I know that most men,
including those at ease with problems
of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept
even the simplest and most obvious truth
if it would oblige them to admit the falsity
of conclusions which they have delighted in
explaining to colleagues, proudly taught to others,
and which they have woven, thread by thread,
into the fabric of their lives.
Leo Tolstoy~
[-15]==LARGE=OPEN=DOUBLE=QUOTE==A succinct summary of the gaping holes in the official view of AIDS, B^ this book has become an underground classic. Christine Maggiore, ^^ whose own HIV positive diagnosis didn't stop her from disobeying the authorities and giving birth to a healthy child, challenges all the politically correct opinions about the health crisis. A straightforward, jargon-free little book that provides volumes of highly explosive intellectual ammunition in its brief pages."
IAN YOUNG • Author. The Stonewall Experiment: A Gay Psychohistory
``Clear, concise and completely accurate, Christine Maggiore's powerful little book is highly recommended reading for anyone who has ever had the slightest doubt about any aspect of the 'global AIDS pandemic,' and is absolutely compulsory reading/or those few who never have."
HARVEY BIALV. PhD • Ediioi at large. Natuie Biotechnology
``This splendid book is a perfect text for provoking university students. It requires them to think critically about sexuality and public health, obliging them to scrutinize the unscientific dogmas churned out by the AIDS orthodoxy. Maggiore's book should be required reading for all undergraduates."
CHARLES GESHEKTER, PhD • Department, ot History. California State University. Chico
``This book exposes the many incongruencies in conventional wisdom and establishes why we must question how AIDS research and treatment are currently conducted. The paradox of the search for an AIDS cure is that the thing most needed---open debate and scientific exchange---is the thing most feared by the AIDS establishment."
BOB GUCCIONE. Jr. • Editor and publisher, Gear magazine
``Until recently, I was a physician at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, the number-one funded AIDS research center in the country. Before January of 1998, my knowledge of AIDS was typical; I knew that HIV caused AIDS because that's what the textbooks said. I had no reason to think otherwise and never knew or cared that anybody thought differently. I ordered this book on a whim, but once I started reading it, 1 didn't stop until I hit the back cover.
``I used to think that medical research wasn't politically directed and financially motivated, and that pharmaceutical companies wouldn't compromise patient well-being for a profit. I used to think the FDA was there to protect the American public. Now 1 know better. Now I tell the story of AIDS to anyone who will listen."
ROB HODSON. MD • Former professor of anesthesiology. University of Alabama. Birmingham
[-14]``Most AIDS information books are about death; this one is about life. I can think of no higher recommendation. If you read one single book on AIDS, make it this one."
CELIA FARBER • Author, SPIN magazine, AIDS: Words from the Front
``I believe it is vital that the questions raised by this book be made known to the public. Apparently, only public demand can force an unbiased and thorough revaluation of the cause(s) of AIDS and what might constitute an actual treatment. That the scientific and medical communities are touting the toxin AZT as a treatment for AIDS is unconscionable."
PAUL HEDLUND, Esq. • Who's Who in American Law, Who's Who in the World. Bar Register of Preeminent Lawyers
``I have been studying all sides of the HIV/AIDS discussion for 15 years and I can tell you that this little book captures all the important points with clarity and force."
DAVID RASNICK, PhD • Designer of protease inhibitor
``Nobody has to die of AIDS. This excellent book bravely and boldly spits in the eye of tradition. Instead of supposition, Christine provides facts---political facts, medical facts, nutritional facts---and she is right on target. Education is power. It will also give you back the life that fear threatens to steal from you."
BOB L. OWEN, PhD, DSc • Author. Roger's Recovery from AIDS
``Why have we unquestionably believed everything the government has told us about AIDS? Why have we not asked these questions before? A must-read for everyone if we are ever to uncover the truth about AIDS!"
Dr. LOIS LEE • Founder, Children of the Night. Recipient of the 1984
President's Volunteer Action Award
``AIDS is a cruel deception that is maintained because so many people are making money from it. Take away this money and the entire system of mythology will collapse. This single, portable book explains the UlV-causes-AlDS swindle in simple, concise language that anyone can understand."
CHARLES THOMAS. PhD • Former chair of the Cell Biology Department,
Scripps Research Institute
``This short book will change your view of AIDS and the American medical establishment forever. Christine Maggiore deserves the thanks of honest people everywhere because she is doing nothing less than saving lives."
JON RAPPOPORT • Author. AIDS Inc.
[-13]
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or by any information storage and retrieval system without written permission from the author, except for the inclusion of brief quotations in a review.
__COPYRIGHT__ Copyright © 2000Maggiore, Christine~
What If Everything You Thought You Knew About AIDS Was Wrong? Fourth edition, revised~
ISBN 0-9674153-0-6: $10.95
Published by
The American Foundation for AIDS Alternatives
11684 Ventura Boulevard
• Studio City, CA 91604
Cover design by Dennis Potokar~
Graphic design by David Pasquarelli~
Photograph of the author by Doug Piburn~
Photograph of the author with son by Cindy Beal~
[-12] __TITLE__ What if everythingCHRISTINE MAGGIORE
FOURTH EDITION REVISED
[-11] __DEDICATION__ This book is dedicated to theTo my father Robert Maggiore who taught me to question authority and stand up for what's right; to my mother Evelyn Maggiore who, during my four years of devotion to this work has never once asked when I'm going to get a real job; to Bob Leppo for contributions of unparalleled generosity and lots of practical wisdom; to David Pasquarelli for superb graphic design and art direction and endless patience; to Paul Philpott for brilliant observations, hours of amusement, and tips on the best micro-brews; to Charles Geshekter, Rex Poindexter, and Carl Strygg for insightful editorial contributions; to David Crowe and Matt Irwin for sending volumes of references my way; to Christine Johnson for research on HIV tests; to Peter Duesberg for tremendous courage, sacrifice and perseverance; to Dave Rasnick for always being everywhere he's needed; to Kary Mullis for outspoken, unfaltering honesty; to Jon Rappoport for the encouragement to begin; to Celia Farber for valiant and eloquent AIDS reporting; to Jerry Terranova for creating Praxis/ Cure Now and a safe place for questioning; to Esai Morales for consistent moral and fiscal support; to HEAL New York's Michael Ellner, Frank Buianouckas, Tom Di Ferdinando and Ed Lieb for inspiration and the opportunity to do my part; to website maestros Michael Davis and Rhett Topham; to the awesome Alive & Well Los Angeles crew Laura Ballegeer, Gary Cifra, Erik Dahlgren, Gregg Drolette, Kim Freitas, the ever enthusiastic Rodney Knoll, and Lou Rosenblate for their time, energy and friendship; to Arlen Bessey and Keith Relkin for helping make the first, second, and third edition books; to open-minded readers willing to explore new ideas; and to all the wonderful people this work has brought my way: you make every sacrifice and effort worthwhile.
Eternal appreciation to my guardian angel Garrett Sanders whose brief and amazing earthly presence spun me in the opposite direction of victimhood.
And the most special thanks of all to my future husband, partner in all that matters, and absolute best friend Robin Scovill, and our miraculous little Charles Dexter who fill my days with so much love, joy---and laundry.
[-9] __ALPHA_LVL1__ Message from the AuthorThis book is actually something I never intended to write about a subject that I never imagined would touch my life. I hope you will read it with an open mind. It is a report in progress from a journey that began in 1992, when I took what is commonly referred to as an AIDS test. I had no symptoms of illness, no particular risks or fears, just a new doctor who insisted that the test should be part of a routine medical exam. My visit turned from routine to life-altering when the test came back positive.
I was referred to an AIDS specialist who declared that my test was not positive--- not enough to be considered conclusive, anyway. He had me take it over again and, at the same time, ordered lab work on everything from my cholesterol level to my T cell count. I left his office frightened and confused but hopeful, and spent the days before my next appointment alternating between frantic affirmations of wellness and bottomless despair.
The result of the second test was indisputably positive. According to the specialist, my progression from somewhat positive to really positive indicated a recent infection, even though the concept of a new infection conflicted with the circumstances of my life.
He told me that I was exceptionally healthy, that I was fortunate to have detected the condition early, but that there was nothing 1 could do to prevent devastating disease and an eventual death from AIDS. He warned me against wasting money on vitamins and other foolish attempts to save my immune system, advising that I simply wait to become sick and then take AZT, a drug with severe side effects that would make me sicker. I was given five to seven years to live. I went directly from his office to a health food store. The following day, I began a search for a new AIDS specialist.
Life as I had lived, planned and hoped came to a grinding halt. I lost interest in my business, I dropped out of the university program I had been attending, and I bought myself a wedding ring to ward off potential suitors. Wanting to keep my tragedy a secret, I stopped spending time with my family and all but a few close friends. Instead, I attended AIDS seminars and joined a support group for HIV positive women where once a week, we were encouraged to compare notes on our fears and frustrations, mention any potential symptoms, and cry about the lousy deal we'd all been handed.
I was drafted into AIDS activism when a friend tried, in my honor, to volunteer her time at AIDS Project Los Angeles (APLA) and was turned away. Incensed that a warm, intelligent person with the sincerest of motivations would be rejected, I made my thoughts known to the men in charge. In the middle of my tirade, I was asked to join their public speakers bureau. Almost immediately, [-8] I was touring local high schools and colleges as the person that HIV should have never happened to. APLA booked me for a year's worth of engagements before I'd even finished their training course. I made the audiences laugh, cry, and scared---I appeared as the embodiment of the slogan that everyone is at risk for AIDS. My suggestions to brighten up the women's HIV support group at LA Shanti turned into an invitation to speak for that organization, which led to a position on the board of yet another AIDS group, Women At Risk.
A year or so into my diagnosis and public service, and after interviewing half a dozen AIDS doctors whose recommendations ranged from immediate drug therapy to world travel, 1 found an anomaly among AIDS specialists---a doctor who didn't routinely fill people with toxic pharmaceuticals and lethal predictions. She treated me as an individual rather than an impending statistic, and in doing so noticed my good health. She told me that I didn't fit the profile of an AIDS patient, and urged me to take another test. Afraid to raise my hopes, at first I refused. When I finally found the courage to retest, the result was inconclusive. Further testing produced a series of unsettling, contradictory diagnoses: a positive followed by a negative and another positive.
Confused by a personal situation that defied all the rules I'd been so passionately preaching as a public speaker, I turned to the AIDS groups where I worked for help. Instead of finding answers, I found my questions were dismissed, and that persisting with my line of inquiry resulted only in meaningless explanations and the distinct impression that I was ruining morale.
My search for information led me outside the confines of the AIDS establishment and into a body of scientific, medical and epidemiological data that defied everything I had been taught about AIDS, and everything that I had been teaching others. The more I read, the more I became convinced that AIDS research had jumped on a bandwagon that was headed in the wrong direction.
Since it was clear that the information I had found, however life-affirming, was not welcome among the AIDS organizations I belonged to, I decided to start my own. In 1995, together with a few friends gathered from various support groups and other places along the way, I started an organization that shares vital facts about HIV and AIDS that are unavailable from mainstream venues. A year later, while trying to write a simple threefold brochure, the first version of this book emerged. Now in its fourth printing, there are editions in Spanish, Portuguese, and Italian---and even a bootleg version in French.
In the seven years since receiving my death sentence, I have gone from frightened victim to AIDS activist to HIV dissident to spokesperson for new views about HIV and AIDS. Although my HIV status has been decidedly positive for the past five years, I enjoy abundant good health and live without pharmaceutical treatments or fear of AIDS.
In 1996, I met a wonderful man I plan to marry as soon as I take a day off. We have a beautiful, healthy little boy who at age two, has never had so much as an ear infection and is so bright that he already speaks in complete sentences.
[-7] __QUESTION__ New paragraph here, or contination of one from previous page?For most people, the surprising thing about my story is the fact that it is not unusual---I know hundreds of HIV positives who are alive and naturally well years after receiving their own dire prognoses. Contrary to popular claims, what we all have in common is not some unique genetic quality, but information that liberates us from unfounded fear and allows us to embrace our natural ability to be well. A few of their stories---just the tip of an enormous and widely ignored iceberg---are included as an appendix to this book. 1 believe these personal accounts supplement the referenced data, and for some readers may be more meaningful than all the biomedical and epidemiological facts.
