|
|
|
False Positive Woman Wins $2.5 Million Victory, Story Gains International Attention A lawsuit involving a false positive HIV diagnosis ended in a legal and moral victory for Audrey Serrano who suffered multiple ailments and permanent physical damage from the anti-HIV drug treatments her doctor ordered despite Serrano’s persistent questions about her diagnosis. Nine years after her original positive diagnosis, follow up testing proved Serrano was HIV negative. The case is the first lawsuit in US history involving a false positive HIV diagnosis not to settle quietly out of court without public disclosure of the facts. Instead, since original reports on Serrano’s trial began appearing on the AP wire service earlier this month, the case has been making international news. Below please find an AP report filed prior to the verdict and a follow up story from Indy Media that gives details about the case that raise serious questions about the accuracy and reliability of so-called HIV tests. A fact worth noting in the AP report to anyone who believes low T cell counts happened only to those testing positive: The HIV negative Serrano had counts low enough to put her in the AIDS category. As her doctor stated, “I believed she had HIV from…the fact that her blood had abnormal amounts of cells used to fight infections.” Another piece of information brought up in news reports that conflicts with mainstream claims about HIV transmission: Serrano tests negative despite having had a partner diagnosed with AIDS. Hearing Resumes in HIV Misdiagnosis
Suit WORCESTER, Mass. (AP) — Audrey Serrano received HIV treatments for almost nine years before receiving a stunning diagnosis: She never actually had the virus that causes AIDS. Now Serrano is suing a doctor who treated her, saying the powerful combination of drugs she took triggered a string of ailments, including depression, chronic fatigue, loss of weight and appetite and inflammation of the intestine. "Today, it's still hard. One minute you think you have it, the next minute you don't," Serrano, the divorced mother of a 17-year-old girl, said Tuesday during a break in proceedings at Worcester Superior Court. "And your mind plays tricks on you, and you still live as if you have HIV, even though you don't." Serrano, 45, is seeking unspecified damages in the lawsuit she filed in 2003. The original lawsuit named several medical providers but was amended to include just Dr. Kwan Lai, an infectious disease specialist at the University of Massachusetts Medical Center in Worcester's HIV clinic. Serrano's ordeal began in 1994 after an anonymous test at a clinic in Fitchburg showed that she was HIV positive. Serrano and her attorney, David Angueira, say they are unsure whether the initial test was a false positive, or if it was a record mix-up. A doctor at the clinic in Fitchburg put Serrano on medication intended to contain the virus without conducting separate tests to confirm the diagnosis, said Angueira. Serrano was referred to the clinic in Worcester, where Lai began treating her, the attorney said. Lai repeatedly failed to order definitive tests even after efforts to monitor how Serrano was responding to treatment did not show the presence of HIV in her blood, Angueira said. Lai testified Tuesday that she had no reason to question Serrano's original diagnosis because Serrano convinced her she had the virus that causes AIDS. "She convinced me that she was HIV (positive)," Lai told the court, saying Serrano told her that she had worked as a prostitute, her partner also had AIDS and that she had suffered three bouts of a type of pneumonia that was typically associated with those infected by the virus. "I have never been a prostitute or a hooker, I've got too much respect for myself for that," Serrano said after the proceedings. She confirmed that her former boyfriend indeed tested positive for HIV/AIDS, but disputed the claim that she told the doctor that she had suffered bouts of Pneumocystis pneumonia. "I believed she had HIV from the detailed history we took" and the fact that her blood had abnormal amounts of cells used to fight infections, Lai said. Under cross examination, Lai said she never saw a document that proved conclusively that Serrano was HIV positive. Serrano refused to permit her to contact her former physician directly for more information and never signed a form that would allow other doctors to release medical records to her, Lai said. Lai and her attorney, Joannie Gulliford Hoban, declined to comment outside the courtroom. The medical center has denied wrongdoing in the case. The hearing started Monday and is expected to conclude next week. Verdict of $2.5 Million Over
False-Positive HIV Diagnosis Brings up Basic
Problems With AIDS Testing and Treatment, Say Scientists CHICAGO, Dec. 12, 2007--A lawsuit decided today against a medical doctor at the University of Massachusetts Medical Center over consequences of an allegedly false-positive HIV antibody test exposes basic problems with the test and treatments for all persons taking them, according to a high-ranking medical researcher who has advised the plaintiff's lawyer on the case. The verdict, issued today, awarded $2.5 million to the plaintiff. The complaint by Audrey Serrano, 45, in court hearings this week in Worcester, Mass., focuses on the absence of a “confirmatory” Western Blot test in her records. However, Andrew Maniotis, Ph.D., research assistant professor in the Department of Pathology, University of Illinois-Chicago School of Medicine, contends that, though the reliability of all HIV testing is not on trial in court here, the case history opens questions about it. And, because Serrano developed illnesses commonly defined as “AIDS-related conditions” only after taking HIV medications known as “highly active antiretroviral therapy” (HAART), the drugs themselves appear to have caused “AIDS.” Rethinking AIDS (RA) has been asking such questions since its founding in 1991. Etienne de Harven, M.D., president of RA, says, “It is urgent that we open a public debate on the highly suspect reliability of all HIV testing. Moreover, I fully share Dr. Maniotis' concern about the safety of HIV drugs.” Further resources are online at the group’s Web site, www.rethinkingaids.com. Rodney Richards, Ph.D., worked on the development of antibody (ELISA) and genetic “viral load” tests for Amgen and holds some related patents. “The diagnosis of being HIV positive is based on arbitrary combinations of tests, none of which are approved for diagnosing HIV,” he says. “In fact there is no test for HIV. It’s just an illusion.” Raising issues of informed consent for all persons submitting to HIV antibody testing, the test kits themselves contain disclaimers that doctors rarely, if ever, share with patients. For example, Abbott Laboratories’ ELISA test kit, typically used as a preliminary test, warns: “ELISA testing alone cannot be used to diagnose AIDS.” Confirmation of an ELISA result with a Western Blot test is currently required as a “standard of care.” Epitope’s Western Blot package insert reads: “Do not use this kit as the sole basis for HIV infection.” “This is somewhat more concerning, since the Western Blot is supposed to be a highly accurate test, used to confirm that an ELISA is not a false positive,” says Dr. Maniotis. “Moreover, the peer-reviewed literature gives substantial evidence that the virus ‘HIV’ has never been isolated in purified form free of contaminating cellular debris in order to generate the so-called ‘specific viral antigens’ used in the test kits.” Serrano, now acknowledged to have always tested HIV negative and therefore not to have been at risk for developing AIDS, nevertheless suffered from several AIDS-defining illnesses, including wasting, herpes, and oral thrush, while taking HAART. She also suffered from other health problems, including constant diarrhea (AIDS-defining under the African definition), muscle wasting, profound fatigue, non-specific skin lesions, oral thrush, herpes outbreaks, severe nosebleeds, constant gynecological bleeding and pain from ovarian cysts, fibrocystic breast lesions, hyperplastic pituitary lesions, and severe heart and respiratory difficulties. Labels for HAART drugs actually list these conditions as possible side effects, suggesting that the drugs themselves cause AIDS-related conditions, Maniotis says. Serrano’s experience is, sadly, not unique. Dr. Maniotis chose to investigate her case because, he says, “it is typical of many cases reviewed and, as it illustrates so clearly the development of AIDS-related conditions in a woman testing HIV negative who was healthy before she took HAART, strongly suggests that profound paradigm shifts are urgently needed to avoid more human rights violations.” Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons Questions AIDS Questioning HIV/AIDS: Morally Reprehensible or Scientifically Warranted? is the title of a new article by Henry Bauer, PhD, published this month in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons (Winter 2007, Volume 12, Number 4). Click here to download the article in PDF format.
HIV Positive Journalist Stops Meds,
Recovers Health and Speaks Out
Maria Papagiannidou is a well known Greek journalist. What was not known was that for 12 years she was hiding the fact that she was HIV-positive, suffering greatly from drug-induced side effects. Recently she rejected the HIV=AIDS paradigm and has stopped all AIDS drugs, and has regained her health -- her AIDS-defining illnesses which only started with the drugs, have now ceased. Maria is also recently married to the Canadian AIDS dissident and peace activist Gilles St-Pierre (http://peaceandlove.ca) who discovered her through her website, http://hivwave.gr (parts in English). In a Google video she is interviewed on Greek Channel ET3 in Greek with English subtitles by Vassilis Vasilikos who is described by wikipedia as a "prolific Greek writer and diplomat.” See the interview at http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5241692678156821662 Maria is the author of "How I Conquered AIDS: A wonderful adventure with the HIV virus" which was written under a pseudonym before she revealed her HIV status and "The Game of Love in the time of AIDS. Both books were written before she became a full AIDS dissident. She is now planning a third book to describe her new views and their impact on people labelled HIV-positive. Some quotes from Maria in the video: "[After stopping the drugs] I now feel like the sleeping beauty who was awakened with a kiss…I have been an AIDS patient, had developed full AIDS...a series of illnesses...which came over me since I started the AIDS therapy...I have suffered encephalopathy, it was due to a cocktail of drugs…Things [the drugs] cause, they attribute to the virus." And some comments from Vassili in reply to her statements: "It sounds like a conspiracy among the big pharma…As I understand from your books, there is a growing group of people who question AIDS…" Pope Listens to Poor Africans, Calls for FOOD to Fight AIDS In a story carried across the AP wire on World AIDS Day under the title “Pope Calls for New Efforts to Fight AIDS,” the top man at the Vatican echoes the cries of poor Africans across the continent who say food is their number one need over AIDS drugs, condoms and safe sex education in the fight against AIDS. "Food is often cited by people living with and affected by HIV/AIDS as their greatest and most important need," said Elizabeth Mataka, the U.N.'s special envoy for HIV/AIDS in Africa. Other quotes of interest from the article: “A U.N. food agency said that reducing hunger in poor countries was key to fighting AIDS and other infectious diseases. Hunger and disease create a vicious cycle, as famished people are more likely to fall victim to infectious and chronic diseases, which then reduce their ability to provide food for themselves and their family, the Rome-based World Food Program said in a report.” “Malnutrition also makes recovery more difficult even when proper drugs are available, so the international community must take care to couple medical help with food aid, the agency said in its World Hunger Series report for 2007.”
