out and say certain
things. The West came out with those frightening statistics on Aids in Africa
because it was unaware of certain social and clinical conditions. In most of
Africa, infectious diseases, particularly parasitic infections, are common. And
there are other conditions that can easily compromise
Dr.
Henry Bauer, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus of Chemistry & Science Studies and
Dean Emeritus of Arts & Sciences at Virginia Polytechnic Institute &
State University; Author, Fatal Attractions: The Troubles with Science.
ÕOne
result of commerce-driven science is the growing number of scandals, especially
in biomedical research, where nasty side-effects or lack of efficacy of new
drugs seem increasingly to be hidden from public view until significant damage
has been done. Nowadays thereÕs the tragedy of AIDS, where the mainstream dogma
that HIV is the cause may be subjecting tens or hundreds of thousands to
inappropriate, indeed deadly so-called ÔtreatmentÕ that has brought several
drug companies unprecedented profits.Ó [78]
Dr.
Andrew Herxheimer, MD, Emeritus Professor of Pharmacology, UK Cochrane Centre,
Oxford; edited Drug & Therapeutics Bulletin in the UK for 30 years and also
helped to found the International Society of Drug Bulletins.
ÔI
think zidovudine [AZT] was never really evaluated properly and that its
efficacy has never been proved, but its toxicity certainly is important. And I
think it has killed a lot of people. Especially at the high doses. I personally
think it not worth using alone or in combination at all.Ó
Lynn
Fall (nŽe Gannett), former data manager, phase III clinical trials of AZT
(1987-1990)
ÒAZT
is a poison. AZT commonly causes miscarriages and severe birth defects. AZT is
a highly toxic chemotherapy that interrupts DNA synthesis and destroys the
immune system. In fact, AZT is a tragedy which I believe has led to tens of
thousands of unnecessary deaths, primarily in wealthier countries.Ó
Dr.
Rudolf Werner, Ph.D., Professor of Biochemistry, University of Miami School of
Medicine
ÒThe
HIV-AIDS hypothesis remains just that – a hypothesis. Many expertsÕ
predictions turned out to be false. For example, contrary to the prediction
that AIDS would rapidly spread into the heterosexual population, the disease in
the United States is still restricted to 85 percent males. Yet HIV positives
are found with equal frequency in healthy male and female Army recruits. This
discrepancy doesnÕt support the hypothesis that AIDS is caused by HIV.Ó
ÒAIDS
drugs have been credited for the reduction in AIDS deaths. But there is no
scientific evidence that these toxic drugs prolong life. A study in Uganda
shows that the time between becoming HIV-positive and the time of death is
identical to that in the United States. The Uganda group received no AIDS
drugs, while the U.S. group did. Since most people in the Uganda study were
malnourished and multiply infected, doesnÕt that suggest that antiretroviral
drugs reduce life expectancy? Malnutrition is the most common cause of immune
deficiency.Ó
Dr.
Manu Kothari, MD, Professor of Anatomy, former Head of Department of Anatomy,
Seth Gordhandas Sunderdas Medical College, King Edward Memorial Hospital,
Mumbai, India
ÔFor
all we know, it is not HIV that causes AIDS, but the so-called co-factors such
as indiscriminate antibiotic use, recreational drugs, poverty, malnutrition,
polluted water and pesticised food. AZT and the like (so-called triple therapy)
are rank cytotoxic poisons. To give AZT to pregnant women is a crime against
the mother and the baby she is making.Õ
Dr.
Heinrich Broder Medical director of the Federal Clinics for Juvenile and Young
Adult Drug Offenders for five German counties, including Berlin, Bremen, and
Hamburg.
ÒThe
collective virus obsession enables ÔHIVÕ/AIDS medicine to operate in a lawless
sphere without responsibility for the often fatal consequences.Õ ÔIt is high
time to discuss the ethical consequences of the Ôvirtual medicineÕ currently
practiced, which under the pretence of an imagined global epidemic, force-feeds
highly toxic drug cocktails to patients,
Dr
Roberto Rinaldo -Former Chairman of the Department of Microbiology and
Parasitology, University of Antique, Medellin, Colombia. Author, Aids and
Stressors
ÒHIV
tests are meaningless. A person can react positive even though he or she is not
infected with HIV. The tests are interpreted differently in different
countries, which means that a person who is positive in Africa [or Thailand]
can be negative when tested in Australia. There is no justification for the
fact that most people have not been informed about the serious inaccuracy of
the tests. The error has catastrophic repercussions on thousands of
people. Õ
Dr.