Rather than being discouraged by my experiences with a closed-minded AIDS establishment, I am encouraged by the letters and emails that arrive daily from people whose lives have been touched by this information. I receive pictures of babies that otherwise might not have been bom, thanks from grateful parents who no longer worry for their grown children, messages from once-ill and hopeless AIDS patients who have restored their health and their faith in the future, accounts from people diagnosed HIV positive who go from constant terror and feelings of tragedy to calmly making the decision that HIV won't define or limit their lives, notes from teachers grateful to learn of critical thinkers, and letters from students who feel betrayed by the AIDS campaigns that have shaped their world view. I am moved by those whose messages I can't return because they're hiding their HIV status, by urgent requests for help from expectant mothers who want to protect their babies from experimental drugs, by letters from partners who tell me that the information arrived too late for someone they loved, and by the courage people find to stand up, often alone, in their conviction to lead a long and healthy life despite what the whole world believes about HIV These notes remind me of how grateful I am to the doctors, scientists, researchers and activists who gave me the information that turned my own positive test into a way to help others, and who continue to support my efforts today.
This book is a work in progress. I value your input and comments, and make every effort to improve each edition. Please feel free to contact me with your thoughts or suggestions.
I thank you for your willingness to consider another view of AIDS.
[-6] __ALPHA_LVL1__ Foreword``As Leonard Cohen said, 'There's a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in.'
``This little opus by Christine Maggiore is a crack of brilliant white light. It comes brightly onto a parched plain of AIDS science gone dark in our time. She writes clearly, for any reader, the simple truth about AIDS. And finally, it feels like rain.
``You guys at the NIH and the CDC, get out your umbrellas. And you dry dogs at Glaxo-Wellcome, find a place to hide. Because, thank truth and beauty and all the other little quarks, at last it feels like rain."
Kary Mullis, PhD
1993 Nobel Laureate for the invention of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR)
[-5] ~ [-4] __ALPHA_LVL1__ Table of ContentsIs AIDS a New Disease?.............................................................................. 1
Is HIV the Cause of AIDS? .........................................................................4
Is the ``AIDS Test" Accurate?....................................................................... 7
Is the Rate of HIV Increasing?.................................................................. 12
Is AIDS Our Biggest Health Threat? ......................................................... 13
Are We All at Risk for AIDS?.................................................................... 15
Is AIDS Devastating Africa?...................................................................... 18
Are New Drug Treatments Responsible for Declines in AIDS?..................21
Does HIV Take Years to Cause AIDS?.......................................................23
Do Pregnant Women Who Test HIV Positive Give Their Babies AIDS?.....24
AZT: A Drug in Search of a Disease.......................................................... 29
A Sobering Report on Protease Inhibitors and ``Combo Cocktails" ........... 32
What's Up with Viral Load?......................................................................36
Are These Facts News to You?..................................................................41
Public Health, Public Relations, and AIDS...............................................45
Can Popular Consensus Be Wrong?..........................................................47
If It's Not HIV, What Can Cause AIDS?.....................................................51
Incorrect Information about HIV and AIDS Costs Lives...........................60
If You Have Tested Positive...................................................................... 64
Options for Healing and Wellness............................................................ 69
What You Can Do to End AIDS................................................................74
Sources for Further Information............................................................... 75
Understanding AIDS Speak: A Guide to Language in the Age of HIV.......79
References................................................................................................84
Appendix: The Other Side of AIDS..........................................................94
[-3] __ALPHA_LVL1__ cantrue or false?
1 AIDS is a new disease.
2 HIV is the virus that causes AIDS.
3 The ``AIDS test" is extremely accurate.
4 The rate of HIV infection in America increases every year.
5 AIDS is our nation's biggest health threat.
6 AIDS is a growing risk for women, heterosexuals, and teenagers.
7 The African continent is being devastated by AIDS.
8 New AIDS drugs are responsible for recent declines in AIDS.
9 HIV causes AIDS years after infection.
10 Without medical intervention, pregnant women who test HIV positive will give their children AIDS.
[-1] All ten
of these statements are
false
Surprised?
Most of our impressions about
HIV and AIDS are actually based on
popular ideas that have little or no basis
in scientific fact.
The following pages present factual
information that will change the way
you think about HIV and AIDS...
and possibly change your life!
Contrary to popular belief, AIDS is not new and is not a disease. AIDS is a new name given by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) to a collection of 29 familiar illnesses and conditions including yeast infection, herpes, diarrhea, some pneumonias, certain cancers, salmonella, and tuberculosis.^^1^^ These illnesses are called AIDS only when they occur in a person who also has protective disease fighting proteins or antibodies that are thought to be associated with HIV.
A person is diagnosed with AIDS if they have one or more of the 29 official AIDS-defining conditions and if they also test positive for antibodies associated with HIV In other words, pneumonia in a person who tests HIV positive is AIDS, while the same pneumonia in a person testing HIV negative is pneumonia. The clinical manifestations and symptoms of the pneumonia may be identical, but one is called AIDS while the other is just called pneumonia.
Formula for AIDS Pneumonia + Positive HIV Test = AIDS Pneumonia + Negative HIV Test = Pneumonia Tuberculosis + Positive HIV Test = AIDS Tuberculosis + Negative HIV Test = Tuberculosis This formula creates the illusion of a perfect correlation between HIV and AIDS.
None of the 29 AIDS illnesses are new, none appear exclusively in people who test positive for HIV antibodies, and all have documented causes and treatments that are unrelated to HIV Prior to the CDCs creation of the AIDS category, these 29 old diseases and conditions were not thought to have a single, common cause.
Although most of us associate AIDS with severe illness, on January 1, 1993, the CDC expanded the definition of AIDS to include people with a T cell count of 200 or less who have no illness or symptoms.^^2^^ This new definition caused the number of AIDS cases in America to double overnight.^^3^^ Since 1993, more than half of all new AIDS cases diagnosed each year have been among people who have no clinical symptoms or disease.^^4^^
AIDS: Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome.
Antibodies: Proteins that are manufactured by lymphocytes (a type of white blood cell) to neutralize an antigen (foreign protein) in the body. Bacteria, viruses and other microorganisms commonly contain many antigens; antibodies formed against these antigens help the body neutralize or destroy the invading microbe. Antibodies may also be formed in response to vaccines.
HIV: Human Immunodeficiency Virus; the alleged cause of AIDS.
T cell: One of the two main classes of lymphocytes. T cells play an important role in the body's immune system.
It is only through expansions of the AIDS definition that the number of new AIDS cases has grown. The definition of AIDS in America has been expanded three times since 1981. Although each addition to the definition has caused significant increases in the number of new AIDS cases, AIDS had leveled off in all risk groups by 1992 and has been declining steadily since the second quarter of 1993.
If the CDC had continued to use the first three definitions of AIDS, new American AIDS cases for 1997 would have totaled just over 10,000, making AIDS a relatively insignificant health problem. Using the 1993 definition, 21,000 new cases of AIDS were added to the year's total, and of these, more than 20,000 cases were counted among people with no symptoms or illness.^^5^^
Reported AIDS Cases by Quarter-Year^^9^^
7987 to 1998 USA
AIDS definition expanded in
January 1993 to include
people who are not ill
30
20
10
1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
Quarter-year of report
In 1998, the CDC ceased providing information on what AIDS diseases or definitions qualify people for an AIDS diagnosis each year. This means that the public will no longer know how many new AIDS cases are diagnosed in people who are not ill.''
Another surprising fact is that you can receive a diagnosis of AIDS without ever having an HIV test. This is referred to as a ``presumptive diagnosis.'' According to CDC records, more than 62,000 American AIDS cases have been diagnosed with no HIV test.' Even though the only difference between ``pneumonia'' and ``AIDS'' is a positive HIV test, the test is not required for a diagnosis of AIDS.
Since AIDS is not a disease, and there is no single, universally accepted definition for AIDS, the conditions that are called AIDS vary from country to country. For example, Canada's Laboratory Centre for Disease Control (LCDC) does not recognize the American T cell count criteria for AIDS.^^8^^ This means that 182,200 American AIDS patients---more than 25% of all people in the US ever diagnosed with AIDS---would not have AIDS if they were in Canada.
3The World Health Organization (WHO) employs two distinctly different definitions for AIDS in Africa, neither of which conform to the criteria for American AIDS or Canadian AIDS. The diagnostic definition most commonly used in Africa does not require an HIV test, only that a patient have at least one of three major clinical symptoms (weight loss, fever and/or cough), plus one ``minor sign" such as generalized itching or swollen glands.^^10^^
Before bringing us AIDS, the CDC attempted to sound similar alarms over relatively insignificant health matters. In 1976, after five soldiers stationed at a military base in New Jersey contracted the flu, CDC officials announced an imminent influenza epidemic. Their news releases predicted an outbreak that could wipe out as many as 500,000 Americans within a year. Congress responded to the CDC warnings by diverting millions of federal dollars into an emergency vaccine program, and following appeals from US President Gerald Ford, multitudes of concerned Americans received Swine Flu shots. However, no epidemic ever materialized and no substantiation for the notion of a lifethreatening pig virus was ever found. Instead, more than 600 people were left paralyzed by the vaccine which also caused nearly 100 deaths.''
The CDC raised public concern again the next year with harrowing predictions for Legionnaire's Disease. Following massive government research efforts and relentless media reports of a new contagious disease, the form of common pneumonia dubbed ``Legionnaire's'' ended up taking the lives of less than 30 people nationwide. It was later discovered that 20 to 30 percent of Americans are positive for the Legionella bacteria, a common microbe found in water systems throughout the country.^^12^^ The CDC's preoccupation with contagious illness contrasts with the fact that all infectious diseases combined take the lives of less than 1% of modern day Americans.^^13^^
> AIDS is a category, not an illness.
> There are 29 familiar conditions in this category including pneumonia, yeast infections, salmonella, and certain cancers.
> None of these conditions are new.
> None of these conditions appear exclusively in people who test HIV positive; all appear among people who test HIV negative.
> All AIDS conditions have documented causes and treatments that are unrelated to HIV.
Virus: An organism comprised mainly of genetic material within a protein coat. Depending on the type of virus, the nucleic acid may be either DNA or RNA; in retroviruses, the nucleic acid is RNA. Viruses are incapable of activities typical of life such as growth, respiration and metabolism. Outside living cells, viruses are wholly inert.
Microbe: A minute form of life; a microorganism, especially one that causes disease.
There is no proof that HIV causes AIDS. In fact, all the epidemiological and microbiological evidence taken together conclusively demonstrates that HIV cannot cause AIDS or any other illness. The concept that AIDS is caused by a virus is not a fact, but a belief that was introduced at a 1984 press conference by Dr. Robert Gallo, a researcher employed by the National Institutes of Health (NIH).^^14^^
HIV is a retrovirus, a type of virus studied meticulously during two decades of federal health programs that centered around the search for a cancer virus. The idea of contagious cancer was a popular notion in the 1960s and 70s. Since retroviruses have no cell-killing mechanisms, and cancer is a condition marked by rapid cell growth, this type of virus was considered a viable candidate for the cause of cancer. However, healthy people live in harmony with an uncountable number of harmless retroviruses; some are infectious while others are endogenous, produced by our own DNA.^^15^^ Few, if any, retroviruses have been shown to cause disease in humans.
In the 1980s when the CDC began to direct its attention to AIDS, Gallo and other cancer researchers switched their focus from cancer to the newly identified dilemma called AIDS, and the same government scientists who led the quest for a cancer virus began to search for a virus that could cause AIDS.
On April 23, 1984, Gallo called an international press conference in conjunction with the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). He used this forum to announce his discovery of a new retrovirus described as ``the probable cause of AIDS.'' Although Gallo presented no evidence to support his tentative assumption, the HHS immediately characterized it as ``another miracle of American medicine...the triumph of science over a dreaded disease.''^^16^^
Later that same day, Gallo filed a patent for the antibody test now known as the ``AIDS test.'' By the following day, The New York Times had turned Gallos proposal into a certainty with front page news of ``the virus that causes AIDS,'' and all funding for research into other possible causes of AIDS came to an abrupt halt.^^17^^
By announcing his hypothesis to the media without providing substantiating data, Gallo violated a fundamental rule of the scientific process. Researchers must first publish evidence for a hypothesis in a medical or scientific journal, and document the research or experiments that were used to construct it. Experts then examine and debate the hypothesis, and attempt to duplicate the original experiments to confirm or refute the original findings. Any new hypothesis must stand up to the scrutiny of peer review and must be verified by successful experiments before it can be considered a reasonable theory.
Endogenous: Produced from within; originating within an organ or part.
DMA: The commonly used abbreviation for deoxyribonucleic acid, the principle carrier of genetic information in almost all organisms. DNA controls a cell's activities by specifying and regulating the synthesis of enzymes and other proteins in the cell.
Hypothesis: An unproven assumption tentatively accepted as a basis for further investigation and argument.