The Other Side of World AIDS Day
“We need to start questioning the establishment, and look for the other side of this and other issues. We need to take charge of our health, and not look to the ‘authorities’ for all the answers…” December 1st marks World AIDS Day. To show their support for the cause and to remember those who have died, people don the customary red ribbon, and attend a number of charity fundraisers, raising money for AIDS research and treatment programs, with the possibility of meeting a celebrity or two. On the guest list? Leading AIDS crusader, Bono and his Product Red consorts, the shining faces of pop culture and their children. We can’t give Bono all the credit. Celebrities have been endorsing the fight-against-AIDS initiatives since the late Princess Diana sat on the bedside of a dying AIDS patient and held his hand. Today, the AIDS cause is a multi-billion dollar industry with funds going into the research, manufacturing and distribution of AIDS drugs, celebrity endorsements, marketing and advertising, the promotion and sale of condoms, edutainment events, world-wide conferences, and more. With so much money flowing, mostly into the coffers of drug companies, AIDS has now become a disease to be maintained, not cured. But rather go on about the evils of AIDS, Inc., I’m going to write about my personal journey into the heart of the current AIDS debate. About two and a half years ago, I auditioned for a role in an original rock opera. The open call ad had a Lennon-ish air to it, and I thought this might be my chance to redeem myself in light of all my other failed attempts at attaining my fifteen minutes of fame. What can I say? The audition was hideous at best, and I had no inclination to cling onto even the slightest bit of hope. Imagine my surprise when I received a call from the writer himself offering me a part. I thought the gods must really be crazy, but I thanked them for the small mercies they send us ‘little’ people every now and then. To make a long story short, we performed the first act of the rock opera as a workshop in Vancouver. Svend Robinson and Libby Davies attended the closing night. The electrifying show was still pulsating as guests mingled, scanning the information tables bedecked with glossy-paged reading material on HIV and AIDS. The story itself was an autobiographical account of how the writer contracted hiv through a non-consensual relationship with a trusted and much older mentor. The first act reveals the nature of their relationship, and the subsequent discovery by the writer of his positive status. While the first act appears to support the prevailing belief that hiv causes AIDS, a look into the full story reveals that the writer was actually challenging this belief. I hadn’t realized the weight of the issue until a friendship developed between myself and the writer. I gained more insight about hiv and AIDS through talking to him about his experience and doing my own research into the area. Having lost a close relative from AIDS in the 80s and not really understanding the condition at the time, my curiosity grew. I discovered that Robert Gallo, the researcher who identified hiv as the cause of AIDS in 1984 (much to the chagrin of a group of French scientists challenging his copyright), published his findings without any solid evidence to back his claims. The U.S. government was very quick to stand up and tell the rest of the world that the cause of AIDS had been found, a victory over the French. There is a lot of information at the public’s disposal supporting the ‘dissident’ view that hiv does not cause AIDS, that AIDS, a conglomeration of various illnesses, is just that, many different unrelated illnesses that might have something in common, a weakened immune system, caused by an extremely tiny virus that has never been isolated, its identification and measurement defying scientific method. Or from many factors - chemo-therapy AIDS drugs, street drugs, to famine, dirty water, malaria, and the no-cebo (placebo backwards) effect. The documentary film “The Other Side of AIDS” by Robin Scovill, made in 2004, further reveals the inaccuracy of hiv testing, the life-threatening effects of AIDS drugs, and the untold suffering of millions caused by the labeling of hiv as a killer virus. Through a series of interviews with research scientists, medical professionals, activists, and victims of the label, a lot of what we believe to be true about hiv and AIDS because the medical establishment and the government say so is perhaps a well-thought out plan of action to keep the greenbacks rolling and the billion-dollar pharmaceutical industry moving. The tragedy in this would make Shakespeare’s “Macbeth” look like a romantic-comedy. What is the tragedy? The tragedy is that millions of people are being tested for a condition that might not exist. Those who are labeled are told they don’t have long to live unless they take the drugs. They are then ostracized from their communities, and in some parts of the world like Papua New Guinea, even buried alive. Furthermore, by revealing their ‘condition’ to others, they are denied the very thing we need the most, love. True, they might get our charity through a cheque and a hug, but how about the real, touchy feely, real kind of love? Back to my writer friend. He was told that without the drugs, he’d have five years to live, and with the drugs, possibly ten. After experiencing damaging side effects, he stopped taking the drugs. He’s still going strong to this day due to the strength of his will and belief that hiv does not equal death, eleven years later. There are many people with the label who have been living long, healthy lives. Of course, then there’s the ‘recent’ popular idea that what we think matters being given greater focus with scientists, writers, filmmakers, shamans and even ordinary people supporting the view that we have the power to shape our reality. We need to start questioning the establishment, step outside of our boxes, and look for the other side of this and other issues. We need to take charge of our health, and not look to the ‘authorities’ for all the answers. We’ve given up so much control, not only to clipboard-toting doctors who have a pill for every ailment imaginable, to politicians preaching why we need ‘them’ to protect ‘us’ – but to the glamorous deities of pop stardom who wear red ribbons like chic Gucci accessories, to government programs that take babies away from their mothers when they refuse AIDS drug treatments, and to the courts of law that put everyday people behind bars simply because they lied to hide a lie. HIV is not the real threat. It is our willingness to give up our power, the power to think, the power to seek answers, the power to question. That is the greatest threat to our survival today, and we see the consequences of giving up that power. The myth of hiv is just another example of how easily we can be duped and how easily fear is spread. The War on Terror. It’s no coincidence that the communities affected by these dubious constructs are those that have already been persecuted, shunned, and bullied: blacks, gays, the homeless, and Arabs. Of course, it affects us all if we continue to look at the world as if we’re the only ones that matter. I have joined forces with my writer friend, and together we will be performing all three acts of his rock opera as a two-person show in Toronto to coincide with World AIDS Day. The production is part of a double bill dubbed “The Other Side of World AIDS Day”. Excerpts from Scovill’s film will be shown. We hope people will step outside of their boxes on that day and join us in word and song to celebrate the re-awakening of our collective consciousness. No red ribbons necessary. For more information, visit: www.southerntime.ca Copyright © Shazia Islam 2007. All Rights Reserved. • Global Estimates of AIDS Slashed
by Millions UNAIDS Admits to a Decade of Exaggerated Numbers On the eve of World AIDS Day, popular claims about AIDS came under scrutiny once again in the global media. On November 20, the Washington Post revealed that UN AIDS planned to admit it has “long overestimated both the size and course of the epidemic,” reporting constant increases when evidence showed the opposite was true. A multitude of news stories followed UNAIDS’ admission of inflated figures, but as Dr. Henry Bauer points out in the commentary following the Post article, “media coverage failed to report clearly that the UN AIDS revision was only of statistically calculated estimates, not of the actual situation those numbers pretend to describe.” U.N. to Cut Estimate Of AIDS Epidemic JOHANNESBURG-- The United Nations' top AIDS scientists plan to acknowledge this week that they have long overestimated both the size and the course of the epidemic, which they now believe has been slowing for nearly a decade, according to U.N. documents prepared for the announcement. AIDS remains a devastating public health crisis in the most heavily affected areas of sub-Saharan Africa. But the far-reaching revisions amount to at least a partial acknowledgment of criticisms long leveled by outside researchers who disputed the U.N. portrayal of an ever-expanding global epidemic. The latest estimates, due to be released publicly Tuesday, put the number of annual new HIV infections at 2.5 million, a cut of more than 40 percent from last year's estimate, documents show. The worldwide total of people infected with HIV -- estimated a year ago at nearly 40 million and rising -- now will be reported as 33 million. Having millions fewer people with a lethal contagious disease is good news. Some researchers, however, contend that persistent overestimates in the widely quoted U.N. reports have long skewed funding decisions and obscured potential lessons about how to slow the spread of HIV. Critics have also said that U.N. officials overstated the extent of the epidemic to help gather political and financial support for combating AIDS. "There was a tendency toward alarmism, and that fit perhaps a certain fundraising agenda," said Helen Epstein, author of "The Invisible Cure: Africa, the West, and the Fight Against AIDS." "I hope these new numbers will help refocus the response in a more pragmatic way." Annemarie Hou, spokeswoman for the U.N. AIDS agency, speaking from Geneva, declined to comment on the grounds that the report had not been released publicly. In documents obtained by The Washington Post, U.N. officials say the revisions stemmed mainly from better measurements rather than fundamental shifts in the epidemic. They also say they are continually seeking to improve their tracking of AIDS with the latest available tools. Among the reasons for the overestimate is methodology; U.N. officials traditionally based their national HIV estimates on infection rates among pregnant women receiving prenatal care. As a group, such women were younger, more urban, wealthier and likely to be more sexually active than populations as a whole, according to recent studies. The United Nations' AIDS agency, known as UNAIDS and led by Belgian scientist Peter Piot since its founding in 1995, has been a major advocate for increasing spending to combat the epidemic. Over the past decade, global spending on AIDS has grown by a factor of 30, reaching as much as $10 billion a year. But in its role in tracking the spread of the epidemic and recommending strategies to combat it, UNAIDS has drawn criticism in recent years from Epstein and others who have accused it of being politicized and not scientifically rigorous. For years, UNAIDS reports have portrayed an epidemic that threatened to burst beyond its epicenter in southern Africa to generate widespread illness and death in other countries. In China alone, one report warned, there would be 10 million infections -- up from 1 million in 2002 -- by the end of the decade. Piot often wrote personal prefaces to those reports warning of the dangers of inaction, saying in 2006 that "the pandemic and its toll are outstripping the worst predictions." But by then, several years' worth of newer, more accurate studies already offered substantial evidence that the agency's tools for measuring and predicting the course of the epidemic were flawed. Newer studies commissioned by governments and relying on random, census-style sampling techniques found consistently lower infection rates in dozens of countries. For example, the United Nations has cut its estimate of HIV cases in India by more than half because of a study completed this year. This week's report also includes major cuts to U.N. estimates for Nigeria, Mozambique and Zimbabwe. The revisions affect not just current numbers but past ones as well. A UNAIDS report from December 2002, for example, put the total number of HIV cases at 42 million. The real number at that time was 30 million, the new report says. The downward revisions also affect estimated numbers of orphans, AIDS deaths and patients in need of costly antiretroviral drugs -- all major factors in setting funding levels for the world's response to the epidemic. James Chin, a former World Health Organization AIDS expert who has long been critical of UNAIDS, said that even these revisions may not go far enough. He estimated the number of cases worldwide at 25 million. "If they're coming out with 33 million, they're getting closer. It's a little high, but it's not outrageous anymore," Chin, author of "The AIDS Pandemic: The Collision of Epidemiology With Political Correctness," said from Berkeley, Calif. The picture of the AIDS epidemic portrayed by the newer studies, and set to be endorsed by U.N. scientists, shows a massive concentration of infections in the southern third of Africa, with nations such as Swaziland and Botswana reporting as many as one in four adults infected with HIV. Rates are lower in East Africa and much lower in West Africa. Researchers say that the prevalence of circumcision, which slows the spread of HIV, and regional variations in sexual behavior are the biggest factors determining the severity of the AIDS epidemic in different countries and even within countries. Beyond Africa, AIDS is more likely to be concentrated among high-risk groups, such as users of injectable drugs, sex workers and gay men. More precise measurements of infection rates should allow for better targeting of prevention measures, researchers say. Dr. Henry Bauer on Revisions of