Juan Jose Flores, MD, Ph.D., Professor of Medicine, La Universidad Veracruzana,
Mexico
ÒThe
causes of AIDS are not viral. I have witnessed the fatal effects that the
anti-viral drugs have on the immune system. I treated patients diagnosed with
HIV who were very poor. Their inability to afford the drugs precluded me from
giving them AZT, which is very expensive. As time went by, I began to see that
the rich HIV positive patients died, while the poor ones lived and continue to
do so.Ó
Dr.
David Rasnick, Ph.D., Biochemist, Protease Inhibitor Developer, University of
California
ÒThe
National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control, the Medical
Research Council, and the World Health Organization are terrorizing hundreds of
millions of people around the worldÉ.. It would be intolerably embarrassing for
them to admit at this late date that they are wrong, that AIDS is not sexually
transmitted. Such an admission could very well destroy these organizations, or,
at the very least, put their future credibility in jeopardy. Self preservation
compels these institutions to not only maintain but to actually compound their
errors, which adds to the fear, suffering, and misery of the world – the
antithesis of their reason for being.Ó
Dr.
Joseph Mercola, former Chairman of the Family Medicine department at St.
Alexius Medical Center, Illinois; served as editor of HIV Monograph by Abbott
Laboratories
ÒWhat
is not mentioned in any textbook is that AZT has been found in five studies
performed after its rushed FDA approval to be equally toxic to T-cells, the
very cells whose absence is blamed on HIV. This is not surprising since T-cells
are produced in the bone marrow, and all the other cells produced there are
depleted by AZT. These studies are but a sample of the evidence that suggest
that AZT and other ÔantiretroviralsÕÉare causing a variety of AIDS-like
symptoms which are being blamed on HIV.Ó The only studies published that claim
positive outcome were short-term and did not have statistically significant
results.Ó
Dr
Donald W. Miller, Jr., MD, Professor of Surgery, University of Washington
School of Medicine
ÒThe
HIV-AIDS model is untenable. The twenty-plus diseases the government defines as
ÔAIDSÕ (when antibodies to HIV are also present) are caused, instead, by
immunosuppressive heavy-duty recreational drug use, antiretroviral drugs, and
receptive anal intercourse.
Dr.
B.L. Meel, MD, Head, Department of Forensic Medicine, University of Transkei,
South Africa
ÒThere
are several risks associated with HIV/AIDS, but the most important immediate
risk, soon after an individual becomes aware of his/her HIV status, is
committing suicide. This is as a result of sudden unexpected, unprepared
disclosure of HIV test result, leading to mental breakdown, i.e., severe acute
depression... A study carried out in New York City (1997) found that 9% of
suicide victims were HIV positive.
END
18,100
words
[1]
http://www.hpa.org.uk/infections/topics_az/hiv_and_sti/hiv/hiv_causes_aids.htm
[2] Lee LM, Karon JM, Selik R, Neal JJ, Fleming PL Ô...estimates of survival for the
remaining 394,705 cases (of diagnosed AIDS-defining Opportunistic Infection
(OI) in the US) showed that median survival time improved with each successive
year of OI diagnosis, from 11 months for persons with AIDS diagnosed in 1984Õ
[3] Peter
Duesberg, Evidence to South African Presidential Commission on AIDS, 2000.
[4][4]
Papadopulos-Eleopulos, E., 1988, Reappraisal of AIDS: is the
oxidation induced by the risk factors the primary cause? Med. Hypo 25:151
[5] MMWR
Supplement, CDC, August 14 1987
[6] Chicago Tribune September 1, 1987
[7] Quoted
in What if everything you thought you knew about AIDS was wrong? by Christine Maggiore. page 14.
[8] Amanda
Bennett and Anita Sharpe, AIDS fight is skewed by Federal bodies
exaggerating risks, Wall St. Journal, 1st May 1996
[9] Professor Robert S. Root-Bernstein.Õ The
Evolving Definition of AIDS.Õ On the Virusmyth website.