In the case of Hiy Gallo announced an unconfirmed hypothesis to the media who reported his idea as if it were an established fact, inciting government officials to launch new public health policies based on the unsubstantiated notion of an AIDS virus. Some attribute these violations of the scientific process to the atmosphere of terror and desperation that surrounded the notion of an infectious epidemic.
The data Gallo used to construct his HIV/AIDS hypothesis were published several days after his announcement. Rather than supporting his hypothesis, this paper revealed that Gallo was unable to find HIV (actual virus) in more than half of the AIDS patients in his study.^^18^^ While he was able to detect antibodies in most, antibodies alone are not an indication of current infection and are actually an indication of immunity from infection.
His paper also failed to provide a credible explanation as to how a retrovirus could cause AIDS. Gallo suggested that HIV worked by destroying immune cells, but 70 years of medical research had shown that retroviruses are unable to kill cells, and he offered no proof that HIV differed from other harmless retroviruses. In fact, all evidence to date conclusively demonstrates that HIV--- like all retroviruses---is not cytotoxic.
The focus of questions about HIV quickly shifted from how it could cause AIDS to who found the now valuable viral commodity after Dr. Luc Montagnier of the Pasteur Institute in France accused Gallo of stealing his HIV sample. A congressional investigation determined that Gallo had presented fraudulent data in his ongmal paper on HIV and that the virus he claimed to have discovered had been sent to him by Montagnier.^^19^^ Negotiations were conducted between the French and American governments to establish discovery and patent rights.^^20^^ These ended in a compromise, with Montagnier and Gallo shanng credit as the codiscoverers of HIV and ownership rights to the HIV test. Montagnier has since stated that he does not believe HIV alone is capable of causing AIDS.^^21^^
Why HIV Cannot Cause AIDS^^22^^
> HIV is a retrovirus. Retroviruses are not cytotoxic; they do not kill cells.
> HIV shares the same genetic structure as all other known retroviruses. Hundreds of retroviruses are normally found in healthy human beings.
> Even if HIV could kill T cells, it only infects on average 1 in 1,000 T cells which is not enough to deplete T cells and cause AIDS.
> Most healthy people have had infections with cell-killing viruses like those that cause herpes and mononucleosis. These viruses infect millions of T cells ---up to half of all immune cells---without causing T cell depletion and without causing AIDS.
Cytotoxic: Able to kill or damage cells.
Since 1984, more than 100,000 papers have been published on HIV None of these papers, singly or collectively, has been able to reasonably demonstrate or effectively prove that HIV causes AIDS. Although Gallo claimed that HIV caused AIDS by destroying the T cells of the immune system, 20 years of cancer research confirmed that retroviruses are not cytotoxic. In fact, there is still no evidence in the scientific literature demonstrating that HIV is able to destroy T cells, directly or indirectly.
Comparing HIV to Varicella Zoster Virus (VZV), the known cause of chicken pox, highlights some of the ways in which HIV defies rules of science and logic.
HIV Bends the Rules erf VZV = Chicken Pox HIV = AIDS? Same symptoms in all cases I Different symptoms depending on risk group Natural VZV antibodies, in the i Natural HIV antibodies, in the absence of virus, indicate life- absence of virus, said to indicate long immunity j or predict AIDS VZV (actual virus) is readily found i HIV (actual virus) is rarely found in all cases of chicken pox in cases of AIDS VZV (actual virus) is readily found j HIV (actual virus) is rarely found in high concentrations in affected i and only in low concentrations tissues of ill patients j in T cells of ill patients VZV replication kills cells | HIV replication does not kill cells Most severe symptoms appear AIDS symptoms said to occur days or weeks after infection and j years after infection and only before antibody immunity (VZV+) after antibody immunity (HIV+
HIV is the only virus that is said to cause a group of diseases caused by other viruses and bacteria rather than causing its own disease. AIDS experts also say that HIV is able to cause cell depletion---loss of immune cells---at the same time it causes cell proliferation or cancer.
Although more research money has been spent on HIV than on the combined total of all other viruses studied in medical history, there is no scientific evidence validating the hypothesis that HIV is the cause of AIDS, or that AIDS has a viral cause. A good hypothesis is defined by its ability to solve problems and mysteries, make accurate predictions and produce results. The HIV hypothesis has failed to meet any of these criteria.
Hundreds of scientists around the world are now requesting an official revaluation of the HIV hypothesis. For more information on their efforts, refer to The Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV/AIDS Hypothesis on page 76.
7 __ALPHA_LVL1__ Is the ``AIDS Test'' Accurate?Many people are surprised to learn that there is no such thing as a test for AIDS. The tests popularly referred to as ``AIDS tests" do not identify or diagnose AIDS and cannot detect HIV, the virus claimed to cause AIDS. The ELISA and Western Blot tests commonly used to diagnose HIV infection detect only interactions between proteins and antibodies thought to be specific for HIV--- they do not detect HIV itself. And contrary to popular belief, newer ``viral load" tests do not measure levels of actual virus in the blood.
All HIV antibody tests are highly inaccurate. One reason for the tests' tremendous inaccuracy is that a variety of viruses, bacteria and other antigens can cause the immune system to make antibodies that also react with HIV. When the antibodies produced in response to these other infections and antigens react with HIV proteins, a positive result is registered. Many antibodies found in normal, healthy, HIV-free people can cause a positive reading on HIV antibody tests.^^23^^ Since the antibody production generated by a number of common viral infections can continue for years after the immune system has defeated a virus---and even for an entire lifetime---people never exposed to HIV can have consistent false positive reactions on HIV tests for years or for their entire lives.
The accuracy of an antibody test can be established only by verifying that positive results are found in people who actually have the virus. This standard for determining accuracy was not met in 1984 when the HIV antibody test was first created. Instead, to this day, positive ELISAs are verified by a second antibody test of unknown accuracy, the HIV Western Blot. Since the accuracy for HIV antibody tests has never been properly established, it is not possible to claim that a positive test indicates a current, active HIV infection or even to know what it may indicate.^^24^^ In one study that investigated positive results confirmed by Western Blot, 80 people with two positive ELISAs that were ``verified'' by a positive Western Blot tested negative on their next Western Blot.^^25^^
Antibodies produced in response to simple infections like a cold or the flu can cause a positive reaction on an HIV antibody test. A flu shot and other immunizations can also create positive HIV ELISA and Western Blot results. Having or having had herpes or hepatitis may produce a positive test, as can vaccination for hepatitis B. Exposure to microbes such as those that cause tuberculosis and malaria commonly cause false positive results, as do the presence of tapeworms and other parasites. Conditions such as alcoholism or liver disease and blood that is altered through drug use may elicit the production of antibodies that react on HIV antibody tests. Pregnancy and prior pregnancy can also cause a positive response. The antibodies produced to act against
Antigen: A substance that can trigger an immune response, resulting in the production of antibodies as part of the body's defense system against infection and disease. Many antigens are foreign proteins (those not found naturally in the body); they include microorganisms, toxins, and tissues from another person used in organ transplantation. Antigen stands for ANTIbody GENerating.
False positive: Indicates infection where none exists.
Prior to the notion that HIV causes AIDS, viral antibodies were considered a normal, healthy response to infection and an indication of immunity. Antibodies alone were not used to diagnose disease or predict illness. Before HIV, only ELISA and Western Blot tests that had been shown to correspond with the finding of actual virus were used to diagnose viral infections. There is no credible scientific evidence to suggest that these rules should be disregarded to accommodate HIV
In addition to being inaccurate, HIV antibody tests are not standardized. This means that there is no nationally or internationally accepted criteria for what constitutes a positive result. Standards also vary from lab to lab within the same country or state, and can even differ from day to day at the same lab.^^28^^ As HIV test kit manufacturers acknowledge, ``At present there is no recognized standard for establishing the presence or absence of antibodies to HIV-1 and HIV-2 in human blood.''^^29^^
The following chart illustrates just some of the varying criteria for what is considered a positive HIV Western Blot, and shows how someone could actually switch from positive to negative simply by changing countries. The differing standards for positive HIV tests are not limited to the locations and agencies mentioned here---criteria vary from lab to lab and results are open to interpretation. An inconclusive test can become positive or negative based on an individual's sexual preference, health history, zip code or other survey data.
Varying Criteria for a Positive HIV Western Blot^^30^^
!
UNITED
USA
USA
USA
USA
AFRICA
, AUSTRALIA j
KINGDOM
CDC, j
CDC2
FDA
RED CROSS;
pi 60
ONE
ONE
p120/
P120/
ONE
ONE
p!20
ANY
TWO
OR
MORE
OR
MORE
pi 60*
AND
pi 60*
OR
OR
MORE
OR
MORE
p41
p41
p41
0
P ~Ti« o-i ANY
T p31 , p32 ONE
I ANY
0 THREE ' ......
M
i AMY
A P24 ; p24 p24 g™
* The CDC regards pi 20 and pi 60 as a single unit-if antibodies to one show up,
the others are automatically considered to be present~
** Used instead of p32 in the United Kingdom
The various proteins used in HIV Western Blot tests are arranged into bands that are divided into three sections. These three sections are represented by the abbreviations ENV, POL and GAG. Proteins in the ENV section correspond to the outer membrane or ``envelope'' of a virus; POL refers to proteins common to all retroviruses which include polymerase and other enzymes; GAG stands for ``group specific antigen" and includes proteins that form the inner core of a virus. The protein bands in each section are indicated by the letter ``p'' and are followed by a number which describes the molecular weight of that protein measured in daltons. For example, pi60 is an ENV protein that weighs 160 daltons.
It is important to note that none of the proteins used in HIV antibody tests are particular to HIV, and none of the antigens said to be specific to HIV are found only in persons who test HIV positive. In fact, many people diagnosed HIV positive do not have these ``HIV antigens" in their blood.
As mentioned previously, newer HIV ``viral load" tests do not isolate or measure actual virus. The tests' manufacturers clearly state that viral load ``is not intended to be used as a screening test for HIV or as a diagnostic test to confirm the presence of HIV infection.''^^31^^ In fact, viral load tests have not been approved by the FDA for diagnostic purposes and have not been verified by virus isolation. For more information on viral load tests, please see What's Up With Viral Load? on page 36. Of course, the most outstanding problem with any HIV test is that HIV has never been demonstrated to cause AIDS.
Should You Bet Your Life on an HIV Test? ``The only way to distinguish between real reactions and cross-reactions is to use HIV isolation. All claims of HIV isolation are based on a set of phenomena detected in tissue culture, none of which are isolation and none of which are even specific for retroviruses...We don't know how many positive tests occur in the absence of HIV infection. There is no specificity of the HIV antibody tests for HIV infection.'' Bio/Technology Journal, 11:696--707, 1993 ``The HIV antibody tests do not detect a virus. They test for any antibodies that react with an assortment of proteins experts claim are specific to HIV. The fact is that an antibody test, even if repeated and found positive a thousand times, does not prove the presence of viral infection.'' Val Turner, MD, Continuum magazine, Vol 3 No 5, 1996 `` HIV tests are notoriously unreliable in Africa. A 1994 study published in the Journal of Infectious Diseases concluded that HIV tests were useless in central Africa, where the microbes responsible for tuberculosis, malaria and leprosy were so prevalent that they registered over 70% false positive.'' Sacramento Bee, October 30, 1994
10 __NOTE__ Open `` have a hanging-indent look.`` With public health officials and politicians thrashing out who should be tested for HIV, the accuracy of the test itself has been nearly ignored. A study last month by Congress' Office of Technology Assessment found that HIV tests can be very inaccurate indeed. For groups at very low risk-people who don't use IV drugs or have sex with gay or bisexual men-9 in 10 positive findings are called false positives, indicating infection where none exists.''
US News & World Report, November 23, 1987
`` People who receive gamma globulin shots for chicken pox, measles and hepatitis could test positive for HIV even if they've never been infected. The Food and Drug Administration says that a positive test could be caused by antibodies found in most of America's supply of gamma globulin. Gamma globulin is made from blood collected from thousands of donors and is routinely given to millions of people each year as temporary protection against many infectious diseases. Dr. Thomas Zuck of the FDA's Blood and Blood Products Division says the government didn't release the information because `we thought it would do more harm than good.'\thinspace"
USA Today. October 2, 1987
``Two weeks ago, a 3-year-old child in Winston Salem, North Carolina, was struck by a car and rushed to a nearby hospital. Because the child's skull had been broken and there was a blood spill, the hospital performed an HIV test. As the traumatized mother was sitting at her child's bedside, a doctor came in and told her the child was HIV-positive. Both parents are negative. The doctor told the mother that she needed to launch an investigation into her entire family and circle of friends because this child had been sexually abused. There was no other way, the doctor said, that the child could be positive. A few days later, the mother demanded a second test. It came back negative. The hospital held a press conference where a remarkable admission was made. In her effort to clear the hospital of any wrongdoing, a hospital spokesperson announced that 'these HIV tests are not reliable; a lot of factors can skew the tests, like fever or pregnancy. Everybody knows that.''