Imagined AIDS Numbers UNAIDS recently decreased by more than 6 million its estimate of the number of “HIV-infected” people, putting it now at 33 million as opposed to last year’s estimate of 39 plus million. The estimated number of new HIV cases was also lowered by 40%. (For useful commentary, see Science Guardian of November 20th.) Media coverage failed to report clearly that the revision was only of statistically calculated estimates, not of the actual situation those numbers pretend to describe. Thus an editorial on November 25 in the Arizona Republic had the heading, “Turning the corner on HIV is inspiration to keep going”, and the optimistic comment that “The United Nations has revised its HIV estimates downward, correcting statistical flaws that, frankly, should have been addressed earlier. But that shouldn’t obscure the good news: a significant drop in new infections in recent years, especially in hard-hit sub-Saharan Africa. Efforts to fight HIV/AIDS have actually turned the corner. Now is the critical time to keep resources flowing, when it’s clear that prevention and treatment are paying off.” But there had been no good news, just the bad news–for those who didn’t already know it–that UNAIDS’s numbers are not worthy of attention, let alone belief. In this latest revision, for example, the recalculated infection rate in sub-Saharan Africa for 2001 is given as 5.0% (4.6-5.5); in the 2004 version, the rate for 2001 had been given as 7.6% (7.0-8.5). Naïve consumers of numbers may imagine that when experts state a range like 7.0-8.5, that asserts with great confidence that the true value lays between those bounds. Yet three short years later, we are asked to have great confidence in a considerably lower range, 4.6-5.5, that doesn’t even overlap the earlier one. That should inspire great confidence in this conclusion: These experts do not know what they are doing. There is no obvious reason to lend any credence to UNAIDS’ latest numbers, and sound reason not to. Detailed descriptions of the technicalities of the computer models can make the head spin, but it takes no expertise to recognize that the estimates are an affront to plain common sense. The ranges of uncertainty attached to UNAIDS’s estimates are clearly nonsensical. Furthermore, UNAIDS estimates for the United States differ greatly from the data published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). For what’s wrong with many other aspects of officially disseminated HIV/AIDS numbers see my book, The Origins, Persistence and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory which includes information on: - The unexplained retroactive reduction by the
CDC of actually reported AIDS deaths (page 221) Angered by news that UNAIDS had for years misled the global public with exaggerated portrayals of the AIDS problem, the conservative radio talk show host let off some steam and let listeners know where he stands on the issue: Rush Limbaugh: From the Washington Post Foreign Service today, a new report to show UN overestimated AIDS epidemic. Now, why would they do that? Why would the UN overestimate the AIDS epidemic? Can anybody say money? (Reading from the Washington Post) "The United Nations' top AIDS scientists plan to acknowledge this week that they have long overestimated both the size and the course of the epidemic, which they now believe has been slowing for nearly a decade, according to U.N. documents prepared for the announcement. AIDS remains a devastating public health crisis in the most heavily affected areas of sub-Saharan Africa. But the far-reaching revisions amount to at least a partial acknowledgment of criticisms long leveled by outside researchers who disputed the U.N. portrayal of an ever-expanding global epidemic. The latest estimates, due to be released publicly Tuesday, put the number of annual new HIV infections at 2.5 million, a cut of more than 40 percent from last year's estimate, documents show...Having millions fewer people with a lethal contagious disease is good news..." However, as is the case with the Drive-By Media, there is always a "however" after the good news. "Some researchers, however, contend that persistent overestimates in the widely quoted U.N. reports have long skewed funding decisions and obscured potential lessons about how to slow the spread of HIV. Critics have also said that U.N. officials overstated the extent of the epidemic to help gather political and financial support for combating AIDS." Oooh, okay, so they did it strategically. They were smart. They lied on purpose to get our attention, to make sure we knew just how rotten it was going to be, and to make sure that governments around the world and individuals threw money at AIDS programs all over the world, administered by the United Nations. Can anybody say, global warming overestimated? Same bunch people. In fact, this last line, last paragraph, I never thought that I would see this in the Washington Post: "Beyond Africa, AIDS is more likely to be concentrated among high-risk groups, such as users of injectable drugs, sex workers and gay men. More precise measurements of infection rates should allow for better targeting of prevention measures, researchers say." I don't want to rehash a bunch of history, but I'm sure you all remember back in the eighties when [Ronald Regan] was president and the AIDS epidemic was [supposedly] spreading because Reagan didn't care…and if we weren't careful this was going to spread to the heterosexual population in a geometric fashion and it was going to be devastating…There was never any evidence that it was spreading to the heterosexual community, not sexually anyway, and if you said that, then you were guilty of a hate crime and profiling and discrimination, and all of that. Now, remember what is fundamentally involved in all this. Science. Science told us it was going to spread, it was going to spread to heterosexual community. Science told us it was going to spread at geometric rates. It was a consensus of scientists. Scientists, scientists, scientists told us that this was all going to be one of the most devastating things around the world. It was time to cough up money for education and condoms and cucumbers and all that, and we had rock stars like Bono establish philanthropic careers on the basis of all this, all based on science, science, science… The Aids Epidemic That Never WasWhy Political Correctness Influences Too Much Medical Spending From a UK Guardian report by Karol Sikora, 21st November 2007 Billions of pounds were spent telling us we were ALL at risk from Aids. But as scientists now admit the threat was overblown, Britain's top cancer expert attacks the political correctness that influences too much medical spending. “At one stage in the early 1990s, the number of people in Aids counselling, helplines and other jobs exceeded the supposed number of sufferers. Moreover, for every three Aids victims there was one Aids organisation. A fortune was wasted on lecturing people who were never at risk.” Medical care should always be geared to the saving and protecting of lives. Compassion in the face of any type of human suffering should be at its core. But sadly, the vicissitudes of political correctness can dictate medical priorities. Certain diseases become fashionable in the public consciousness and so attract more political support and attention. A classic example of this pattern is HIV/Aids. When this burst on the scene in Britain in the early Eighties, it became the biggest health issue facing the country, over-riding all other medical problems. It monopolised ministerial attention and swallowed huge sums of public money in campaigns to raise public awareness. The gay community, which was the most likely to be affected by Aids, was at the forefront of the pressure for vastly increased state funding. A whiff of panic filled the air, with projections of a soaring rate of mortality from Aids before the end of the century. The Aids terror was extended overseas. It was said that a massive pandemic, on the scale of a modern Black Death, was sweeping through the Third World. Death, in the form of HIV/Aids, was sweeping his cruel scythe through Africa and the Indian sub-continent, extracting an unprecedented toll. Just as the Aids scare in Britain galvanised the bureaucracy of the state into expensive action, so the international agencies, such as the UN, the World Health Organisation and a host of Third World charities, were gripped by a sense of urgency about the need to tackle Aids. Yet it has turned out that much of this panic, however understandable, was misplaced. In Britain, contrary to all the official propaganda of the Eighties that everyone was at risk, it turns out that the disease has largely been confined to certain specific groups: gay men, drug users and migrants. All those with HIV and Aids, of course, deserve all the medical support that can be given, but the truth is that the overblown panic, based more on politics than science, led to a gross misallocation of resources. Between the early Eighties and 1993, the Government spent £900 million on advertising, educating about and treating Aids. And the 1987 public awareness campaign - comprising the now famous Tombstone and Iceberg leaflets and adverts, as well as a week of educational TV programmes - cost £20 million. At one stage in the early Nineties, we had the absurdity that the number of people in Aids counselling, helplines and other jobs exceeded the conceived number of sufferers. Moreover, for every three Aids victims there was one Aids organisation. A fortune was wasted on lecturing people who were never at risk. Now it turns out that, to an extent, the same is true of the developing world, where the UN has admitted that the scale of Aids has been exaggerated. An official report published yesterday shows that the grim forecasts have been over-blown. In reality, far from seeing a remorseless rise, Aids has been on the decline for a decade. According to the UN's latest, more honest, analysis, the number of people living with HIV has shrunk from nearly 40 million to 33 million. Furthermore, new infections have been calculated at 2.5 million, a drop of more than 40 per cent on last year's estimate. In India, the number of Aids sufferers has been revised downwards from six million to three million. Again, just as in Britain, the idea that everyone is equally at risk has proved to be a fallacy. The UN report admits that, in most parts of the world, the disease is concentrated on gay men, drug users and prostitutes. This is not to deny that there is still a major problem with Aids, requiring urgent global action. But it does put some of the hysteria in perspective. What we need in medicine is a sense of realism, not illpolitical posturing, which leads only to warped priorities…. For all the concentration on HIV, by far the biggest killer in the world is dehydration, which is responsible for 12 million deaths a year, mainly in Africa. Simple, cheap improvements in water supplies would seriously cut that number. Our habit of allowing fashion to influence medical priorities is not new. The poets Byron and Shelley positively romanticised disease and at the end of the 19th century, there was a narrow concentration on tuberculosis, though a host of other killers bred by poverty in an age without mass affluence or the welfare state were virtually ignored. Today, we must be realistic about the best way to use health funds… Professor Karol Sikora is a leading cancer specialist and former chief of the World Health Organisation Cancer Programme. Activists Renew Attacks on South African President After Book Reveals He’s Still an AIDS SkepticFollowing years of global media reports that President Thabo Mbeki of South Africa had abandoned his skepticism about the HIV hypothesis and was no longer concerned about the toxicity of AIDS drugs, a new book that claims otherwise has treatment activists calling for his dismissal once again. According to Mark Gressier, author of “Thabo Mbeki: The Dream Deferred,” the president recently “admitted he was still an AIDS dissident, and regretted bowing to pressure from cabinet colleagues to withdraw from the debate.” As reported in Business Day Johannesburg, past news stories claiming that Mbeki “had had a change of heart on the issue” after a meeting in 2002 with former US President Bill Clinton were apparently incorrect. Instead, Mbeki was “just capitulating to [political] pressure” when he stopped using his position as president to promote open dialogue on HIV and AIDS. The news that Mbeki remains an "AIDS dissident" has been widely published in the international media. The BBC, Guardian and New York Times have all run the story. So far, Clinton has made no public comment on the matter. Steven Friedman, senior research associate at the Institute for a Democratic SA, said he was not surprised by the revelation: "Mbeki’s opponents know he is an ‘AIDS denialist’ and his supporters don't care." In fact, following the first round of controversy over his questioning stance on AIDS in 2000, Mbeki was re-elected in 2004 with a resounding 73% of the popular vote. Anyone taking a look at the latest population studies from South Africa would have to wonder exactly who is in denial about what: According to figures released last month by Stats South Africa, in the past ten years, the population of the country has grown 20% - from 40 million to 48 million! (Sources: Business Day Johannesburg, November 12, 2007, www.allafrica.com) Research Institute Enters AIDS DebateAn article introducing questions about HIV and AIDS to academics recently appeared at the web site of the Mises Institute, a research and educational center of political theory and economics. Working in the intellectual tradition of Ludwig von Mises (1881-1973) and Murray N. Rothbard (1926-1995), the Mises Institute, “seeks to restore a high place for theory in economics and the social sciences, encourage a revival of critical historical research, and draw attention to neglected traditions in Western philosophy.” AIDS and HIV: Rethinking the