[10] Figure 3.1 of
the UK governmentÕs November 2004 issued; Ô2004 HIV Report.Õ
[11] Lewden
2003
[12] Ashby
2003
[13] HIV-1 is
said to be the variant of HIV most present. Other genome fragments detected in
the blood have led to the theory that there is a different HIV found in West
Africa, HIV-2. Further minor types are also now posited– all based on
genetic fragments, not whole viruses.
[15] Kashala O, Marlink R, Ilunga M, et al. Infection with human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) and human T cell lymphotropic viruses among leprosy patients and contacts: correlation between HIV-1 cross-reactivity and antibodies to lipoarabinomannan. J Infect Dis 1994;169:296-304.
[16] Muller WEG, Schroder HC, Reuter P, Maidhof A, Uhlenbruck G, Winkler
I. (1990). Polyclonal antibodies to mannan from yeast also recognize the
carbohydrate structure of gp120 of the AIDS virus: an approach to raise
neutralizing antibodies to HIV-1 infection in vitro. AIDS 4:159-162.
O'Riordan DM, Standing
JE, Limper AH. Pneumocystis carinni glycoprotein A binds macrophage mannose
receptors. Infect-Immun 1995;63:779-784.
[17] Matthews R, Smith D, Midgley J, et al. Candida and
AIDS: Evidence for protective antibody. Lancet 1988;ii:263-266.
[18]
About 80 different factors are listed, each with references to
scientific papers, on page 11 of Christine MaggioreÕs book ÔWhat if everything
you know about AIDS was wrongÕ. 2000.
[19] Myron
ÔMaxÕ Essex, Head of Harvard AIDS Institute. In a 1994 study he warned that
Ôexisting antibody tests Ômay not be sufficient for HIV diagnosisÕ in settings
where TB and related diseases are commonplace.Õ
[20]
Interview with Dr Rodney Richards - "HIV Tests" CanÕt Tell You
Whether You Have HIV By Mark Gabrish Conlan ZengerÕs Newsmagazine Oct. 2001
[21] Tomiyama T, Lake D, Masuho Y, et al. Recognition of human immunodeficiency virus glycoproteins by natural anti-carbohydrate antibodies in human serum. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 1991;177:279-285.
[22]
Genesca et al. (1989)
[23] Delord et al. 1991. (quoted in
Papadopulos-Eleopulos et al. 1993b, pages 697-699
[24] Mortimer, P.P.
1989 The AIDS virus and the AIDS test. Medicine Internationale 56, 2334-2339.;
Mortimer, P.P. Parry, J.V. & Mortimer, J.Y. 1985 Which anti-HTLV-III/LAV assays
for screening and confirmatory testing? Lancet II, 873-877. Refer also footnote 236 in Rebuttal of NIH case http://www.robertogiraldo.com/reference/Johnston_NIH_Rebuttal_March2003.pdf.
[25] Candotti D et al. Status of long-term asymptomatic
HIV-1 infection correlates with viral load but not with virus replication
properties and cell tropism. J Med Virol. 1999 Jul;58(3):256-63.
[26] Ram
Yogev Antiviral treatment of
pediatric HIV infection. P 152
[27] See 1993 CDC Redefinition of AIDS.
[28]
Nathaniel Rothman et al. Science 2nd December 2004.
[29] Feeney C et al. T-lymphocyte subsets in acute
illness. Crit Care Med. 1995 Oct;23(10):1680-5
[30] ÔThere's no hope
for a cure for AIDS with current drugsÕ, the head of the National Institute of
Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), Anthony Fauci, said at the 13th
International AIDS Conference. ÔEradication is not possible,Õ Smith M.
Current drugs no match for AIDS epidemic: Fauci. Biotechnology Newswatch. 2000 Jul 17;1
[31] A study showed that patients ill
with the classical fungal AIDS diseases in 1984 had a survival time of 10 to 11
months, while in 1993 they had a survival time of just under a year and a
quarter before death. The study
concluded the extra 4-5 months of life was due to the anti-fungal medicines for
PCP, (ÔPCP prophylaxisÕ), not to
the antiretrovirals used. A
further study found the time to death after a clinical AIDS diagnosis [based on
symptoms of illness rather than the HIV test] was 14.7 months in the 1983 to
1986 period, 19.1 months in the 1986 to 1988 period, and an estimated 15.7
months in the 1988 to 1993 period. In other words the introduction of
antiretrovirals in 1986 appeared not to have helped at all.