Celia Farber, Impression Magazine, June 21, 1999
`` A Vancouver woman is suing St. Paul's Hospital and several doctors because she was diagnosed as carrying the AIDS virus, when in fact she wasn't. In a BC Supreme Court writ, Lisa Lebed claims when she was admitted to the hospital in late 1995 to give birth to a daughter, a blood sample was taken without her consent. It revealed she was HIV positive, so she gave up the baby girl for adoption and decided to have a tubal ligation. A year and a half later, while undergoing AIDS treatment, she found out she was not HIV positive. The explanation she was given was a lab error. She says because of the negligence of the hospital, she's now sterile and has lost a daughter.''
Woman Sues St. Paul's, CKNW Radio 98, June 10, 1999
11
Acute viral infections, DNA viral infections13c,40c,43c.48c,53c.59c Administration of human immunoglobulin preparations pooled before 1985'* Alcoholic hepatitis/alcoholic liver [|jsease10c,13c.32cl40c,43c.4ec,49c.53c Alpha interferon therapy in hemodialysis patients^^540^^ Antibodies with a high affinity for polystyrene (used in the test kits)^^30^^'^^4^^*'^^620^^ Anti-carbohydrateantibodies^^130^^'^^190^^'^^520^^ Anti-collagen antibodies (found in gay men, haemophiliacs, Africans of both sexes and people with leprosy)^^310^^ Anti-Hoc lgM^^48c^^ Anti-hepatitis A IgM (antibody)^^480^^ Anti-lymphocyte antibodies^^310^^'^^560^^ Anti-microsomal antibodies^^340^^ Anti-mitochondrial antibodies^^130^^'^^480^^ Anti-nuclear antibodies^^130^^'^^480^^'^^530^^ Anti-parietal cell antibody^^480^^ Anti-smooth muscle antibody^^480^^ Autoimmune diseases (systemic lupus erythematosus, scleroderma, connective tissue disease, dermatomyositis)^^100^^'^^290^^'^^400^^'^^430^^'^^440^^'^^490^^ Blood transfusions^^130^^'^^360^^'^^410^^'^^430^^'^^490^^'^^630^^ Epstein-Barr virus^^370^^ False positives on other tests, including RPR (rapid plasma reagent) test for syphilis^^1^^*'^^170^^'^^330^^'^^480^^'^^490^^ Flu^^36c^^ Fluvaccination^^30^^'^^0^^'^^130^^'^^200^^'^^300^^'^^430^^ Globulins produced during polyclonal gammopathies (in AIDS risk groups)^^100^^'^^130^^'^^480^^ Hemolyzed serum (blood where hemoglobin is separated from the red cells)^^490^^ Hematologic malignant disorders/lymphoma^^90^^'^^130^^-^^430^^'^^480^^'^^530^^ Hemophilia^^1^^*'^^490^^ Heat-treated specimens^^240^^'^^480^^'^^490^^'^^510^^'^^570^^ Hemodialysis/renalfailure^^100^^'^^160^^'^^410^^'^^490^^'^^560^^ Hepatitis^^540^^ Hepatitis B vaccination^^210^^'^^280^^'^^4^^*'^^430^^ Herpes simplex I and II^^110^^'^^270^^ High levels of circulating immune complexes^^60^^'^^330^^ HLA antibodies (to Class I and II leukocyte antigens)^^70^^'^^1^^*'^^130^^'^^430^^'^^460^^'^^480^^'^^490^^'^^530^^'^^630^^ Hyperbilirubinemia^^100^^'^^130^^ Hypergammaglobulinemia (high levels of antibodies)^^330^^'^^400^^ Leprosy^^20^^'^^250^^ Lipemic serum (blood with high levels of fat or lipids)^^490^^ Malaria^^60^^'^^120^^ Malignant neoplasms (cancers)^^400^^ Multiple myeloma ^^10c^^,^^43c^^,^^53c^^ Mycobacterium avium^^250^^ Naturally-occurring antibodies^^50^^'^^190^^ Normal human ribonucleoproteins^^130^^'^^480^^ Organ transplantation^^10^^'^^360^^ Other retroviruses^^80^^'^^130^^'^^140^^'^^480^^'^^550^^ Passive immunization: receipt of gamma globulin or immune globulin (as prophylaxis against infection which contains antibodies) *.c,i8c,22c.26c,42C,43c.60c Poorly-understood cross reactions in healthy individuals'* Pregnancy in multiparous women^^130^^'^^360^^'^^430^^'^^530^^'^^580^^ Primary biliary cirrhosis^^130^^'^^430^^'^^480^^'^^530^^ Primary sclerosing cholangitis^^480^^'^^530^^ Proteins on the filter paper^^130^^ Q-fever with associated hepatitis^^610^^ Recent viral infection or exposure to viral vaccines^^110^^ Receptive anal sex^^390^^'^^640^^ Renal (kidney) failure^^130^^'^^230^^'^^480^^ Renal transplantation^^90^^-^^130^^'^^350^^'^^480^^'^^560^^ Rheumatoid arthritis^^360^^ Serum-positive for rheumatoid factor, antinuclear antibody (both found in rheumatoid arthritis and other autoantibodies)^^140^^'^^530^^'^^620^^ Stevens-Johnson syndrome^^90^^'^^130^^'^^480^^ ``Sticky'' blood (in Africans)^^340^^'^^380^^'^^4^^* Systemic lupus erythematosus^^150^^'^^230^^ Tetanus vaccination^^400^^ Tuberculosis^^250^^ T-cell leukocyte antigen antibodies^^130^^'^^480^^ Upper respiratory tract infection (cold or flu)^^110^^ Visceral leishmaniasis^^450^^
12 __ALPHA_LVL1__ Is the Rate of HIV Increasing?HIV is not on the rise. According to the most recent CDC estimates, the number ol HIV positive Americans has not increased once since the HIV test was introduced into general use in 1985.
In 1986, the CDC began promoting the estimate that 1 million to 1.5 million Americans were HIV positive.^^33^^ Media and AIDS organizations employed this figure to make the disturbing claim that one in every 250 people in the nation was inlected with HIV Four years later, official estimates were lowered to between 800,000 and 1.2 million, and in 1995, following an investigation by NBC Nightly News, the CDC again decreased their official estimate to between 650,000 and 900,000, a figure still promoted today^^33^^~^^34^^
While the number of HIV positives has failed to grow, it is important to note that rates of venereal diseases such as chlamydia, genital herpes, gonorrhea and syphilis have increased throughout most of the AIDS epidemic and far surpass cases of AIDS. These numbers contradict the idea that ``safe sex" has prevented HIV from spreading.
HIV in Perspective: Sexually Transmitted Diseases vs. AIDS^^35^^
7987 to 7998 USA
15
13.6 million
12
0------
Gonorrhea Genital Chlamydia Syphilis AIDS
Herpes
In 1998, deaths in Americans with AIDS reached 410,800. This is the total for the entire time known as the AIDS epidemic, a period which spans nearly two decades.^^36^^ Included in this total are deaths from any cause at all---accidents, noncontagious illnesses, drug side effects, etc.---in people diagnosed with AIDS.^^37^^
Without dismissing AIDS deaths or the profound suffering of AIDS patients and their loved ones, it is important to give this total some comparative perspective: Over 400,000 Americans die each year of cancer, and there are more than 700,000 annual deaths in this country from cardiovascular disease.^^38^^
During the period known as the AIDS epidemic, 14 million people died of heart disease---13.5 million more than have ever died of AIDS---while 9 million succumbed to cancer, which is 8.5 million more than those counted for AIDS. From 1981 to 1998, car accidents killed over 800,000 Americans---almost twice as many as have ever died of AIDS. Suicides during the AIDS epidemic surpass AIDS fatalities by more than 100,000.^^38^^ Loss of life from adverse reactions to properly prescribed and correctly taken pharmaceuticals outnumber AIDS deaths in America by more than 1.3 million.''
Deaths During the AIDS Epidemic^^38^^
7 98 Ho 7998 USA
15
14 million
12
9 million
i 3-H
1.8 million
Heart
Disease
Cancer Prescription Car
Drugs Accidents
AIDS
Although most people associate the word ``epidemic'' with AIDS, one of the last truly devastating outbreaks in history, the flu of 1918, took the lives of 20 million people worldwide in a single year.^^40^^ After almost 20 years, diagnosed cases of AIDS throughout the world total just over 2 million, and included among these are many people who remain alive and well.^^41^^
14So why do we think of enormous numbers whenever we think of AIDS? Unlike cancer and most other conditions, AIDS reports typically use cumulative totals. In other words, a current year's cases or fatalities are added to the sum total of all AIDS diagnoses or deaths that have ever occurred, automatically creating a larger figure and the impression that AIDS constantly rises.
Also, estimates and projections are frequently used in place of actual AIDS numbers. For example, the 1999 United Nations AIDS Report estimates that 2.5 million people throughout the world died of AIDS in 1998 while the November 1999 World Health Organization (WHO) Weekly Epidemiological Record reports that only 2.2 million people worldwide have ever received a diagnosis of AIDS.^^42^^ The UN estimate is widely promoted while the actual WHO case count is rarely publicized.
A little reported fact is that AIDS is not among the ten leading causes of deaths for Americans. In annual death rates, AIDS lags behind motor vehicle accidents, non-vehicular accidents and adverse events, flu and pneumonia, diabetes, septicemia, Alzheimer's disease, and homicide.^^43^^ It is often reported that AIDS is the leading cause of death among Americans aged 25 to 44. This statement inspires great fear and concern until carefully examined. Only two-tenths of one percent (0.2%) of persons in this age group die of any cause each year, and among these, deaths from AIDS represent about three one-hundredths of one percent (0.03%). However, since AIDS constitutes the leading category for fatalities at about 15% (85% of people within this age range die of other causes), it is possible to call AIDS the leading killer.^^44^^ For more information on the use of AIDS statistics, see Public Health, Public Relations and AIDS on page 45.
Portraying AIDS as our biggest health threat gives AIDS funding priority over problems that affect far greater numbers of Americans. According to findings by the Institute of Medicine, NIH research expenditures in 1996 averaged $ 1,160 for every American who died of heart disease, $4,700 for each one who died of cancer, and more than $43,000 for every death in a person diagnosed with AIDS.^^45^^
False Alarms! `` By 1990, one in five heterosexuals will be dead from AIDS.'' Oprah Winfrey, 1987 • The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS, 1990 `` By 1991, HIV will have spread to between 5 and 10 million Americans.'' Newsweek • November 10, 1986 `` By 1991,1 in 10 babies may be AIDS victims.'' USA Today headline, 1988 ``By 1996, three to five million Americans will be HIV positive and one million will be dead from AIDS.'' NIAID Director Dr. Anthony Fauci • New York Times, January 14, 1986 `` Without massive federal AIDS intervention, there may be no one left.'' HHS Secretary Donna Shalala, 1993 • Washington Times, June 8, 1999
15 __ALPHA_LVL1__ Are We All at Risk for AIDS?It is often said that everyone is at risk for AIDS, but the actual numbers suggest otherwise. After nearly two decades, AIDS cases in this country have remained 94% confined to the originally identified risk groups.^^46^^
The CDC places 88% of American AIDS patients in two categories: men who have sex with men or injection drug users. Just 10% of Americans diagnosed with AIDS cite heterosexual contact as their only risk and of these, close to half (4%) mention sexual relations with users of injection drugs.
The classification of AIDS cases by risk group relies entirely on voluntary responses to CDC survey questions, a method of gathering information that is well-documented to be a source of distortion and invalidity.^^47^^ In fact, a number of public health studies show that upon further investigation, 65% to 99% of people with AIDS who initially claim heterosexual contact as their only risk or who claim no risk at all, later acknowledge using injection drugs and/or having male homosexual relations.^^48^^
Although men who have sex with men is the leading risk group for an AIDS diagnosis, this information is not intended to suggest that gay male sex is a cause of AIDS, or that all men who have sex with men are at risk. There are specific health-compromising factors associated with, but that are not unique to, men who have sex with men that are known to cause acquired immune deficiency. Please see If It's Not HIV, What Can Cause AIDS? on page 51 for further information and clarification. It is also important to note that AIDS risk groups are limited to the six categories defined by the CDC and that the CDC accepts all survey responses regarding risks as accurate.