Conventional Wisdom The conventional wisdom is that the human immunodeficiency virus, HIV, is the direct and only cause of AIDS. Recently, however, a few brave researchers are calling the proposed relationship between the virus and the disease into question. Among the findings are that there are many people who have the virus who don't have the disease, and vice versa; that in recent years many people diagnosed with the virus die from the side effects of the medications commonly prescribed; indeed that scientists never have determined how HIV might cause AIDS. Worse, AIDS itself hasn't been clearly defined by anyone, and the Centers for Disease Control have changed their own definition periodically. Diagnostic tests, then, and necessarily, are notoriously inconclusive and differently interpreted from one lab to another (even more so from one country to another). Lives are being ruined needlessly on the basis of tests that don't even directly detect a virus that itself might do nothing. Aside from challenging conventional wisdom, these studies I've noted have in common that they cover health-related topics so important that following the wrong advice could have strong deleterious effects on one's health. Remember that dietary advice, when incorrect, hurts mainly those who are most conscientious — those most likely to obey doctors' (incorrect) orders. The popular media are headlining these recent findings because, in 2006, reporters and editors find the results surprising. This shouldn't be the situation: In some cases, scientists have been finding the same things for many years; in other cases (such as with regard to AIDS and HIV), the received wisdom is based on only a few weak studies, widely distributed and hailed as The Truth immediately upon their original release, never to be questioned thereafter. Reliance on objectively measured, reproducible, empirical evidence; the application of sound reasoning to that evidence; and open, worldwide peer and public review of studies all contribute to the health of a field that already enjoys the advantage that every new scientist enters his career having studied the best that generations before him have already discovered. Why, then, do scientists appear so often to be so wrong about such important and sometimes ostensibly simple relationships between behavior and health? For one thing, scientists haven't been very wrong very often: Selective reporting by the mainstream media has created ignorance among the populace about what the scientific findings actually have been. The more important problem is that the government holds most of the purse strings making scientific discovery possible. The AIDS arena demonstrates how damaging government interference is: Once a given hypothesis has been accepted as Received Wisdom by the government, researchers with alternative hypotheses not only find it difficult to get funding for their research, they can find themselves unable even to find a job and teach classes; they can be blackballed by the other professors in their field who don't challenge the received wisdom. Sometimes, these other professors work in different specialties, and aren't even fully qualified to comment on whether a blackballed professor's ideas have merit. The problem with science serving the public interest is not that there's anything wrong with the method used in the natural sciences. Nor, indeed, is there a problem in the fact that many scientists (such as the ones who blackball original thinkers) have strong biases of their own, causing them to use their own power to limit the range of hypotheses that receive funding. After all, there are very many scientists and very many universities. A free marketplace of ideas eventually, and inevitably, weeds out those who prefer pet hypotheses to free inquiry. No, the real problem is centralized government funding of research, which always results in selective funding by people often ill-equipped to decide which studies should be funded and which shouldn't. In a free market, where the government doesn't crowd out private investments in research, private funding makes it possible to explore nearly any hypothesis, from the ingenious to the crackpot (for which the ingenious ones are often mistaken in our politically-charged marketplace today). We already see private initiatives at work here and here; imagine what the possibilities would be without government involvement in the market. Science, like anything else, is just a tool; like anything else, it can be wielded for the good or for the bad. It requires a market in ideas to keep the process discovery moving in the right direction toward truth. As Murray Rothbard wrote more than half a century ago, science "is solely the job of the free market economy. Any government meddling with this job can only distort and disrupt the economy, injure the efficient workings and development of science and technology, and substitute unwanted coercion for individual freedom." Getting government out of the funding business is the only way to discover what amazing contributions medical science in particular, and scientific inquiry in general, can make to our quality of life. Brad Edmonds is the author of There's a Government in Your Soup, writes from Alabama. STD Cases Reach All Time High in 2006 While HIV Estimates Remain Stable for 10 YearsYet another reason to question popular claims about HIV and AIDS: While official estimates of the number of Americans thought to be HIV positive has remained unchanged since 1996, the actual number of cases of sexually transmitted diseases in the country rose again, with 1 million new cases of Chlamydia reported for 2006 alone. Compare that number to the highest cumulative estimate of HIV cases in the US at 1.5 million since the beginning of the so-called epidemic, and it becomes clear that something doesn’t add up! Chlamydia, Gonorrhea and Syphilis
infections Up in 2006 Chlamydia, gonorrhea and syphilis infections rose again in the United States in 2006, the second year in a row that rates of these sexually transmitted bacterial infections increased. The rate of chlamydia increased by 5.6 percent between 2005 and 2006, with more than 1 million reported chlamydia cases in 2006 -- the highest number of annual U.S. cases ever for any sexually transmitted disease. According to the CDC, the reported cases of chlamydia are likely less than half the actual occurrence. The rate of gonorrhea rose 5.5 percent in 2006, with more than 350,000 cases reported, and the rate of syphilis rose 13.8 percent, with nearly 10,000 cases. About 19 million new sexually transmitted infections occur each year in the U.S., almost half among people ages 15 to 24. “This is a hidden epidemic,” said Dr. Stuart Berman, who helps track STD’s for the CDC. According to Dr. John Douglas, who heads CDC STD prevention efforts, local and state health departments lack the funds necessary for prevention programs, and lack of health care insurance among many Americans might be a contributing factor as well. • Inside the Latest Vaccine Failure Great AIDS Hope Dashed: HIV Vaccine Fails Again The world has been waiting for an HIV vaccine since April 23, 1984 when Dr. Robert Gallo of the National Institutes of Health announced to the international media his discovery of a new virus allegedly responsible for the group of illnesses categorized since 1981 as AIDS. Margaret Heckler, then director of the US Department of Health and Human Services, the agency sponsoring the press conference, assured the world that day that “with discovery of the virus…we now have a blood test…that can identify AIDS victims with essentially 100 percent certainty,” and that “an AIDS vaccine would be ready” in just a few years. Two decades and countless billions of dollars later, there is still no test that can identify actual HIV infection—all tests rely on the detection of substitute or surrogate markers for HIV such as antibodies or bits of genetic material associated with the virus—and all efforts to produce an AIDS vaccine have ended in resounding defeat. A growing number of experts attribute the continuing series of costly failures to a seemingly obvious problem that has raised questions about the direction of AIDS science from the beginning: How can a vaccine for HIV work when disease is diagnosed using antibody response and vaccines are designed to produce antibody response as a way to confer immunity to a disease? A brief overview of the premise of vaccination may help clarify this conundrum: Vaccines are believed to help the body's defense system prevent a disease by producing antibodies against via passive exposure. Antibodies are disease-fighting proteins generated in reaction to viruses, bacteria and other invaders. Viral antibodies, whether generated actively or passively, are thought to confer immunity to viral illness. While active immunity involves natural exposure to a virus resulting in a protective immune or antibody response, passive immunity involves vaccine induced antibody response or the transfer of maternal antibodies. Ideally, the protective antibody response induced by a viral vaccine will be identical to the protective antibody response generated by actual exposure to the virus but with none of the adverse effects associated with infection. Having long questioned the illogic of an HIV vaccine, Professor Peter Duesberg of UC Berkeley was not surprised by Merck & Co’s October announcement that they are pulling out of the AIDS vaccine business after 10 years of lost investments. News on Vaccine Failure Goes From Bad to Worse By November, Merck’s bad news had become worse--not only had their vaccine trial failed in its goals to “prevent HIV infection” and/or reduce the amount of surrogate markers known as “viral load” in people who test positive, further analysis revealed that participants in the trial had become “HIV infected” as a result of receiving the shot designed to protect against HIV: In Tests, AIDS Vaccine Seemed to
Increase Risk In a puzzling and potentially troubling development, an AIDS vaccine tested in a closely watched trial might have increased the risk among vaccine recipients of becoming infected with HIV researchers reported yesterday at a scientific meeting in Seattle…. In late September, Merck unexpectedly halted the trial of its experimental HIV vaccine because it failed in its two main objectives, to prevent infection and to lower the amount of HIV in the blood among those who became infected… The vaccine was being tested among 3,000 volunteers at high risk of developing AIDS in nine countries, including those at immunization centers organized by the National Institutes of Health in the United States. Merck’s was seen as one of the most promising experimental AIDS vaccines to have been tested on people. Many scientists and advocates of AIDS research have called the failure of the experimental vaccine a major setback. “The new analyses are both disappointing and puzzling” because they offer no explanation for the vaccine’s failure, said Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, a partner in the vaccine trial… Meeting participants will continue discussions today about whether the trial leaders should continue to observe the participants without telling them whether they received the vaccine or a placebo and the results of their exposure to the cold virus before the study began. And from the Wall Street Journal, November 8, 2007: Canceled Vaccine May Have Boosted HIV