[32] DeSimone JA et
al. Inflammatory Reactions in HIV-1-Infected Persons after Initiation of Highly
Active Antiretroviral Therapy. Ann Int Med. 2000 Sep 19;133(6):447-454.
[33] Rickerts V et
al. Incidence of myocardial infarctions in HIV-infected patients between 1983
and 1998: the Frankfurt HIV-cohort study. Eur J Med Res. 2000 Aug
18;5(8):329-33.
[34] Lemp et al,
Journal of AIDS and HIVÕ, November 1997.
[35] See http://www.bhiva.org/guidelines/2003/hiv/index.html.
Nearly all of the writing committee for the Anti-Retroviral Treatment Guidelines
have multiple financial connections to the major pharmaceutical cmpaines.
[36] Carr A, Cooper
DA. Adverse effects of antiretroviral therapy. Lancet. 2000 Oct 21;356:1423-0.
[37] ÔThe standard daily prescription of 0.5g AZT
corresponds to about 1021 molecules per body, or 107 per human cell, enough to
kill most growing cells, especially the fastest growing.Õ Roberto Giraldo, M.D.
Continuum 1998/1999
[38] Walker UA et al. Toxicity of nucleoside-analogue
reverse-transcriptase inhibitors. Lancet. 2000 Mar 25;355(9209):1096.
[39] Mitochondrial Toxicity Resulting from the Treatment
of Pregnant Women and Infants
StŽphane Blanche
Hosp Necker, Paris,
France
[40] Kibazo J. Glaxo plays down Ziagen fear. Financial
Times. Aug. 21, 2000
[41] Sha BE, Proia
LA, Kessler HA. Adverse Effects Associated With Use of Nevirapine in HIV
Postexposure Prophylaxis for 2 Health Care Workers [second case]. JAMA. 2000
Dec 6.
[42]
New York Times, 26 January 2005.
[45] This, and the associated quotes from
John Laurtsen and Duesberg, are from interviews by the noted AIDS investigative
journalist, Liam Sheff.
[46] Carr A et al. Diagnosis, prediction, and natural
course of HIV-1 protease-inhibitor-associated lipodystrophy, hyperlipidaemia,
and diabetes mellitus: a cohort study. Lancet. 1999 Jun 19;353(9170):2093-9.
[47] Henry K. The case for more cautious, pateint-focused
antiretroviral therapy. Ann Int Med. 2000 Feb 15;132(4):306-311.
[48] A CDC
statement reported by the BBC on Radio 4 on 22nd January 2005.
[49] Õ The CDC has also
followed a Bush agenda in withdrawing funding in 2004 it previously gave for
AIDS prevention among Gays
[50] www.cdc.gov/mmwr/mmwr_rr.html
[51] www.cdc.gov/mmwr/mmwr_rr.html
[53] High Rate of Severe Liver Toxicity
Associated With Antiretroviral Therapy. Reuters Health. 2001 May 23.
[54] Liver disease raises questions for AIDS
patients. Reuters. 1999 Nov 19
[55] This use
of children was documented in an outstanding investigation by Liam Scheff in
2004. His work then appeared as a 2004 documentary shown on the BBC; ÔThe
Guinea-Pig KidsÕ. ItÕs transcript is available on http://www.acftv.com/pdf/BBC_This%20World_Guinea_Pig_Kids_Transcript.pdf.
One caution, the producers describe the drugs used on the children as
ÔexperimentalÕ when they are mainstream anti-retrovirals such as AZT and
Nevirapine. This is not an error made by Scheff, as can be seen in his earlier
excellent article.
[56] He
remains unidentified, as requested, to protect his privacy.
[57] Jaffe
tet al. 1983
[58] Kaslow
et al 1989, , Ostrow et al 1990, Ostrow et al 1993.
[59] Darrow
et al 1987
[60] Schecter
et al 193, Elison et al 1986
[61] Gibbons
1986
[62]
Klausner, Jeffrey, article in Aids, 10th June 2002.Also http://www.campusoutreachservices.com/resources/viagra.htm
[63] A French
AIDS foundation head, quoted in Shadownick ÔKneeling in the Crystal Cathedral.Õ
86-90.