AIDS Cases by CDC Risk Groups^^49^^ AIDS by Risk Group AIDS by Health Status Men Who Have Sex with Men.... 53°/o No Illness.................67% Injection Drug Users........................35% Illness........................33% Heterosexual Contact......................6% Heterosexual Contact with IDU ... 4<to AID$ bY Gender Transfusion Recipients.................... 1% Male..........................85% Hemophiliacs.......................................1% Female......................15%
The risk of AIDS is also disproportionately divided among men and women in America, with 85% of cumulative AIDS cases confined to males.^^50^^ In contrast to this fact, HIV testing conducted by the US military since 1985 reports near equal numbers of HIV positive results among male and female new recruits.^^31^^ If HIV were the cause of AIDS, we should expect a near equal number of AIDS cases among men and women. Instead, women have never represented more than 15% of all AIDS cases nationwide.
16In a contagious epidemic, healthcare professionals working among the ill usually run the highest risk of contracting a disease. During the entire AIDS epidemic however, only 25 cases of AIDS have been reported among healthcare workers who claim occupational exposure as their only risk, and none of these 25 cases have been described in the medical literature.^^52^^ Although the CDC reports that 75% of healthcare workers are women, 23 of these 25 AIDS cases (92%) are men.^^54^^ Also of interest is the fact that there are no emergency medical technicians, paramedics, surgeons or dentists among the 25 occupational AIDS cases reported by the CDC.^^53^^ In comparison to AIDS, 1,000 cases of hepatitis infection are reported each year among healthcare workers who attribute their illness to occupational exposure.^^54^^
Questioning AIDS
> Why are 88% of Americans with AIDS confined to two risk groups?
> Why are 85% of AIDS cases in the US found among males?
> If AIDS is a widespread health risk, why has it not spread into the general population?
> Since health care workers are at high risk in any epidemic, why are there only 25 claimed cases of occupational AIDS among health care workers after nearly two decades of AIDS?
> If AIDS is a sexually transmitted disease (STD), why do cases of syphilis, chlamydia and gonorrhea far outnumber AIDS?
> Since female prostitutes are at high risk for all STDs, why are they not a risk group for AIDS?
While AIDS is often cited as the primary health risk for America's 26 million teens, according to the CDC, new AIDS cases among US teenagers in 1998 totaled 293---a drop from the previous year's total of 403.^^55^^ The sum total for AIDS among Americans age 13 to 19 for the entire period known as the AIDS epidemic is 3,432 cases. In Canada, just two new cases of teenage AIDS were reported in 1997 while that same year Canadian teenagers accounted for half of all 4,442 new infections of gonorrhea.^^56^^
Pediatric AIDS is a popular topic in national news and is the focus of many multimillion dollar fund-raising efforts even though there are fewer than 400 cases of AIDS among children age five and under for each year of the AIDS epidemic.^^57^^ Studies have shown that as many as 85% of pediatric AIDS cases in the US and Europe occur among children born to mothers who admit to using IV drugs during pregnancy.^^58^^ New cases of pediatric AIDS---along with AIDS cases in all categories---have been decreasing steadily since 1993, and in 1998, only 10 states reported more than 10 new diagnoses of pediatric AIDS.
17All AIDS cases among children age 12 and under during the AIDS epidemic total less than 8,500. Compare this to Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) which during the same period of time has taken the lives of more than 80,000 children, all under one year of age.^^59^^
Actuarial calculations demonstrate that the chance of testing HIV positive following a single act of unprotected vaginal intercourse with a person outside a high risk group is one in seven million, which is less than the chance of being struck by lightning, less than the chance of dying of food poisoning at a fast-food restaurant, less than being injured in an elevator ride, and about the same odds as being killed in a traffic accident while traveling a distance of 10 miles.^^60^^
18 __ALPHA_LVL1__ Is AIDS Devastating Africa?According to the 1999 World Health Organization (WHO) report, the total number of actual diagnosed AIDS cases on the African continent is about equal to the total for AIDS in America even though Africa, with its 650 million people, has more than two times the population of the USA.^^61^^ Africa is often cited as a worst case example of what could happen in America despite figures that demonstrate that 99.5% of Africans do not have AIDS, and among Africans who test HIV positive, 97% do not have AIDS.^^62^^
Unlike in the United States, AIDS in Africa may be diagnosed based on four clinical symptoms---fever, involuntary loss of 10% of normal body weight, persistent cough, and diarrhea---and HIV tests are not required.^^63^^ The four clinical AIDS symptoms are identical to those associated with conditions that run rampant on the African continent such as malaria, tuberculosis, parasitic infections, the effects of malnutrition, and unsanitary drinking and bathing water. These symptoms are the result of poverty and other problems that have troubled Africa and other developing areas of the world for many decades.
What about Africa?^^64^^
> African AIDS is diagnosed by four clinical symptoms:
--- Diarrhea, fever, persistent cough, and weight
loss of more than 10% over two months.
> HIV tests are not required for an AIDS diagnosis
in Africa.
--- 99.5°/o of Africans do not have AIDS.
--- 97% of HIV positive Africans do not have AIDS.
> Cases of tuberculosis, malaria and measles far outnumber cases of AIDS in Africa.
> AIDS is not the leading cause of illness or death in any African nation.
The idea that AIDS originated in Africa remains popular although there has never been scientific or epidemiological evidence to substantiate this notion. News reports suggesting that HIV began in Africa as Simian Immunodeficiency Virus (SIV) are based on elaborate speculation about species-jumping viruses rather than reliable evidence.
SIV induces only flu like symptoms in some experimental laboratory monkeys and does not cause any of the 29 official AIDS-defining illnesses. Unlike HIV infection which is said to cause illness only years after exposure and despite the presence of protective antibodies, SIV will cause illness within days of infection or not at all, and wild monkeys retain SIV antibodies throughout 19 their lives without ever becoming ill. Only monkeys in unnatural circumstances---lab animals with undeveloped immune systems who are injected with large quantities of SIV---become ill.^^65^^
In a recent attempt to advance the hypothesis of an SIV/HIV connection, researchers used the results of nonspecific antibody tests to claim that three chimpanzees captured in West Africa had been infected with HIV/SIV through sexual transmission. Efforts to isolate actual virus from the animals revealed that two of the three chimps had no virus, while the researchers admitted that the virus found in the one was not even closely related to HIV Their report also failed to explain why the ``infected'' animals did not transmit HIV/SIV to any of the 150 other chimps living in the colony where they were kept, or why their mates and offspring did not test positive.^^66^^
While Africa is the frequent subject of dramatic media reports, actual numbers of diagnosed AIDS cases on the continent are relatively unremarkable. For example, 1981 through 1999 cumulative AIDS cases for South Africa, the new epicenter of AIDS, total just 12,825.^^6^^'
If this news story were true...
> 480 Kenyans would die of AIDS each day;
> 175,000 Kenyans would die of AIDS every year;
> Three million Kenyans would have died of AIDS since 1981.
The fact is that in Kenya...
> There have been 81,492 diagnosed AIDS cases since 1981 and many of these are people who remain alive and well.
20Unfounded estimates, rather than unprotected sex, are responsible for the alarming number of AIDS cases said to occur in Africa. United Nations' AIDS estimates were cited as the inspiration for a recent news report claiming ``a Kenyan dies of AIDS every three minutes.''^^68^^ If Kenyans were dying at this rate, there would be more than twice as many dead Kenyans in just one year than have ever been actually diagnosed with AIDS in the entire period of time known as the AIDS epidemic.
In 1987, the WHO estimated there were 1 million HIV positives in Uganda, the nation then considered the epicenter of AIDS. Ten years later, WHO estimates for Uganda remained unchanged at 1 million HIV positives while the total of actual AIDS cases through 1999 are less than 55,000 in this country of more than 20 million people.^^69^^
AIDS is not, as many believe, Africa's primary health threat; several million cases of tuberculosis and malaria are reported each year in Africa while total AIDS cases on the continent for the entire AIDS epidemic hover just above one-half million. For example, in 1996 there were 170,000 cases of tuberculosis reported in Ethiopia and less than 850 cases of AIDS; South Africa's tuberculosis cases topped 91,000 compared to 729 diagnosed cases of AIDS. In fact, AIDS is not the leading cause of illness or death in any African country.^^70^^
Because of the high incidence of exposure to malaria, tuberculosis and other diseases that produce false positive results on HIV tests, many mainstream scientists question the validity of HIV testing in Africa.^^71^^
21 __ALPHA_LVL1__ Are New Drug TreatmentsGovernment officials, AIDS organizations and the media unanimously agree that the recent decline in AIDS cases and deaths is an unprecedented occurrence due to a new combination of drugs that include protease inhibitors, chemicals said to block the replication of HIV However, a careful look behind the headlines reveals that there is no medical evidence to support these popular claims about the protease inhibitor ``combo cocktails.''
The declines in AIDS deaths attributed to combination therapies actually began several years before protease inhibitor drugs became available for general use.^^72^^ Since the first protease inhibitor received Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval in December of 1995, a more likely explanation for decreased deaths would be the change in the official AIDS definition adopted in 1993 which allows HIV positives with no symptoms or illness to be diagnosed with AIDS. Since 1993, more than half of all newly diagnosed AIDS cases are counted among people who are not sick.^^73^^
Reported AIDS Cases Before and After Release of Protease Inhibitors^^74^^ 1987 to 7998 USA 40 r o I 30 Non-illness AIDS definition introduced First protease inhibitor approved for use 8 20 10 - r_ ' ~ j J iri 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Quarter-year of report
CDC data also show that decreases in AIDS cases commonly ascribed to ``AIDS cocktails" preceded the introduction of the new drug treatments by three full years. According to the CDCs HIV I AIDS Surveillance Report, AIDS diagnoses peaked in the third quarter of 1991, increased once in the first quarter of 1993 as a result of the 1993 expanded AIDS definition, and have dropped each year since.^^75^^
22News stories of AIDS patients who rise from their death beds to run marathons after taking the drug cocktails, are just that---stories. In science, such unverified accounts are dismissed as anecdotal, a term that comes from the Greek word anekdotos, meaning unpublished. None of the anecdotal tales of recoveries attributed to new drug combinations have been substantiated by controlled studies published in peer-reviewed medical journals, a fact acknowledged in the fine print of pharmaceutical advertisements:
> ``At this time there is no evidence that Ziagen will help you live longer or have fewer of the medical problems associated with HIV or AIDS."
> ``It is not yet known whether Crixivan will extend your life or reduce your chances of getting other illnesses associated with HIV"
> ``At present, there are no results from controlled clinical trials evaluating the ejects ofViramune [on] the incidence of opportunistic infections or survival."
> ``There have been no clinical trials conducted with Combivir"^^76^^
Incomplete and inconclusive data from one 1997 study are used to claim that mortality rates are lower among HIV positives treated with protease inhibitors.^^77^^ This particular trial was prematurely terminated before statistically significant results could be obtained, and no placebo control comparing unmedicated HIV positives was used, no recurrent AIDS-defining illnesses that appeared among participants were recorded (except recurrent pneumonia), and the results mentioned in the final report are for only a small fraction of the patients enrolled in the study.^^78^^ Current pharmaceutical ads use this study to declare that their new drugs are ``proven to help people with HIV live longer, healthier lives" while simultaneously admitting that ``because the study ended early, there was insufficient data to determine [the drug's] statistical impact on survival.''^^79^^
While there is no evidence that cocktail therapies produce clinical health benefits, well-documented side effects include headache, fever, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, oral lesions, abdominal pain, severe fatigue, sexual dysfunction, general ill feeling, skin rashes, a hypersensitivity reaction that can result in sudden death, nervous system damage, enlarged liver, liver failure, kidney stones, kidney sludge, physical deformities including hunchbacks, sunken cheeks, and ``stick-like limbs,'' diabetes, heart disease, ``unmasking'' of various opportunistic infections including CMV retinitis (a viral infection which can lead to blindness), and spontaneous bleeding in hemophiliacs.^^80^^
Media reports attributing declines in AIDS to protease inhibitor cocktails often neglect to mention the high rate of drug failure or the considerable number of HIV positives who either quit the new combinations because of intolerable side effects or have never taken them at all. Recent studies place drug failure rates at 50% while others note that as many as 40% of participants drop out of protease inhibitor drug trials due to adverse effects, and as AIDS expert Dr. James Curran laments, ``fewer than 10% of US AIDS patients have access to and are on the new wonder drugs.''^^81^^ For more information on the chemotherapy/ protease inhibitor drug combinations known as HAART, please see A Sobering Report on AIDS Cocktails and What's Up with Viral Load? on pages 32 and 36.