Risk New evidence suggests that Merck's experimental HIV vaccine may have made its recipients more vulnerable to the deadly AIDS virus… Merck canceled development of its HIV vaccine in September after it became clear in a clinical trial that it didn't prevent infection or reduce the amount of HIV in subjects who became infected. Since then, Merck and its partners have analyzed data from the 3,000-participant trial and found the damage may be deeper: In a large subset of participants, those given the vaccine acquired HIV at a higher rate than those who received a placebo. All participants were HIV-negative at the start of the trial… The National Institutes of Health, which helped sponsor Merck's aborted clinical trial, recently paused recruitment for vaccine trials involving several diseases, including Ebola. Those vaccines, like the failed Merck one, are made with an adenovirus... Excluding the South African trial, as of mid-October there were 49 cases overall of HIV infection among the 914 male volunteers in the vaccine group, compared with 33 cases among the 922 men in the placebo group… The Merck vaccine's failure was already a big blow to AIDS researchers and advocates, who had become discouraged by the failure of prior experimental HIV vaccines that tried to stimulate the body to produce antibodies that would ward off infection. Merck's approach instead focused on the other arm of the immune system: T-cells that attack and kill cells that HIV has already infected. It is possible that the Merck vaccine's failure indicates similar vaccines may be doomed as well. Merck hasn't disclosed how much it spent to develop the vaccine, but it has said it worked on the project for about a decade. The possibility of heightened infection risk from the Merck vaccine may present researchers with an additional stumbling block: more reluctance by people to participate in other vaccine trials. "We need to ensure that future trials, particularly the recruitment of participants in future trials, doesn't get jeopardized" because of confusion about the Merck results, says Mitchell Warren, executive director of the New York-based AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition… More Questions About Vaccine Trial With no actual test for HIV infection and no tests for surrogate markers that have been validated by the direct purification of HIV from people testing positive for antibodies or the genetic material known as “viral load,” how did Merck decide which trial participants had become HIV infected as result of vaccination designed to produce protective antibodies? Dr. David Rasnick, PhD, a former developer of protease inhibitors and a board member of Rethinking AIDS (http://www.rethinkingaids.com) examines the big question that media reports on the failed HIV vaccine fail to address. How Does Anybody Know Who Really Has
HIV?* How did scientists and doctors determine which Merck HIV vaccine volunteers were infected with HIV? Officially, there are four ways to decide if someone is HIV infected, none of which involve the direct isolation of infectious HIV: 1) If someone has one or more of 26 or so AIDS-defining diseases, none of which are unique to AIDS. But since according to the US Centers for Disease Control, it takes on average 10 or more years for these “AIDS diseases” to appear after “HIV infection,” there was not enough time in the AIDS vaccine trial for disease to distinguish which of their volunteers had become infected. 2) If someone has a count of CD4 T-helper cells that is at or below 200. The problems with using these cells as a surrogate marker for HIV infection is discussed below. 3) If someone has positive antibody response to “HIV viral proteins.” Antibody response is used around the world to declare someone HIV-positive/HIV-infected, however, the possibility of using antibody testing to determine who is HIV infected is ruled out in this case by the obvious fact that all successfully vaccinated volunteers will be HIV-positive since vaccination by definition gives them antibodies against HIV. 4) If someone is “viral load” positive, a determination based on detection of another surrogate marker to represent HIV infection. More about why this doesn’t work is in the below article I published in British Medical Journal online on March 8, 200). This article shows that neither CD4 cell counts nor viral load measurements can determine the presence or absence of HIV. Abuse of Surrogate Markers: A Closer
Look at CD4 and Viral Load Tests in Diagnosing HIV Infection “Predictions having an accuracy of approximately 50%, such as the accuracy seen with the CD4 count in the HIV setting, are as uninformative as a toss of a coin.”-- Fleming and DeMets It should come as a shock to learn that if three laboratory tests somehow disappeared or were outlawed, specifically the HIV antibody test, CD4 cell count, and PCR viral load test, then AIDS, as commonly understood, would vanish from the USA and Europe. These three laboratory tests are called surrogate markers because they stand in for either AIDS itself or for its supposed cause, HIV. According to the current definition of AIDS, no matter how sick an American or European is with AIDS-defining diseases, he or she cannot be classified as an AIDS case if antibodies to HIV are not present. In other words, for an American or European doctor to diagnose pneumonia, TB, dementia, cervical cancer, etc. as AIDS, it is necessary to obtain laboratory test results that satisfy the definition of AIDS which requires testing antibody positive. Since the problem with using antibody tests to diagnose infection has been discussed in depth elsewhere (http://www.theperthgroup.com/paperspublished.html), I will limit my remarks about the abuse of surrogate markers to CD4 cell counts and viral load. At the beginning of the AIDS epidemic, a number of experts had already recognized that it was probably a mistake to use CD4 counts as a marker of AIDS or even as a measure of therapeutic effectiveness for treatment drugs. In 1981, James Goodwin, MD, wrote what he called “a diatribe against the measurement of T-cell subsets in human diseases [1].” His “diatribe” began: “It’s starting again. The T- and B-cell measures having run through the sick, the elderly, the young, the pregnant, the bereaved had finally run out of diseases. Each condition was the subject of many reports; so that now, to give but one example, we can conclude with some assurance that T-cell numbers are up, down, or unchanged in old folks. And it’s starting all over again, this time with T-cell subsets. “What will they find this time? Sometimes the suppressor cell markers will be up and helper cells down; sometimes the suppressor cells will be down and the helper cells up; sometimes they’ll be unchanged and various combinations of the aforementioned. My strongest argument is this: Measurement of T and B cells and their subsets in diseases has no clinical meaning. Non-immunologists have naturally assumed that any subject occupying so much journal space as T cells do must be relevant in some way—a logical but incorrect assumption. And while the identification of T-cell subsets in mouse and man represents a major breakthrough in the understanding of immunoregulation, the enumeration of these subsets in myriad diseases largely represents a waste of time. As recently as 1998, Mario Roederer of Stanford University confirmed Goodwin’s assessment that an obsession with T-cell subsets in AIDS patients has been a mistake: “[T]he facts (1) that HIV uses CD4 as its primary receptor, and (2) that CD4+ T cell numbers decline during AIDS, are an unfortunate coincidence that have led us astray from understanding the immunopathogenesis of this disease [2].” Prior to Roederer’s remarks, the use of the CD4 T-cell counts as a surrogate marker of disease progression was also criticized by the authors of the Concorde Study, the largest clinical trial evaluating the use of AZT in two groups of patients, those taking it immediately following a positive antibody result or deferring its use until illness or other concerns arose. The authors concluded that, “The small but highly significant and persistent difference in CD4 count between the groups was not translated into a significant clinical benefit. Thus, analyses of the time until certain concentrations of CD4 were reached (eg, 200/É L, 350/É L, or 50% of baseline) revealed significantly shorter times in the Deferred group. Had such analyses been regarded as fundamental, the trial might have been stopped early with a false-positive result. This discrepancy in the differences between Immediate and Deferred groups in terms of changes of CD4 count and of long-term clinical response casts doubt on the uncritical use of CD4 counts as ‘surrogate endpoints’ in trials [3].” Thomas Fleming and David DeMets have stated that, “The use of surrogate end points has probably been more intensely discussed in the design and analysis of clinical trials of HIV infection and AIDS than in any other area [4].” However, “Predictions having an accuracy of approximately 50%, such as the accuracy seen with the CD4 count in the HIV setting, are as uninformative as a toss of a coin.” With regards to clinical trials and FDA approval of anti-HIV drugs, Fleming and DeMets have warned, “Surrogate end points are rarely, if ever, adequate substitutes for the definitive clinical outcome in phase 3 trials [4].” Indeed, a summary result from a 1993 state-of-the-art conference on AIDS had previously concluded that the effect of treatment on the most popular surrogate, CD4 cell count, did not accurately predict the effect of treatment on the clinical outcomes, that is, progression to AIDS or time to death [5]. Nevertheless, with the exception of the early AZT clinical trials, all subsequent anti-HIV drug trials and FDA approvals have relied exclusively on the measurements of these surrogate markers and not on the real clinical outcomes, such as morbidity and mortality, outcomes that matter to most people. A year later, Fleming stated, “It is very apparent one cannot simply consider establishment of statistically significant treatment effects on CD4 cell counts to be a valid surrogate for either of the two clinical endpoints. When the progression to AIDS/death endpoint was positive, the CD4 endpoint appropriately was significantly positive in 7 of 8 trials; unfortunately however, the CD4 endpoint was significantly positive in 6 of 8 trials in which the progression to AIDS/death endpoint was negative. The relationship of CD4 effects and survival is even more unsatisfactory. The CD4 endpoint was significantly positive in only 2 of 4 trials in which the survival endpoint was positive; yet it was significantly positive in 6 of 7 trials in which the survival endpoint was negative. In three other trials, survival trends were observed which were in the opposite direction of significant treatment effects on CD4’s [6].” The well-recognized problems with CD4 counts eventually led to its being replaced by the PCR viral-load test as the primary surrogate marker to be used in anti-HIV drug clinical trials. But the “viral load” test has its share of problems, too. To start with, “Roche’s AMPLICOR HIV-1 MONITOR Test is not intended to be used as a screening test for HIV or as a diagnostic test to confirm the presence of HIV infection.” (Roche Diagnostic Systems AMPLICOR HIV-1 MONITOR Test package insert, PMA No. BP950005/4). Below is a list of some of the problems with the viral load test published in the scientific and medical literature: “False positive or false negative? It depends on the answer you want. Apparently, absence of antibodies to HIV trumps a high viral load result.” (Schwartz D. H. et al., Extensive evaluation of a seronegative participant in an HIV-1 vaccine trial as a result of false-positive PCR? (1997) The Lancet 350: 256-259) “An individual tested positive by PCR, but was antibody negative. Therefore, the patient’s viral load of 100,000 copies of RNA per ml was called false-positive. It took $5000 worth of PCR testing in several labs to get the ‘right’ answer: negative.” (Christine Defer et al., Multicentre quality control of polymerase chain reaction [viral load] for detection of HIV DNA (1992) AIDS 6: 659-663) “False-positive and false-negative results were observed in all laboratories (concordance with serology ranged from 40 to 100%).” (Michael P. Busch et al., Poor sensitivity, specificity, and reproducibility of detection of HIV-1 DNA in serum by polymerase chain reaction? (1992) Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency 5: 872-877) “The results indicate that current techniques for detecting cell-free HIV-1 DNA in serum lack adequate sensitivity, specificity, and reproducibility for widespread clinical applications…In any event, the levels of viral (and cellular) DNA in serum appear to be so low that reproducible detection, even with use of PCR, is not currently possible.” (Josiah D. Rich et al., Misdiagnosis of HIV infection by HIV-1 plasma viral load testing: a case series (1999) Annals of Internal Medicine 130: 37-39) “The availability of sensitive assays for plasma HIV viral load and the trend toward earlier and more aggressive treatment of HIV infection has led to the inappropriate use of these assays as primary tools for the diagnosis of acute HIV infection…Physicians should exercise caution when using the plasma viral load assays to detect primary HIV infection…Plasma viral load tests for HIV-1 were neither developed nor evaluated for the diagnosis of HIV infection.” (M. Piatak et al., High levels of HIV-1 in plasma during all stages of infection determined by competitive PCR (1993) Science 259: 1749-1754) “Plasma virus levels determined by QC-PCR correlated with, but exceeded by an average of 60,000-fold, virus titers measured by endpoint dilution culture. In fact, 53% of the viral load positive patients had no culturable HIV…For HIV-1 propagated in vitro, total virions have been reported to exceed culturable infectious units by factors of 10,000 to 10,000,000, ratios similar to those we observed in plasma.” (Haynes W. Sheppard et al., Viral burden and HIV disease (1993) Nature 364: 291) “The high level of plasma virus observed by Piatak et al. [reference above] was about 99.9 per cent non-culturable, suggesting that it was either neutralized or defective. Therefore, rather than supporting a cytopathic model, this observation actually may help explain the relatively slow dissemination of the infected cell burden and thus the relative ineffectiveness of therapy with nucleoside analogues which target this process…We question the longitudinal conclusions some of these investigators have drawn from cross-sectional data. The results presented are equally consistent with the conclusion that higher viraemia is a consequence of, rather than the proximate cause of, defective immune responses.” Simply put: AIDS surrogate markers—along with HIV positives themselves—are being abused. These surrogate markers cause a great deal of harm by labeling people with myriad diseases and conditions and even healthy people who only have antibodies to HIV as having AIDS, which is said to be incurable and invariably fatal. The surrogate markers are also being used to obtain FDA approval of clinically ineffective AIDS chemotherapies that are highly toxic and even lethal if taken long enough. References: Good Antibodies Vs Bad Antibodies: How