[64]
Personal communication to author 2004
[65] This was at a 1994
meeting in Washington sponsored by the US National Institute of Drug Abuse,
[66] Igel, H.J., Turner, H.C., Kotin, P. et al. 1969.
Mouse Leukaemia Virus Activation by Chemical Carcinogens. Science 166:624-1626. Also, .Sterk, C.
1988. Cocaine and HIV Seropositivity. Lancet I:1052-1053. Quoted in ÔIIS A POSITIVE WESTERN
BLOT PROOF OF HIV INFECTION?Õ by Papadopulos-Eleopulos, E., Turner, V. F. &
Papadimitriou, J. M. Bio/technology 11, 696-707 (1993).
[67] Ortiz JS, Rivera VL.
Altered T-Cell Helper/Suppressor Ratio in Mice Chronically Exposed to Amyl
Nitrite. NIDA Research Monograph. 1988;83:59-73.
Dax EM et al. Effects of Nitrites on the Immune System of Humans. NIDA
Research Monograph. 1988;83:75-80.
Romeril KR,
Concannon AJ. Heinz body haemolytic anaemia after sniffing volatile nitrites.
Med J Aust. 1981 Mar 21;1:302-3.
[68] The reference for this was in a fascinating paper by
James Whitehead in his Rapid Response ÔRE KS RisksÕ on 11th August
2003, BMJ http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/326/7387/495
[69]
Farzadegan, H., Polis, M., Wolinsky, S.M. et al. 1988. Loss of Human
Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 (HIV-1) Antibodies with Evidence of Viral
Infection in Asymptomatic Homosexual Men. Ann. Int. Med. 108:785-790.
Also Horsburgh,
C.R., Ou, C.Y., Holmberg, S.D. et al. 1989. Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1
Infection in Homosexual Men who remain Seronegative for prolonged periods. NEJM
321:1678-1680.
[70] The
following is from an important paper by Professor Papadopulos-Eleopulo on The Reappraisal of AIDS - Is the
Oxidation Induced by the Risk Factors the Primary Cause? ÔAccording
to Karush "...the disulfide links of the antibody molecule play an
essential role in the acquisition of immunological specificity and by virtue of
their covalent nature, provide for the stabilization of the particular
structure underlying the specific activity of the molecule" (59).
Furthermore, the pattern of pairing of sulfhydryl groups to form disulfides is
not an invariant property of the linear chain but depends on extrinsic factors
including the redox (59,60). In other words protein synthesis and specificity
in general and antibody synthesis and specificity in particular is redox
dependant. If this is so, then any agent who will induce the same redox changes
as a virus, could induce the synthesis of viral antibodies and antigens in the
absence of the virus. ÔMedical Hypotheses (1988) 25: 151-162Õ It is available online at http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/epmedhypo.htm
[71] Papadopulos-EleopulosÕ papers are available at www.theperthgroup.com and also at http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/index/epapadopoulos.htm
[72] The
papers of Eleni and the Perth Group can be found at www.theperthgroup.com
[73] DuesbergÕs papers are available at www.duesberg.com
[74] ÔRedoxÕ
is short for ÔReduction-OxidationÕ – this refers to the way our cells use
oxygen.
[75]
Papadopulos-Eleopulus et al. AIDS in Africa: distinguishing fact and
fiction World Journal of Microbiology
and Biotechnology 1995, 11. 135-143
[76] ÔWhile
an increasing number of deaths are associated with lifestyle diseases (such as heart
disease and diabetes) as the underlying cause, the dominant
contributors to the growth in mortality are deaths associated with tuberculosis,
and influenza and pneumonia. Malnutrition was among
the ten leading causes of death among children aged under 4. Although there was
fluctuation during the three years in the percentages of deaths linked to
malnutrition, the numbers of deaths increased steadily.Õ South African Health
Statistics. Published March 2005.
[77] Now Magazine, 9-15 March 2000
[78] Journal of Scientific Exploration, Winter
2001
[i] Jaffe et al 1983 Table. CDC 1983: Drug use by American
male homosexuals with AIDS and at risk for AIDS. (Percentage
users among 50 AIDS cases and 120 at risk for AIDS.)