23 __ALPHA_LVL1__ Does HIV Take Years to Cause AIDS?For more than a decade, scientists throughout the world agreed that HIV had a latency period, a time during which it remained inactive before becoming active and causing immune destruction. The notion of a latency period was used to explain why HIV did not behave like all other infectious, diseasecausing microbes that cause illness soon after infection, and why significant quantities of active HIV could not be found in people who test HIV positive.
At first, HIV's latency period was thought to be a few months long.^^82^^ It was then revised to one year, then two, then three and five years.^^83^^ As greater numbers of people who tested HIV positive did not develop AIDS as predicted, the latency period was extended to ten or fifteen years, and more recently, even to entire lifetimes.^^84^^
Just when HIV's growing latency period became the focus of mounting scrutiny, it was replaced with the concept of constantly active HIV that replicates and destroys cells at spectacular rates, a hypothesis known as ``viral load.'' The media, government health agencies, AIDS organizations, and most AIDS doctors have uncritically accepted the viral load concept as fact. Proponents of viral load assen that HIV is rampant and destructive from the very moment of infection, and that the immune system of a person who tests positive is engaged in a perpetual struggle to keep the virus under control. They claim that HIV, after five, ten or fifteen years, eventually wins the battle by wearing out the immune system.
Viral load relies entirely on conclusions drawn from polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests, and is based on the erroneous notion that the fragments of genetic material PCR finds correspond to counts of actual virus. In fact, PCR is unable to detect actual virus; it only amplifies genetic material associated with HIV (RNA or DNA) and the ``load'' produced by the test is a mathematical calculation, not a count of infectious virus. When standard methods of virus counting are applied, a viral load of 100,000 has been shown to correspond to less than ten infectious units of HIV, an amount that is far too small to induce illness.^^85^^
Contrary to popular belief, PCR cannot determine what portion, if any, of the genetic material it detects represents infectious virus. In fact more than 99% of what PCR measures is noninfectious.^^86^^ Dr. Kary Mullis, who won the 1993 Nobel Prize for inventing PCR is a member of The Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV/AIDS Hypothesis and refutes those who claim that HIV is the causative agent of AIDS.^^87^^
Viral loads have been measured in people who are HIV negative and in AIDS patients who test HIV antibody positive but have no HIV^^88^^ Low levels of viral load have not been correlated with good health, with absence of illness or high T cell counts while high viral loads do not correspond with low T cells or sickness.^^89^^ For more information, please see What's Up with Viral Load? on page 36.
Polymerase chain reaction (PCR): A technique used to detect the presence of minute quantities of genetic material in the blood through replication of DNA or RNA.
At least 75% of babies born to HIV positive mothers will test HIV negative without medical intervention.^^90^^ Studies have shown that for properly nourished HIV positive expectant mothers receiving regular prenatal care, over 90% of their children test negative with no drug therapy.^^91^^ Mainstream medical experts acknowledge that children need up to 18 months to develop their own immune response and discard the antibodies passed on to them from their mothers, and note that HIV testing before 18 months of age does not yield conclusive results.^^92^^ Despite this widely accepted fact, several states require mandatory HIV antibody testing for newborns in public hospitals.^^93^^
As explained previously, HIV antibody tests do not indicate the presence of actual virus and are unable to determine if the antibodies it detects are even HIV antibodies. Newer ``viral load" tests do not detect actual virus and are not approved for diagnostic use. Even when administered after 18 months of age, neither test can determine if a child is actually infected with HIV Despite these facts, the tests are routinely used to diagnose HIV infection in newborns and children. The results of these inaccurate and improperly applied tests are the basis for all claims regarding transmission rates of HIV from mother to child, and for declaring that a baby ``has HIV"
Expectant mothers who test HIV positive are commonly advised to abort or to take AZT, a highly toxic chemical compound originally created for use as a cancer treatment. AZT works by blocking the formation of DNA---a process essential to sustaining life---and destroying all growing cells, particularly new cells produced in the bone marrow where the immune system is generated. AZT is a known carcinogen, mutagen, and teratogen, and until recently it was contraindicated for use during pregnancy.^^94^^
AZT was approved for expectant mothers based on the conclusions of a single trial, ACTG076, a trial sponsored by AZT's manufacturer. According to this study, transmission rates of HIV were 25.5% for infants of untreated mothers and 8.3% for children born to the AZT-treated women.
Carcinogen: Any agent capable of causing cancer such as asbestos fibers and high-energy radiation. Chemicals form the largest group of carcinogens.
Mutagen: Any physical or chemical agent that, when applied to a group of living cells, increases the rate of mutation in those cells. Mutation is a change in the genetic material within a cell which can give rise to cancer or a hereditary disease.
Teratogen: An agent that causes physical abnormalities in a developing embryo or fetus. The drug thatidomide is an example of a teratogen. Drug regulating agencies usually refuse to license drugs for use during pregnancy if they have been found to be teratogenic for any species.
Contraindicated: A line of medical treatment, such as drug therapy or surgery, that is inadvisable or unwise due to any factor in a patient's condition.
The results of ACTG076 have proved impossible to duplicate in further studies on pregnant women treated with AZT. In fact, other reports have shown that expectant mothers using prenatal multivitamins experienced lower rates of transmission than the lowest rate of those treated with AZT. One study determined that use of vitamin A correlates with a transmission rate of 7.2%.^^9^^'
The effects of AZT on expectant mothers include muscle deterioration, severe anemia, nerve damage, liver damage, muscle wasting, lymphoma, acute nausea, diarrhea and dementia. The effects of AZT on developing infants include misshapen heads, extra fingers, triangular faces, albinism, misplaced ears, cavities in the chest, webbed fingers, anemia, spontaneous abortion, chromosomal damage, and can result in the need for therapeutic abortions of severely deformed fetuses.^^96^^
Routine HIV antibody testing for pregnant women raises particular concerns as pregnancy itself can cause positive HIV test results.^^97^^ Although cross-reactions due to pregnancy are documented in the medical literature and acknowledged by test manufacturers, HIV antibody tests have become part of standard prenatal screening, and are even mandatory in some states.
A fundamental problem of routine screening using even the most accurate test is that low risk groups will have the highest rates of false positives. This occurs because the accuracy of a test deteriorates when administered to populations among which the microbe being tested for is rarely found. Since the incidence of HIV positivity among American women who describe themselves as riskfree is 0.01%, a consequence of routine HIV screening of all expectant women is widespread false positive results.^^98^^ One study of premarital HIV screening reported that HIV antibody tests with an alleged specificity of 99.8% and sensitivity of 98.3% had an accuracy of less than 15% when administered to this low risk group.^^99^^ And these figures are based on invalid and/or loose definitions of specificity, sensitivity, and accuracy that do not involve tests validated by identifying actual HIV infections.
Another troubling consequence of requiring HIV tests for pregnant women is the emerging issue of obligatory drug treatment. While CDC guidelines state that ``discussion of treatment options should be non-coercive, and the final decision to accept or reject AZT for herself and her child is the right and responsibility of the woman,'' such discussions rarely include objective data on the toxic effects of AIDS drugs or any information that would support a decision to reject them.^^100^^ Most health practitioners promote the notion that a positive test indicates infection with a lethal virus, and portray AIDS medication as particularly urgent and necessary for expectant women.
Although the CDC says that ``a [mother's] decision not to accept treatment should not result in punitive action,'' suggested standards of care have been legally mandated in some instances and children have been taken from parents who choose not to accept treatment.^^100^^ In one recent case, public health officials in Eugene, Oregon intervened when an HIV positive mother declined AZT therapy for her HIV negative infant son.^^101^^ As a result of her decision, both parents were charged with neglect, and the state took legal custody of their healthy newborn boy who was given six weeks of AZT treatment.^^102^^
26Another HIV positive mother in Bangor, Maine faced charges of ``serious parental neglect" for declining to provide her son with AIDS drugs that had previously caused him harm.^^103^^ Her four-year-old boy, HIV positive since birth, had become so anemic during 10 weeks of AIDS treatment as to require blood transfusions, and experienced a host of adverse effects that left him unable to walk and in almost continual pain.^^104^^ His mother discontinued treatment after noting that his health returned when she stopped giving him the drugs. After a District Court found in her favor, an appeal was brought before the State Supreme Court challenging the decision. In this case, the mother was granted the right to keep her son off AIDS medications and in her custody.^^105^^
As this book went to press, authorities in Montreal, Canada seized the children of a woman who has been HIV positive, healthy and unmedicated for 13 years after she declined HIV treatment for her two boys. The Quebec Superior Court agreed to delay administration of drugs to her sons, ages three and seven, pending the determination of a custody hearing. The mother told the court that HIV treatments are experimental and highly toxic, and that her family has been healthy without using drugs.^^106^^
Whose Benefits Outweigh the Risks? of AZT, also known as Zidovudine, Retrovir-Zldovudtae, ACT
`` HIV-1 infected children with mothers who were treated with zidovudine had a 'higher probability of developing severe disease' compared with untreated children. These children also had a higher probability of severe immune suppression and lower survival.''
Reuters Health, June 2, 1999 on a report in the May 28, 1999 issue of AIDS 13:927--933
`` Concerns are being fueled by a study from a team at the National Cancer Institute near Washington, DC. In the journal X\/DS(Vol 13 p 919), the researchers report that AZT is incorporated into the DMA of white blood cells in people treated with the drug-including pregnant women and their babies. This is because AZT mimics thymidine, one of the four nucleosides that make up the genetic code. Olivero and her colleagues warn that the changes may increase the chance of developing cancer.''
Michael Day, New Scientist, June 26, 1999
`` In reviewing the frequency of birth defects in this population [of HIV positive women taking AZT during pregnancy] we noted eight birth defects (10%) out of 80 live births.''
Kumar et al, Zidovudine Use in Pregnancy: A Report on 104 Cases and the Occurrence of Birth Defects, Journal of AIDS, Vol. 4, 1994
27`` Concerns stem from a study led by Stephane Blanche of the Necker Hospital in Paris. He has examined the cases of around a thousand pregnant women with HIV and found that eight gave birth to babies who, though HIV-negative, suffered from a neurodegenerative condition that kills its victims in infancy. The condition highlighted by Blanche is thought to be caused by abnormalities in mitochondria, the energy `factories' within our cells. The babies' mothers had all taken a combination of the drugs AZTand 3TC from week 32 of their pregnancy. This condition is an extraordinarily rare mitochondrial disorder that you might expect to see in only 1 in 10,000 or 1 in 100,000 births.''
Michael Day, New Scientist, June 26, 1999
`` At present, data regarding the effects of ZDV use on vertical [mother to child] transmission rates are inconclusive and incomplete. In addition, the long-term effects of ZDV use during pregnancy and after birth on the woman and any resulting child are yet to be discovered. The possibility has not yet been ruled out that this `risk-reducing' measure may not be effective and may prove detrimental to the health of both mother and child.''
Bennett, Mandatory Testing of Pregnant Women and Newborns: A Necessary Evil? AIDS/STD Health Promotion Exchange, 1998
`` A total of 172 participants died [169 while taking AZT, 3 while on placebo]...The results of Concorde do not encourage the early use of zidovudine in symptomfree HIV-infected adults-Representatives of the Wellcome Foundation who were also members of the Coordinating Committee have declined to endorse this report.''
Concorde Coordinating Committee, Concorde: MRC/ANRS Randomised Double-blind Controlled Trial of Immediate and Deferred Zidovudine in Symptom-free HIV Infection, The Lancet, Vol 343, April 9, 1994
`` Following combination antiretroviral therapy administered during pregnancy, most HIV positive mothers and their children developed one or more adverse events, according to the results of an observational study.
`` Dr. Lorenzi's group evaluated 37 pregnant women with HIV infection and the 30 infants who had been born at the time of the study. All of the women received two reverse transcriptase inhibitors, and 16 women were also given a protease inhibitor. Among the infants, the most common adverse event was prematurity (10 infants), followed by profound anemia (8 infants). The investigators also noted two cases of cutaneous angioma, two cases of cryptorchidism, and one case of transient hepatitis. Two infants whose mothers were on triple therapy with a protease inhibitor developed non-life-threatening intracerebral hemorrhage. One infant, also exposed to triple therapy, developed extrahepatic biliary atresia.''
Reuters, January 1, 1999
28`` New York researchers report a case of severe anemia in a newborn infant that was probably caused by treatment of the HIV positive mother with the antiretroviral combination of zidovudine, lamivudine and zalcitabine. The male infant, who was pale and developed respiratory distress soon after birth, !..was diagnosed with high output congestive heart failure secondary to profound anemia!