Can Merck (or Anyone) Say Who’s Really Infected with HIV? Upon what basis did Merck tell certain vaccine trial participants that they became “HIV infected” as a result of experimental immunization? How can anyone distinguish between who is HIV-positive with good antibodies from vaccination and who is HIV-positive with bad antibodies from natural exposure to HIV? As discussed in the prior piece from BMJ online, CD4 cell counts and viral load measurements cannot do this. So how can Merck distinguish between who has the “real HIV” and who simply has “HIV antibodies” induced by their vaccine? By definition, those who were vaccinated successfully will register HIV-positive, that is, they have positive response on a test for antibodies against HIV. However, those very antibodies are the basis of the so-called HIV-test, the basis for calling someone HIV infected, and for saying that they will come down with AIDS-defining diseases and die 10 or so years. So how did Merck actually determine its HIV vaccine failed? Since the company couldn’t use measurement of HIV antibodies, CD4 cell counts, or viral load to determine success or failure, the only way left to tell if their vaccine worked would be to follow the volunteers over the course of many years to see if there were differences in morbidity and mortality between those given the experimental shot and those given a placebo shot. But the study didn’t go long enough to do that. Below is an article I published online in British Medical Journal on February 20, 2003, which discusses the problem in depth: HIV Antibody Test is the Achilles Heel of AIDS In previous discussions at BMJ online, we have reviewed the evidence for and against the hypothesis that HIV and AIDS are sexually transmitted. To be precise, we discussed whether or not antibodies to HIV can be sexually acquired. However, we have not addressed the reliability of the HIV antibody test used in all the studies on transmission. This is a very important consideration because antibodies to HIV play a defining role in whether or not a person has AIDS (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 1993, Revised Classification System for HIV Infection & Expanded Surveillance Case Definition for AIDS Among Adolescents & Adults. MMWR 1992; 41: 1-19). The HIV antibody test is an integral part of the equation that defines someone as having AIDS. For example, diarrhea, dementia, Kaposi’s sarcoma, cervical cancer, pneumonia, TB, etc. plus antibodies to HIV = AIDS, while diarrhea, dementia, Kaposi’s sarcoma, cervical cancer, pneumonia, TB, etc. minus antibodies to HIV = diarrhea, dementia, Kaposi’s sarcoma, cervical cancer, pneumonia, TB, etc. The entire contagious HIV hypothesis of AIDS hinges on the HIV antibody test—at least in the USA and Europe. However, AIDS in Africa is almost always diagnosed without testing for antibodies to HIV because it is just too expensive to do so. A different definition of AIDS for Africa was decided upon by American public health officials at a conference in Bangui, in the Central African Republic in October 1985 (WHO Weekly Epidemiological Record 1986; 61:69-76; Quinn, T.C., et al., AIDS in Africa: an epidemiological paradigm. Science, 1986. 234: p. 955-963.). The so-called Bangui definition allows health professionals to diagnosis AIDS in Africa based only on symptoms and signs that a patient manifests, which unfortunately, are symptoms and signs that are not new, but represent the same old diseases and conditions that have plagued Africans for countless generations before AIDS. For example, in Africa TB, fever, diarrhea, wasting and other diseases of poverty are now called AIDS. The routinely used methods for diagnosing the presence of HIV in people in the US and Europe are the ELISA and western blot antibody tests which detect surrogate markers for the virus, but not the presence of the virus itself. In fact, there is no direct method of detecting HIV in people. (Duesberg, P.H., AIDS acquired by drug consumption and other noncontagious risk factors. Pharmacology & Therapeutics, 1992. 55: p. 201-277; Abbott Laboratories Diagnostics Division, Human Immunodeficiency virus type 1 HIVAB HIV-1 EIA. 1997, Abbott Laboratories: Abbott Park, IL). Some will immediately object to this statement and say that the PCR viral load test detects the virus, but they would be wrong. For the sake of this discussion, we will leave the numerous problems with the “viral load” test for another time. Shocking but true, the HIV antibody test is neither standardized nor reproducible. With respect to HIV, the test is meaningless because the results mean different things in different individuals. What’s more, the results mean different things in different laboratories and in different countries (Papadopulos-Eleopulos, E., V.F. Turner, and J.M. Papadimitriou, Is a positive Western blot proof of HIV infection? Biotechnology, 1993. 11: p. 696-707). HIV antibody tests are interpreted differently in the United States, Russia, Canada, Australia, Africa, Europe and South America (CDC. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Interpretation and Use of the Western Blot Assay For Serodiagnosis of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 Infections. MMWR 1989; 38 :S1-S7; Voevodin, A. HIV Screening in Russia. Lancet 1992; 399:1548; Maskill, WJ & Gust, ID. HIV-1 Testing in Australia. Australian Prescriber 1992; 15:11-13; de Cock, KM, Selik RM, Soro, B, et al. AIDS Surveillance in Africa: A Reappraisal of Case Definition. BMJ 1991; 303:1185-1189; Zolla-Pazner, S., et al., Reinterpretation of human immunodeficiency virus western blot patterns. N Engl J Med, 1989. 320(19): p. 1280-1;Burke, D.S., Laboratory diagnosis of human immunodeficiency virus infection. Clin Lab Med, 1989. 9(3): p. 369-92). For example, a person who is positive in Africa can be negative when tested in Australia, or a person who is negative in Canada can become positive when tested in Africa (HIV Positive? It Depends Where You Live. Take a Look at the Criteria that Determine a Positive HIV Test Result. Continuum (London) 1995 3(4):20). Another problem is that the same sample of blood when tested in 19 different laboratories got 19 different results on the Western blot test (Lundberg, GD, Serological diagnosis of human immunodeficiency virus infection by Western blot testing. The Consortium for Retrovirus Serology Standardization. JAMA, 1988. 260(5): p. 674-9). The standard method of establishing the sensitivity and the specificity of a diagnostic test in clinical medicine is to compare the test in question with a valid reference standard. To use an antibody test to label someone with HIV infection and AIDS requires at the very least that the test be shown to be a highly reliable indicator of active HIV infection. However, according to Abbott Laboratories, the maker of the leading HIV antibody test, the company doesn’t even know if their test detects antibodies to HIV, much less HIV itself: “At present there is no recognized standard for establishing the presence and absence of HIV-1 antibody in human blood. Therefore sensitivity was computed based on the clinical diagnosis of AIDS and specificity based on random donors.” (Abbott Laboratories. Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1. HIVAB HIV-1 EIA. Abbott Laboratories, Diagnostics Division. January, 1997 (66-8805/R5), 5 pages). The insert that comes with the ELISA HIV-antibody test also says that “AIDS and AIDS-related clinical syndromes and their diagnosis can only be established clinically. The risk of an asymptomatic person with a repeatedly reactive serum sample developing AIDS or an AIDS-related condition is not known.” In short, the oft stated claim that the HIV antibody test possesses high sensitivity and specificity is based on a comparison with the clinical manifestations of AIDS, or with CD4 cell counts which are themselves another questionable surrogate marker. Another vitally important fact about HIV antibody tests: the sensitivity and specificity of the HIV antibody test were not determined by a comparison with the presence of HIV itself, the usual reference standard. The circular argument that develops from this unscientific situation guarantees a 100% correlation between antibodies to HIV and AIDS because, by definition, there can be no AIDS without antibodies to HIV. Conversely, a person who is diagnosed with AIDS is ipso facto infected with HIV whether or not he has antibodies to HIV (Papadopulos-Eleopulos, E., V.F. Turner, and J.M. Papadimitriou, Is a positive Western blot proof of HIV infection? Biotechnology, 1993. 11: p. 696-707). Finally, there are over 60 documented ways that a person who has never been in contact with HIV can have positive antibody response to the so-called HIV viral proteins used on the antibody tests. These include naturally-occurring antibodies, passive immunization, tuberculosis, lupus, kidney failure, hemodialysis, alpha interferon therapy, flu, flu vaccination, Herpes simplex I & II, pregnancy, rheumatoid arthritis, hepatitis, hepatitis B vaccination, tetanus vaccination, organ transplantation, anti-collagen antibodies, autoimmune diseases, cancers, blood transfusions, multiple myeloma, hemophilia, Stevens-Johnson syndrome, heat-treated specimens, and the list goes on. (Johnson C. Whose Antibodies Are They Anyway? Factors Known to Cause False Positive HIV Antibody Test Results, Continuum (London), September/October 1996; 4(3):4-5). So how can Merck determine who is HIV positive/immune with good antibodies and who is HIV positive/diseased with bad HIV antibodies? No one is asking, no one is answering and scientifically speaking, no one knows. *Edited for Alive & Well by Christine Maggiore Conclusion from International AIDS Conference: Nobody Knows How HIV Causes AIDS, Everybody Needs More Money At a gathering of the International AIDS Society in Sydney Australia this past July, the best and the brightest in science and medicine wondered aloud about the most fundamental aspects of the viral hypothesis and made some startling admissions about how little is known about HIV after spending two decades and hundreds of billions of dollars chasing the virus. After 26 Years, How Does HIV Really Cause AIDS? www.earthtimes.org Sydney - More than 26 years into the AIDS epidemic…we still don't know exactly how the human immunodeficiency virus causes AIDS. There is absolutely no doubt that HIV does cause AIDS, scientists at the 4th International AIDS Society (IAS) Conference on Pathogenesis, Treatment and Prevention said. But we still do not understand exactly how HIV infection leads to progressive immune deficiency, or how the virus fundamentally interacts with the immune system, said Michael Lederman, professor of medicine and pathology at Case Western Reserve University… “HIV presents one of the greatest and most complex scientific challenges of our time," said David Cooper, director of the National Centre in HIV Epidemiology and Clinical Research at the University of New South Wales. "Confronting the challenge will require sustained political will and increased resources dedicated to AIDS research..." Conference co-chair Cooper said…"In the developing world we are giving out the most toxic combinations of drugs, which are not being used in the developed world. We are rolling out these bad regimens, because they are cheap." An AIDS vaccine, which will prevent HIV infection as effectively as vaccines prevent polio and other viral infections, is still several years away…[Five months after this statement, the Merck vaccine project was scrapped] The current global spending on vaccine development is about 650 million US dollars, compared to the 5 billion dollars spent on HIV prevention. Biomedical prevention tools, such as microbicides - gels or creams applied to the vagina to block HIV infection - are in the trial stage. [Four months after this statement, the largest trial of an HIV vaginal microbicide found that more positive results occured in women using the gel containing chemicals thought to kill HIV than in those using a placebo gel] Researchers said there was an urgent need to increase HIV testing. An estimated 80 per cent of people living with HIV in low- and middle-income countries do not know that they are HIV-positive, the World Health Organisation said. [If the people who are said to be positive don’t know they are positive, how does the WHO know they are?] Recent surveys in sub-Saharan Africa showed just 12 per cent of men and 10 per cent of women have been tested for HIV. Early diagnosis is important so people can be put on life-extending treatment.[Would that be with the “most toxic combinations” of “cheap…bad regimens” mentioned previously?] "However, treatment must be shown to be cost-effective, as there is already fatigue in the donor community with regard to funding for HIV. There is also the criticism that AIDS has taken away resources and manpower from other public health issues," said Debrework Zewdie, director of the global HIV/AIDS program at the World Bank. [“Other public health issues” affecting the developing world that take many millions more lives than does AIDS include protein malnutrition, septic drinking water, lack of basic medical care and general poverty.] In the end, the conference was about "giving 40 million people hope", as Australia's federal minister for health and ageing Tony Abbott said at the opening… "In 1983, I saw so many patients dying. I wouldn't even tell the smokers among them to quit, because I knew AIDS would kill them first. There have been dramatic changes since. The future is uncertain, but it is so, so bright." The next IAS scientific conference will be held in Cape Town in 2009, in partnership with South African NGO Dira Sengwe, taking it to the region where the epidemic is at its deadliest. [See our October news for information on how South Africa’s population has increased by 20% in the past 10 years despite it being “where the epidemic is at its deadliest.”] New Books and Voices Emerge in AIDS Debate Despite Censorship Efforts “The Origin, Persistence and
Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory” A new book that questions everything from the accuracy and meaning of HIV tests to the entire viral AIDS hypothesis received a ringing endorsement in a review published this month in the academic journal Public Choice. Summing it up in one powerful statement, the book “methodically undermines every argument and stylized fact ostensibly linking AIDS to HIV.” Here is the review in its entirety: This is an important book. In 250 fact-filled, closely reasoned pages of text, Henry Bauer, professor emeritus of chemistry and science studies, and dean emeritus of Arts and Sciences at Virginia Tech, systematically demolishes the theory—more correctly the hypothesis or conjecture—that human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) causes acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS). According to conventional wisdom, that disease, which first presented in the early 1980s among the gay communities of San Francisco, New York and a few other large US cities, has, via bisexual switch-hitting, exchanges of dirty needles among intravenous drug users, and transfusions of HIV-polluted blood, become a full-blown epidemic endangering everyone, be they gay, straight, or somewhere in between. HIV/AIDS now is a global public-health crisis of alarming dimensions, ravaging Sub-Saharan Africa and threatening to decimate much of the developing world, or so the usual story goes. Skillfully collating, summarizing and analyzing an extensive literature, including hundreds of scientific studies, published and unpublished, reports produced by government agencies and non-government organizations, and statements issued by public-health experts, Bauer methodically undermines every argument and stylized fact ostensibly linking AIDS to HIV. The epidemiological data presented in the more than 60 tables and figures scattered throughout The Origin, Persistence and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory powerfully support the author’s rejection of mainstream thinking. Among the many provocative conclusions Bauer draws are that HIV/AIDS has never reached epidemic proportions in the United States (or if there was an ‘epidemic’, it peaked in 1993); HIV is not an infection and is not transmitted from person to person sexually, by the sharing of infected needles, or by contact with contaminated bodily fluids; everyone is not at risk, even if they fail to practice ‘safe sex’ (pp. 44–47, 197–199); HIV has never been isolated in human tissues, and so what it is that HIV tests detect remains a mystery (p. 94); antiretroviral drugs may actually elevate mortality rates among non-symptomatic HIV-positive patients (p. 130); and, perhaps what is most important, ‘no proof that HIV causes AIDS has ever been published’ (p. 104).” Author: W.F. Shughart II, Department of
Economics, University of Mississippi, P.O. Box 1848, University, MS 38677 For more information on Dr. Henry Bauer, his book and findings on HIV and AIDS claims, please visit failingsofhivaidstheory.homestead.com or hivskeptic.wordpress.com or henryhbauer.homestead.com Virus Mania: How the Medical Industry Invents EpidemicsDoctor and Journalist Team Up for New Book A daily scan through the news gives the impression that the world is constantly under siege by new viral epidemics. The latest concerning headlines feature HPV, a virus alleged to cause cervical cancer, and the avian flu--thought to have the power to wipe out entire nations--along with SARS, mad cow disease, hepatitis C, HIV, and Ebola. A new book by journalist Torsten Engelbrecht and doctor of internal medicine Claus Köhnlein examines the facts behind the continual virus scares, shows how the marketing of medical mayhem ignores basic principles of science and reveals that the deadly effects of the media promoted microbes have never been proven by normal, ethical scientific standards. According to the authors, the goal of Virus Mania is to “steer discussions of disease toward real scientific debate and put medicine back on the path of engaging in impartial analysis of the facts.” To that end, the book carefully examines medical experiments, clinical trials, statistics and government policies and cites dozens of highly renowned scientists and over 1,000 references in making the case that we are being misled by modern medical industry. "The primary purpose of commercially-funded clinical research is to maximize financial return on investment, not health," says John Abramson of Harvard Medical School. Virus Mania will inform you on how this purpose took root and how to empower yourself in leading a healthy life. For more information on the book or to purchase a copy, please visit www.trafford.com/06-3226 or www.amazon.co.uk or www.amazon.com Persistence Pays Off for AIDS CensorsInvestigative journalism suffered a serious blow this month when the BBC caved in to pressure from an AIDS activist group and issued an apology for reporting harrowing facts about AIDS drugs experiments on foster children in their documentary film “Guinea Pig Kids.” Operating under the Orwellian name “AIDS Truth,” and led by Cornell University AIDS researcher Dr. John Moore, the group works to halt free flow of any information critical of AIDS science, HIV tests, and treatment drugs. For commentary on the situation, to hear uncensored voices from inside Incarnation Children’s Center and decide for yourself what really happened, follow the below links to web sites where critical information on HIV and AIDS still flows free: BBC Gives in to the AIDS Mafia Notes on a Scandal: Censorship in AIDS Inside Incarnation Various and Sundry Blog on Guinea Pig
Kids and the BBC Decision Guinea Pig Kids and AIDS Censors AIDS “Denial” and Human
Experiments Kenyan journalist Atieno Amisi responded to an unexpected email and became an outspoken AIDS skeptic as a result. The below article on Atieno’s response to the mysterious message and his subsequent discoveries proves how a simple gesture can change the course of someone’s life and reminds us of the tremendous power of free flowing information. Raising Dissenting Voices on HIV Link
to Aids November 6, 2007: When I recently received a strange e-mail from one David Crowe notifying me that I had been listed in a fast growing roll of “Aids Rethinkers,” I was rather surprised. Honestly, I do not think my occasional rantings on many things under the sun qualify me to join any group of thinkers, or rethinkers, for that matter. So I checked the link he provided. He was right. I found my name on a list of nearly 3,000 people from all over the world who have “second thoughts” on HIV and Aids. The link includes prominent academicians, surgeons, geo-physicists, journalists, authors, scientists, and Buddhists. David’s e-mail asked me for three things. First, to reccommend “other accomplished and highly educated people who also question the HIV/Aids paradigm,” for possible inclusion in the list. These could be friends, family or colleagues, but most importantly, people who have some educational, career or lifetime accomplishments that warrant their inclusion, plus having questions about the HIV=Aids theory. Secondly, David wanted me to support an appeal in the Parenzee court case in Australia, my financial circumstances allowing, and thirdly, to pass the mail on to other people or organisations who might financially support an appeal. But first, he gave more information about the Parenzee case, and why every Aids rethinker should stand behind it. This email made me recollect my long and fearful past since I was first condemned to death in 1991 by a doctor who found me with pneumonia. That was long before an uproar that followed reports that some of our ministers had been forced to undergo HIV tests before they could be cleared to travel abroad. One year into the death sentence, another doctor diagnosed me with herpes zoster. Well, that was 16 years ago, and I am surprised with each passing day. Even more recently, I fell ill and spent a few weeks in hospital. It was during this time that I begun casting doubts on the myth about HIV and Aids. I noticed how doctors were skeptical, even hostile, to people who had tested positive. My case was an injury on my left arm, which, in another age, would have had nothing to with my alleged status. But the doctors would not hear anything like that. My side of the story was a distraction. I have since learnt that doctors can sentence you to death for a disease they are not sure exists. And many people have been condemned to early graves by just that one mark on a medical report. However, I am an avid reader and a liberal thinker, and it was not long before I came across the radical thoughts (if you like to put it that way) of one Christine Maggiore. Maggiore, an HIV-positive activist who claims that HIV does not cause Aids, is the founder of Alive & Well Aids Alternatives, an organisation which questions common assumptions about HIV and Aids. Maggiore stunned the world when she insisted that the death of her three-year-old daughter, Eliza Jane Scovill, on May 16, 2005 was due to an allergic reaction to amoxicillin and not HIV. To modern medicine, a patient being admitted to hospital is an Aids suspect. He or she must have HIV and the test is just to confirm it. In Kenya, they do this to pregnant women on routine check or accident victims or benevolent blood donors even without seeking their consent, without proper counseling. Since I read Maggiore, I have been amazed everyone was being made to feel guilty about being ill, that our ignorant relatives and even medical “experts” were treating every poor and sick person like he or she had gone ahead and drank poison. And because I am among the condemned, I understand the plight of Andre Parenzee almost personally, so I am writing this column for other like-minded people, free thinkers, or those who hope there is someone sane out there, who will tolerate second thoughts on HIV and its alienated victims. The fury and pandemonium against HIV is so deafening that many people’s lives, families and right to be free and happy have been crushed by these stupid tests. While poverty and hunger is killing us, our government and several organisations are gorging themselves with donor funds spreading the myth of HIV without putting in enough research on the relation between bad diet, poverty, hunger and HIV status. Reading Christine Maggiore, one could go on and on about how the rich establishment has silenced all dissenting voices on HIV, anti-retrovirals and obvious stigmatisation. Amisi is a journalist based in Nairobi. HIV Eludes Authorities After 26 years and over 250 billion tax dollars invested in the HIV hypothesis, experts still cannot explain how HIV causes AIDS. In a remarkable set back for AIDS science, a 2007 study concluded “the theory of an uncontrolled cycle of T cell activation, infection, HIV production and cell destruction is wrong." Using a new mathematical model, scientists showed that the universally accepted theory about how HIV works—an idea that dominated research and dictated treatment policies since 1996—has actually led us further from solutions rather than closer to answers. (PLoS Medicine, 6/23/07) The New Face of AIDS Since expanding the AIDS definition in 1993 to include HIV positives with no clinical symptoms of disease, the majority of all new AIDS cases in America are diagnosed in healthy people with none of the opportunistic infections previously used to define AIDS. Epidemiology reports from around the US reveal that for the past 14 years, non-illness is the leading reason for an AIDS diagnosis in America, and depending on the region, 45% to 75% of all AIDS cases reported since 1981 were counted in clinically healthy HIV positives. Across the border in Canada where the AIDS definition still requires actual illness, AIDS cases per capita are 18 times lower than in the US. (Public Health Agency of Canada, 2006; Dept of Public Heath reports LA County, San Francisco, New York, Pennsylvania) No One is Positive The HIV antibody tests used worldwide since 1986 continue to carry an