`` Dr. Wendy J. Watson of the University of Rochester Medical Center and colleagues ruled out infection, nutritional deficiencies, congenital leukemia and congenital red blood cell aplasia in the child. The cause of the life-threatening anemia in our infant is presumed to be utero bone marrow suppression by one or more of the antiretroviral agents administered to the mother,' they report in the May issue of The Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal."
Reuters, June 8, 1998
`` ...the estimated probability of developing [Non-Hodgkin's] lymphoma [in patients taking AZT alone, or in combination] by 30 months of therapy was 28.6%...and by 36 months, 46.4%.''
Pluda et al, Development of Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma in a Cohort of Patients with Severe Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) Infection oft Long-Term Antiretroviral Therapy, Annals of Internal Medicine, 1990; 113(4): 276--282
`` The long-term consequences of in-utero and infant exposure to zidovudine are unknown. The long-term effects of early or short-term use of zidovudine in pregnant women are also unknown.''
Retrovir, Canadian Pharmaceutical Association Compendium of Pharmaceuticals, 1997; 1357--1361
`` A long-term federal government study of AZT begun in August 1991 involving 839 children at 62 hospitals was halted. An independent committee monitoring the trial recommended it be halted because 'the children receiving AZT had more rapid rates of disease progression, AIDS-related infections, impaired neurological development and death.''^^1^^
The New York Times, February 14, 1995
`` Proven Power For HIV: Because of her baby, because she vows to be there for her family, because her kids remind her to take her combination of anti-HIV medicines everyday-There are no adequate and well-controlled studies of Combivir [lamivudine/zidovudine tablets] in pregnant women. Combivir should be used in pregnancy only if the potential benefits outweigh the risks.''
Glaxo-Wellcome ad for Combivir, April 1999
29 __ALPHA_LVL1__ AZT: A Drug in Search of a DiseaseAZT is not a new drug. It was not created for the treatment of AIDS and is not an antiviral. AZT is a chemical compound that was developed---and abandoned---over 30 years ago as a potential chemotherapy treatment for cancer.^^108^^ Prior to the first AIDS drug trials in 1986, AZT had never been administered to human beings.
Chemotherapy works by killing all growing cells in the body. Many cancer patients do not survive chemotherapy due to its destructive effects on the immune system and intestines. Because of the damage it causes, chemotherapy is never used as a prevention for cancer, and is only administered for very limited amounts of time.
SICBLVIA TOXIC Toxic by inhalation, in contact with skin and if swallowed. Target organ(s): Blood Bone marrow. It you feel unwell, seek medical advice (show the label where possible). Wear suitable protective clothing. 3-AZIDO-3-- DEOXYITHYMIDINE (AZT; Azidothymidine) (30516--87-1) \ Desiccate Store at less than O'C C,.H,,N,0, FW 267.2 | Purity 99% (HPLC) For libonlory u» only. Not lor drug, houifhold or older Copy of an AZT Label This label has appeared on bottles containing as little as 25 milligrams, a small fraction ('/20 to '/so) of a patient's daily prescribed dose of 500 to 1,500 mg. 'K
Since cancer is a condition of persistently growing cells, AZT was designed to prevent the formation of new cells by blocking development of DNA chains. In 1964, experiments with AZT on mice with cancer showed that AZT was so effective in destroying healthy growing cells that the mice died of extreme toxicity.^^110^^ As a result, AZT was shelved and no patent was ever filed. Twenty years later, the pharmaceutical company Burroughs Wellcome (now GlaxoWellcome) began a campaign to remarket AZT as an anti-HIV drug based on the idea that AZT would block the formation of HIV DNA chains. Glaxo-Wellcome won FDA approval for AZT as an AIDS treatment after one highly flawed study of only four months duration.^^111^^
Approval of this extremely toxic chemotherapy for use by AIDS patients was based on information that suggested AZT raised levels of T cells and therefore delayed the onset of AIDS indicator diseases. The rise noted in T cells was interpreted as evidence that AZT eradicated HIV in T cells, a concept for which there is no scientific proof. Although the study was halted before any longterm effects of AZT were known, proponents established that standard treatment with AZT should be continuous and lifelong.
30A multitude of independent studies conducted before and after FDA approval, including the Concorde study---the largest (1,749 subjects) and longest (three years in duration) study on AZT---determined that AZT increases T cell counts only moderately and briefly without improving health and that it does not delay onset of AIDS indicator diseases.^^112^^
The brief rise in T cells noted when AZT use is initiated is due to the toxic nature of the drug and to the blood systems response to the destruction of bone marrow.''^^3^^ As AZT destroys bone marrow, the blood system attempts to correct this depletion by overproducing T cells, often creating more new T cells than the number found in a patients blood prior to beginning treatment. But as the source of these new T cells---the bone marrow---is killed off by AZT, the level of T cells drops lower, ultimately causing complete destruction of the immune system. Individual tolerance to, and absorption of AZT determine length of survival on this toxic compound.
Following recommendations for ``early intervention,'' one-third to one-half of HIV positives who develop AIDS do so only after taking AZT. Independent studies have shown that AZT actually accelerates clinical decline and decreases quality of life, at times even causing death before any AIDS-defining illnesses appear---an occurrence officially described as ``death without any preceding AIDS-defining event.''^^114^^
The concept of ``HIV mutation" has become a popular explanation for the fall in T cells observed in patients treated with AZT. Promoters of the mutation hypothesis assert that the positive effects of AZT are diminished by mutant strains of HIV that become resistant to the drug. There is, however, no scientific evidence to substantiate their claim.
AIDS by Prescription? ^^115^^ The following conditions are caused by nucleoside analog drugs (AZT, ddl. ddC, D4Tand3TC). Conditions followed by a bullet (•) are official AIDS-defining illnesses: Anemia (requiring transfusions) Lymphoma (cancer) • Birth defects Muscle wasting • Diarrhea • Nausea Dementia • Neuropathy Fertility impairment Pancreatitis Granulocytopenia Pancytopenia Hair loss Seizures Headaches Skin discolorations Liver damage Spontaneous abortion Loss of appetite T cell depletion •
Granulocytopenia: Loss or reduction of the number of granulocytes, a group of white blood cells that fight infection. These white blood cells contain a variety of enzymes used to destroy infectious agents.
Pancytopenia: Generalized loss or reduction of white blood cells.
In addition to destroying T cells, B cells and the red blood cells that carry oxygen throughout the body, AZT and other nucleoside analog drugs destroy the kidneys, liver, intestines, muscle tissue, and the central nervous system. Nucleoside analog drugs also interfere with the activities of mitochondria, the subcellular particles that are the energy factories of every living cell in the body. Mitochondria contain their own DNA which makes them vulnerable to the effects of nucleoside analogs.
Epivir (3TC), Zerit (D4T), Hivid (ddC) and Videx (ddl) are all nucleoside analog drugs prescribed to HIV positives as ``antivirals.'' All are modeled after AZT, and all work in the same manner.
B cells: One of two principle types of lymphocytes (white blood cells). B cells are transformed into plasma cells that secrete immunoglobulins or antibodies that destroy invading microorganisms. The protective effect of immunoglobulins is called humoral immunity.
Nucleoside analog: A synthetic compound similar to one of the components of DNA or RNA. Nucleoside analogs such as AZT act as artificial caps to DNA chains which prevent real DNA units from being added. For this reason these drugs are often referred to as DNA chain terminators.
Protease inhibitors are a new class of AIDS drugs used in conjunction with older chemotherapy compounds such as AZT and ddl. The mixture of these treatments is called a ``combination cocktail" or ``highly active antiretroviral therapy" (HAART). The formula is usually two parts nucleoside analog to one part protease inhibitor. According to popular belief, this mix brings new power to the old chemotherapies, and achieves what press reports and AIDS groups characterize as unprecedented and amazing results.
Approved after the fastest and most lenient review process in FDA history and immediately hailed as miraculous by mainstream media, the clinical benefits of protease inhibitor drugs remain unproved. More than four years after being released for use, there are still no reports in scientific journals that provide evidence of health improvement in patients taking these powerful drugs.
Claims of victory for protease inhibitors are based entirely on changes in surrogate markers, laboratory measurements of unsubstantiated accuracy and value in assessing actual health. In the only published report alleging higher survival rates for patients treated with protease inhibitors, the study used no unmedicated placebo controls, did not allow reporting of any recurrent AIDS-defining events except pneumonia, included no patient data, cited outcomes for less than 10% of overall participants, and was prematurely terminated after an average follow-up of 38 weeks when emerging mortality statistics favored the protease inhibitor treated patients.^^115^^ The survival outcomes between the two groups---1.4% mortality among those on the new drugs, 3.1% for the old drugs---have no statistical significance, a fact that forces the drug advertisements to admit ``because the study was ended early, there was insufficient data to determine the statistical impact of Crixivan on survival.''^^117^^
One National Institutes of Health study of protease inhibitors, ACTG 315, is portrayed as a success even though its conclusions are drawn from a trial of only 12 weeks.^^118^^ Dr. Michael Lederman, protocol chairman and author of ACTG 315 acknowledged that the study was never designed to consider a patient's health. Instead, results were determined by changes in the surrogate marker of ``viral load,'' a test that does not diagnose illness, quantify active virus or measure health.
The absence of data on long-term effects of protease inhibitors has not prevented orthodox AIDS organizations who promote or provide the drugs from becoming uncritical advocates. Following the lead of the media, their focus has been on securing widespread access to the treatments rather than on examining evidence to insure they are safe and effective. AIDS doctors have also overlooked the
Surrogate marker: A laboratory test result that takes the place of or substitutes for a clinical indication or diagnosis.
Protease inhibitors are assumed to work by disrupting an enzymatic link in the reproduction of HIV Enzymes are proteins that join together or cut apart other molecules. Like all retroviruses, HIV has three enzymes: reverse transcriptase, integrase, and protease which cut proteins apart, an essential step in the reproductive process of a retrovirus. Protease inhibitors block proteases by acting as dysfunctional molecules that take the place of functional ones and inhibit the cutting apart of proteins. All retroviral enzymes are similar to various human enzymes and there are numerous human proteases, including ones required for digestion of food.
Protease inhibitors are like nucleoside analog drugs such as AZT in that they produce dysfunctional substitutes that interrupt or prevent normal processes of enzymes. While manufacturers of protease inhibitors claim that the drugs specifically target HIV protease, the growing list of side effects contradicts their assertions. Nucleoside analogs such as AZT, once promoted as specifically targeting HIV, have been shown to block the construction of vital human DNA as effectively as they block the formation of HIV DNA. It is now known that AZT, ddl and other nucleoside analogs block the DNA inside mitochondria, the subcellar particles that produce the energy required for the life of all cells.
The necessity for lifelong therapy with protease inhibitor cocktails is described as absolute, although drug manufacturers clearly state that ``the long-term effects of protease inhibitors are unknown.'' The need for rigorous compliance with combo therapy is a popular subject of news reports and AIDS organization seminars. Patients are required to pop as many as 30 pills a day on a 24 hour schedule---some taken with food, others on an empty stomach, many that cannot be taken together---and warned that without strict adherence to the dosages and times, their virus will mutate into new, drug resistant strains.