alarming disclaimer: “At present, there is no recognized standard for establishing the presence or absence of antibodies to HIV-1 and HIV-2 in human blood.” The fine print on newer rapid tests expresses similar uncertainty, specifying they are intended only to “aid in the diagnosis of infection with HIV” rather than to actually diagnose HIV infection, and further note that AIDS is merely “thought to be caused by HIV” rather than known to be the cause. The package insert accompanying viral load tests still declares they are “not intended to be used as a screening test for HIV or as a diagnostic test for confirm the presence of HIV infection (HIV-1/HIV-2 EIA/ELISA, Abbot Laboratories; OraQuick Rapid HIV-1 Antibody Test, Abbot Diagnostics; Amplicor HIV-1 Monitor Test, Roche). Treatment Does Not Equal Life The largest study of HAART (highly active antiretroviral therapy) contradicts popular claims that HAART extends life. Tracking 22,000 previously treatment-free HIV positives that began medications between 1995 and 2003, authors discovered, “Viral response improved but such improvement has not translated into a decrease in mortality.” Current drug ads alert people taking AIDS medications they “may still get opportunistic infections or other conditions such as pneumonia, herpes, and mycobacterium avium complex (MAC).” Pneumonia, herpes and MAC are responsible for more than half of all AIDS illnesses reported in the US. (Lancet 8/5/06, Vol 368 (9534):451-458; Atripla, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Gilead; Emtriva, Gilead; Kaletra, AbbotVirology; Reyataz, Bristol-Myers Squibb; Viramune, Boehringer Ingelheim) Rising Deaths from AIDS Drugs After years of reports on metabolic disturbances, mitochondrial toxicity, bone necrosis, and other adverse events caused by new AIDS drugs, the US National Institutes of Health finally acknowledged that “…the use of antiretroviral therapy is now associated with a series of serious side effects and long-term complications that may have a negative impact on mortality rates. More deaths occurring from liver failure, kidney disease, and cardiovascular complications are being observed in this patient population.” A study of 5,700 HIV positives determined that “since the advent of HAART…the most common current cause of death among people with HIV is liver failure.” Authors warned that “monitoring of liver enzymes is needed to save lives,” an economic impossibility for people in Africa and other developing areas of the world taking toxic anti-HIV drugs. (University of Pittsburgh Medical School News Bureau, 7/8/02; nih.gov/about/researchresultsforthepublic/HIV-AIDS.pdf) Viral Load Proves Wrong A landmark paper from 2006 revealed that the viral load tests used for more than a decade to calculate “progression to disease” and gain approval for new AIDS drugs failed in over 90% of cases to predict or explain immune competency in a nationwide study of 2,800 HIV positives. The US Food and Drug Administration approved viral load in 1995 based on its alleged ability to forecast health outcomes. (JAMA 296(12):1498-506, 2006) T Cell Questions T cell counts may be less reliable measures of immune function than previously believed. A study by the World Health Organization (WHO) proved that HIV negative testing persons can have counts below 350, a number that according to WHO guidelines, would qualify for an AIDS diagnosis if they were HIV positive. (JID, 194:1450, 2006) African AIDS Numbers Off The latest mortality figures for South Africa, the supposed epicenter of AIDS, list AIDS as accounting for only 2.5% of all deaths in that country. Current claims by UN AIDS of 5.6 million AIDS victims in South Africa are actually estimates based on unconfirmed results from 16,000 antibody tests administered to expectant mothers using an assay documented to register false positives due to pregnancy. In 2004, UN AIDS estimates for HIV in Kenya were cut by 50% after more careful survey data exposed gross errors in calculations. A 2003 census in Botswana revealed the opposite of 1993 predictions it would be “the first nation in modern times literally to die out [from AIDS].” Instead, Botswana’s population nearly doubled, increasing from less than 1 million to 1.7 million in a decade. A 2002 census in Uganda refuted two decades of estimates that 30% of the population was positive and countless millions would die of AIDS. From 1991-2002, Uganda enjoyed one of the highest annual growth rates in the world (3.4%), lowered infant mortality, and ultimately downgraded HIV estimates to 5%, all without AIDS drug programs and with no indications of changes in sexual behavior over the past 30 years. A 2006 Washington Post investigation determined that the practice of counting AIDS cases in Africa using “increasingly dire and inaccurate assessments...has skewed years of policy judgments and decisions on where to spend precious healthcare dollars.” (Statistics South Africa, 2005: Death Notification, Statistical Release P0309.6/3/07 www.TheBusinessOnline.com, 5/21/06) HIV Down in India New survey data found that UN AIDS overestimated the number of HIV positives in India, the alleged world leader in HIV, by more than 55%. The latest estimates suggest positive tests occur in 2.5 million of the country’s 1.2 billion inhabitants. In 2002, AIDS champion Bill Gates incorrectly predicted HIV cases in India would top 25 million by 2010. (India Has Many Fewer With Virus, New York Times 6/8/07) Breastfeeding Lowers Health Risks A 2007 study concluded that exclusive breastfeeding prevents infants of positive mothers from testing HIV positive themselves and provides vital protection from potentially fatal conditions such as diarrhea and pneumonia that threaten the lives of all children in the developing world. In 2006, studies drawing similar conclusions prompted the World Health Organization to recommend HIV-positive mothers exclusively breastfeed their infants until age six months. (WHO Policy Statement 10/06; Lancet, 369:1065-1066&1107-1116, 3/31/07) AIDS Ranks Last in Childhood Deaths Accounting for just 3% of mortalities among children, “HIV/AIDS” sits at the bottom of a list of public health threats for the developing world according to a 2007 Global Community Health Report by AIDS drug maker GlaxoSmithKline. GSK stated the “world’s top killers of children under five are [non-AIDS] pneumonia, diarrhea, malaria and measles,” conditions related to poverty, malnutrition, and poor sanitation. No Animal Model for AIDS After almost 20 years of efforts, scientists at the Yerkes Primate Research Center gave up trying to induce AIDS in laboratory chimps using “injections of HIV.” Although inoculated chimps tested positive, and despite having DNA that is 98% identical to humans, the animals did not develop diseases associated with AIDS. (New York Times, 1/7/03, For Retired Chimps, a Life of Leisure) “Female–Friendly” Anti-HIV Microbicide Fails, Lead Researcher Faults Trial Participants The 12-month trial of a “female-friendly” microbicide gel thought to kill HIV came to a devastating end when lab data revealed that women using the anti-HIV microbicide wound up testing positive twice as often as those using a placebo. The trial involved 1,333 women from six countries including Uganda, Nigeria, South Africa and India. In order to test the efficacy of the proposed new product, researchers gave half the trial participants a vaginal gel containing the experimental anti-HIV compound while the remaining women received a placebo gel. All participants were instructed to use the gel only in conjunction with condoms and were “screened and monitored every three months to ensure they complied with the guidelines.” Despite quarterly screenings and monitoring, at the end of the study, 34 of 1,333 women who entered testing HIV negative finished testing positive, with two times as many positives (23) found in the group that used the anti-HIV microbicide as compared to the placebo group (11). In response to the dismal results, Professor Florence Mirembe, lead investigator for the Uganda trial, blamed participants and even sex itself for the failure of the highly touted new product. “It is not the gel that infected the women but the general sexual behavior,” Mirembe told Uganda’s Daily Monitor. “The number of women using the gel with the microbicide got infected at the same rate as those who did not use it.” The Monitor report did not explain why researchers regard 23 positive results as equal to 11 in this case, or how lack of compliance with condom use would adversely affect results among women using the gel with the microbicide if the microbicide actually worked. In stressing the need to push forward with the development of vaginally applied HIV killers, Mirembe asserted, “It is only abstinence that is totally effective, but married women cannot dictate how and when to use condoms.” Mirembe’s statement begs a question not addressed by the Monitor piece: How can trials establish the effectiveness of a microbicide alone for use in marital settings when trials require that the gels be used only in conjunction with condoms? (Source: Daily Monitor, 8/18/07, Doctors Speak Out on Failed AIDS Trial) Estimate of HIV Positives in India Cut in Half, Smaller AIDS Epidemic Blamed on Female Sex Workers and Truckers New survey data released last month shows that UN AIDS overestimated the number of HIV positives in India, the alleged world leader in HIV, by more than 55%. The latest estimates suggest positive tests occur in only 2.5 million of the country’s 1.2 billion inhabitants, and reinstate South Africa as the leader in estimated HIV cases. The assertion that HIV was rampant in India’s general population had angered many health officials and social scientists in a country known for conservative sexual practices and excellent record keeping. In 2002, AIDS champion Bill Gates gained international media attention with his forecast that HIV cases in India would top 25 million by 2010. Gates’ dire prediction prompted accusations from AIDS groups that India was “in denial” and inspired calls for aggressive interventions to save the country from itself. In response, then Health Minister Satrugan Sinha charged Gates with “spreading panic in the general public,” and several activist organizations in India urged their government to refuse Gates’ $100 million donation for vaccine testing there. One group disrupted a special television program on AIDS hosted by American actor Richard Gere who flew to India shortly after Gates’ announcement. When challenged by activists about the veracity of the numbers, Gere responded, “The actual numbers don’t matter. Even one case of AIDS is one too many.” But the new lower numbers matter to Indian health officials and several mainstream AIDS experts from America who have long expressed concerns about the unreliable manner by which UN AIDS and other outside agencies establish prevalence rates for HIV and AIDS in the developing world. Dr. James Chin, a professor of epidemiology at the University of California, Berkeley, is one of several experts vindicated by the revised numbers for India. Chin has repeatedly made the case that the typical way of estimating AIDS prevalence in Africa and India--testing the blood of small sample groups of pregnant women with a single ELISA and assuming the same rate of positive results exists in the general population—leads to greatly exaggerated numbers. Another mainstream AIDS expert who questions the reliability of prevalence estimates is Dr. Daniel Halpern of the Harvard School of Public Health. Halpern describes the lowering of official estimates in India as “a replay of what happened in Kenya” in 2004 when UN AIDS numbers were cut in half after more careful evaluation. “AIDS fighting agencies [have] such a stake in portraying the epidemic as approaching Armadgeddon that they are hesitant to make revisions that lower the number of cases,” says Halpern. “So every year they lower the numbers a little bit, and then retroactively change the estimate of what it used to be. It’s sort of Orwellian.” Another claim about AIDS in the developing world that doesn’t quite add up: In contrast to the US, Canada and Europe where AIDS cases appear almost exclusively among men having sex with men and injection drug users, experts claim that “prostitutes and their clients, especially truckers” are the groups most responsible for AIDS in India and Africa. But with a network of highways that criss-cross our country and no shortage of female prostitutes stationed along these routes, why aren’t female sex workers and truckers creating an AIDS epidemic in America? (Source: New York Times, 6/8/07, India, Said to Play Down AIDS, Has Many Fewer with Virus Than Thought, Study Finds) The Mother Hood Features Cover Story on HIV Questions with AIDS Skeptic Christine Maggiore The current issue of The Mother Hood, an independent parenting magazine published in New Jersey, features a well-written article that manages to cover the topic of AIDS and HIV testing from a questioning perspective and convey the tragedy, humanity, and the science facts involved in the story of Eliza Jane Scovill, deceased daughter of Alive & Well founder Christine Maggiore. Check out the Mother Hood at www.themotherhoodmagazine.com Here’s the article in its entirety: The loss of any child is a devastating experience, but when a HIV positive mother is falsely implicated in her daughter's death it turns a personal catastrophe into a public affair. Read the incredible story of one mother's courage and integrity in the face of the medical patriarchy b |