According to Dr. David Rasnick, a protease expert working outside the AIDS system, the theory of resistant HIV protease is completely unfounded. Rasnick, a pioneer in the development of protease inhibitors points out, ``no one has ever published data on a resistant HIV protease found in any patient. The only inhibitor-resistant HIV proteases ever examined have been produced in the lab using genetic engineering.''^^119^^
Nevertheless, warnings about drug-resistant HIV proteases are emphasized in media reports that also speculate about new epidemics that will arise when unstoppable forms of HIV are introduced into the population. As announced by AIDS researcher Dr. Bruce Walker on a recent segment of ABC News' Nightline, ``That's going to be the next epidemic that we're dealing with, the transmission of drug resistant HIV viruses.''^^120^^ Such reports reinforce the notion that no matter how unbearable the side effects, a patient who quits the drugs becomes a public health menace. This science-fiction scenario has even inspired some health officials and legislators to consider mandatory treatment laws for HIV positives.^^121^^
34Perhaps the greatest achievement of protease inhibitors is the new life they have given to AIDS advertising campaigns. An epidemic of posters, billboards, and full-page magazine ads urge HIV positives to ``be smart about HIV" by ``hitting early and hard" with medicines ``proven to help people live longer, healthier lives.''^^122^^ However, many staunch supporters of AIDS pharmaceuticals are less certain. Top AIDS scientist Dr. Anthony Fauci expressed serious reservations about the use of protease inhibitors by ``otherwise healthy people" in a recent article in the Journal of the American Medical Association, ``We do not know whether early intervention in asymptomatic individuals will result in a long-term clinical benefit or whether the cumulative toxicity over years of drug administration will outweigh the potential benefits.''^^12^^' Even Dr. Robert Gallo has warned that ``these drugs are toxic. ..the longer you take the drugs, the greater the toxicity.''^^124^^ Dr. Jay Levy, another mainstream AIDS specialist, maintains that ``these drugs can be toxic and can be directly detrimental to a natural immune response to HIV"^^125^^
A careful examination of the small pnnt in protease inhibitor ads puts the promises made by smiling models into perspective: ``Since Crixivan has been marketed, other side effects have been reported including rapid breakdown of red blood cells, kidney stones and kidney failure. In some patients with hemophilia, increased bleeding has been associated with protease inhibitor use.''^^126^^ Premarketing side effects like diarrhea, nausea, fungal infections, bloody urine, weakness, headaches and liver inflammation were all but ignored by AIDS activists who pressured the FDA for fast-track approval.^^127^^ The list of post-marketing side effects continues to grow and contradicts earlier reports on the cocktails that proclaimed, ``Its unbelievable. There's no toxicity. It's a home run!''^^128^^
Documented adverse reactions presently include CMV retinitis (a viral infection that often results in blindness), diabetes, liver failure, physical deformities, renal failure, kidney sludge, skin rashes, severe exhaustion, loss of appetite, pancreatitis, diarrhea, nausea and vomiting, muscle and joint pain, neuropathy, sexual dysfunction, fever, chills, dizziness, abdominal pain, depression, sleep disorders, and sudden death.^^129^^
Other than anecdotal tales of miraculous recoveries trumpeted in the press, the lower levels of ``viral load" found in some patients taking protease cocktails seem to be the only and highly questionable result of these treatments. But even ``undetectable'' viral loads are not an unprecedented occurrence in HIV treatment---AZT has lowered those levels for many years without resolving AIDS. A POZ magazine article recalls that ``in the European Delta study, fully 40% of participants became `undetectable' [for viral load] on AZT/ddl; another 5% did so on AZT alone. We have been reducing viral load to undetectable levels for a decade. But if becoming `undetectable' on nucleoside combos hasn't prevented progression to disease and death, why is `undetectable' on protease combinations impervious to failure---except for the fact that we haven't followed patients long enough to see it?''^^130^^
Although the media credits ``AIDS cocktails" with recent decreases in AIDS cases and deaths, CDC surveillance reports clearly show that AIDS cases and mortalities began declining before the cocktails were approved for use.^^131^^
Pancreatitis: Inflammation of the pancreas; chronic pancreatitis often causes diabetes.
Neuropathy: Any disease or disorder of the nervous system.
Some experts attribute the drops in AIDS deaths to the fact that over half of all AIDS cases reported since 1993 are among people who test HIV positive but have no illness or symptoms.^^132^^ The same reports show that AIDS cases had leveled off in 1991 and increased only once since, in the first quarter of 1993 when more conditions and illness were added to the definition of AIDS.
For some, the chorus of enthusiastic press reports about protease inhibitors recalls the release of AZT twelve years ago. ``Once again, all we have are researchers talking to reporters about incomplete studies that haven't been scrutinized by the scientific review process,'' remarks Dr. Rasnick. ``And the researchers involved are funded by the companies that make the drugs in question. There is no justification for the claims coming from these sources, particularly when we've seen it all before.''^^133^^
Declarations of success and improved survivability for AZT were based on abbreviated trials of less than six months duration that were sponsored by the drug's manufacturer who selected for publication only those trials with seemingly favorable outcomes. Success was measured by the surrogate marker of that day, increased T cell counts, which have proved to be a temporary phenomenon at best and of questionable clinical value. As with AZT, the elation unleashed over protease inhibitors is based on unpublished manufacturers' studies so brief they are usually measured in weeks rather than months, and on the surrogate marker of reduced ``viral load,'' a measurement that has not been correlated with actual health benefits. While the media persists with stories of the miraculous achievements of protease inhibitors making believers out of the concerned public and desperate AIDS patients, only time and independent research will reveal the truth about the latest ``great hope" in the war on AIDS.
Reasons to Wonder About the Wonder Drugs^^194^^
> There are no long-term studies that demonstrate health benefits or increased life expectancy for patients taking the drug combinations known as HAART.
> Studies show that HAART actually shuts down numerous functions of the immune system considered essential for survival including the activity of many cytokines, proteins that trigger vital immune responses.
> 30% of patients taking HAART suffer from lipodystrophy, a fat distribution and metabolic disorder that can lead to heart attacks and strokes, and cause fat lumps known as ``buffalo humps" and other physical deformities.
> The decreased levels of viral load that occur in some patients taking HAART do not correlate with wellness, increased T cells or improved rates of survival.
36 __ALPHA_LVL1__ What's Up with Viral Load?One glaring problem with the HIV/AIDS hypothesis is that researchers have been unable to find enough HIV (actual virus) in people who test positive to explain compromised health. Even among patients suffering from the most severe AIDS-defining illnesses, HIV is never detected in quantities that could cause depletion of immune cells.^^135^^
In order to cause harm, a virus needs to infect at least one-third of all target cells, which in the case of AIDS are the T cells of the immune system, and kill these cells faster than they can be replaced. For example, with hepatitis or a common cold or flu, the responsible virus is readily found in quantities measuring millions or billions per milliliter (mL) of blood, and nothing can stop the virus from infecting all susceptible cells in the body except antiviral immunity With AIDS, an average of only ten HIVs are found per mL of blood, and the normal sign of antiviral immunity, antibodies, are said to indicate illness.^^136^^
Another inconsistency with the idea that HIV causes AIDS is that HIV is noncytotoxic. This means that when HIV replicates, it does not kill the host cell. Other viruses that cause disease are cytotoxic; they destroy the cell they infect when they reproduce, and rapidly claim 30% to 60% of target cells. Since the acceptance of HIV as the cause of AIDS in 1984, AIDS researchers have proposed a multitude of hypotheses about HIVs ability to provoke cell destruction through elaborate and as yet unproven indirect mechanisms while searching in vain for ways to explain how a non-cytotoxic virus can eliminate T cells and cause AIDS.
For almost a decade, the latency notion was used to justify some of the paradoxical qualities attributed to HIV Experts claimed that HIV was a slow virus that remained inactive or latent for a period of time before becoming active and destroying immune cells. This idea gained universal acceptance despite the fact that significant quantities of HIV were not found when HIV should have been at its most active---when AIDS patients are acutely ill.^^137^^
The loose ends of the HIV hypothesis were finally thought to have been tied in 1995 with two papers by a team of AIDS researchers led by Dr. David Ho of the Aaron Diamond Research Center and Dr. George Shaw of the University of Alabama. Ho and Shaw offered what they characterized as indisputable evidence that HIV is active from the moment of infection, and present in quantities sufficient to cause massive T cell destruction.^^138^^ They claimed to find an average of over 100,000 HIVs per mL of blood in AIDS patients by using a virus counting method based on the new technology of polymerase chain reaction (PCR).
Their papers asserted that HIV has always been present and active in enormous quantities, but that its presence and activity could not be measured by standard means, and that scientists were looking for the wrong thing to measure. Until 1995, the method for finding and quantifying a virus was by isolation of the virus. This simple, direct method has been successfully applied to every virus except HIV Instead, proponents of viral load assert that scientists must look for fragments of genetic materials rather than isolating the virus.
37PCR is an innovative technique that enables scientists to take a sample of blood containing an otherwise undetectable number of DNA or RNA molecules and produce detectable quantities of fragments from these few original molecules. Forbes magazine described PCR as ``biotechnology's version of the Xerox machine.'' Dr. Kary Mullis, who won a Nobel Prize for this revolutionary creation, explains that ``PCR makes it possible to identify a needle in a haystack by turning the needle into a haystack.''^^139^^ While PCR has provided many realms of science and industry with an effective new tool, its application to AIDS research has been far more misleading than useful.
Ho and other researchers employed PCR to find, not HIV, but fragments of RNA, the genetic material in the viral core. Using the logic that each HIV virus particle contains two HIV RNAs, they assumed that every two RNA pieces indicated by PCR must correspond to one HIV viral panicle, and they called the sum of what is copied, multiplied, counted, and divided, ``viral load.''
Viral load has been celebrated in the press as an astounding breakthrough in AIDS research, and has won Dr. David Ho numerous awards including Time magazines 1996 Man of the Year. Viral load is also the measure by which new AIDS drugs are deemed effective. Protease inhibitors were approved for use based solely on their alleged ability to reduce ``viral load.'' The media, AIDS organizations and most AIDS doctors have uncritically accepted the viral load hypothesis as fact.
According to the viral load hypothesis, billions of HIV are busy infecting CD4 T cells every day from the moment a person is exposed, and killer immune cells (CDS T cells) continuously destroy billions of CD4 cells that host active HIV infection, while new, uninfected CD4s quickly replace the billions destroyed by the killer cells.^^140^^ Eventually, after one to 15 years of this microscopic battle, the virus wears out the immune system allowing AIDS-defining illnesses to develop. Proponents of viral load claim that the reason this incredible activity was never noticed before is that the CD4s replicate so quickly, few HIV infected T cells ever make it into the blood where they can be measured.^^140^^
However, the viral load hypothesis fails to answer two important and unsettling questions: If billions of HIV are present, why is PCR necessary to find them? And if PCR is the only way HIV can be detected, how is it possible for scientists to verify the results of PCR?
Another problem with viral load is that PCR detects and multiplies single genes, not virus, and most often only fragments of genes. When it detects two or three genetic fragments out of a possible dozen complete genes, this is not proof that all the genes or the complete genome are present, or that a complete HIV viral particle is present.^^141^^ Further, a person can carry a whole retroviral genome in their cells for an entire lifetime without ever producing a single virus.
The FDA has not approved PCR viral load for HIV screening or for diagnostic purposes. The CDC acknowledges that the specificity and sensitivity of PCR are ``unknown'' and that ``PCR is not recommended and is not licensed for routine diagnostic purposes.''^^142^^ The viral load test manufacturers' literature
Genome: A biochemical map or blueprint; the complete set of hereditary factors as contained in a single set of chromosomes.
Although no research has specifically studied PCR tests on HIV negative subjects, the medical literature records many incidents of detectable levels of viral load found in persons who are HIV negative.^^144^^
A group of AIDS researchers from the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health recently lamented the inaccuracies of PCR viral load, describing the test as unreliable and expensive when several attempts to verify PCR produced conflicting results.^^145^^ A recent paper by AIDS reappraiser Dr. David Rasnick published in the Journal of Biological Chemistry demonstrates that at least 99.8% of what viral load tests measure are noninfectious virus particles, and notes that PCR should be replaced by a test that measures actual HIV in blood plasma.^^146^^
Can You Count on Viral Load? Viral load tests detect and multiply only fragments of genes, not HIV. Test manufacturers warn that viral load cannot confirm the presence of HIV. The FDA has not approved viral load tests for diagnostic use. Viral loads are found in healthy people who test HIV negative. High viral loads do not correlate with low T cells or illness. Low viral loads do not correlate with high T cells or wellness.
Although PCR viral load tests are unable to distinguish infectious virus from bits of noninfectious genetic fragments, are incapable of measuring actual virus, and are not approved for diagnostic use, the tests are being used by AIDS doctors every day to diagnose infection with HIV and as a basis for prescribing long-term treatment with protease inhibitors, chemotherapy compounds like AZT, powerful antibiotics and other drugs. PCR is routinely used to diagnose HIV infection in newborns, and as justification to treat infants with AZT, Bactrim and other potent chemicals.
PCR measurements do not correlate with amounts of T cells, with clinical symptoms of AIDS, or with levels of co-culturable HIV^^14^^' In the only published study that compares viral load results with the detection of HIV by co-culture,
Co-culture: Detection of a virus in an artificial laboratory environment that contains replicating microorganisms or ceils mixed with plasma or immune cells.
A number of mainstream AIDS experts refute Ho's portrait of wildly multiplying and abundant HIV Their objections have been published in Nature, Lancet and other science journals. Some, like former government AIDS researcher Dr. Cecil Fox dismiss Ho's ideas as ``unconfirmed mathematical speculation."^^148^^ According to orthodox AIDS expert Dr. Michael Asher, ``the numbers [of the viral load theory] just don't