Alive & Well Peer Support Resumes in Los Angeles on Thursday December 11, 7:00 to 9:00 pm

Bring your questions, concerns, your friends, family or even your doctor to this dynamic discussion and support group meeting hosted by Alive & Well Founder Christine Maggiore; Brian Carter, moderator of AIDS Myth Exposed, the largest and most active online AIDS rethinking network in the world; and Dr. Dennis Kinnane, LAc, OMD and former pharmacist. Get ready for an evening of practical information, and poignant experiences that unfolds in an non-dogmatic atmosphere where all are welcome.

Please note that our meeting location has changed. From now on, Alive & Well events will take place at the Fairfax Senior Center in Hollywood.

This new location will be the home of all future A & W monthly support meetings until further notice. To get on the email list for upcoming monthly event notifications, please send a message to Brian at Carter19604@aol.com.

The Fairfax Senior Center is located near the corner of Fairfax and Melrose at 7929 Melrose Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90046. For more information on the center, including specific driving directions, please visit www.laparks.org

See you there!

“Pnuemonia kills more children every year than AIDS, malaria and measles combined…”

“Diarrhea kills five times as many kids as AIDS.”

On the eve of World AIDS Day, an AP report echoes a question AIDS Rethinkers have been posing for years about fair appropriation of precious healthcare funding for the developing world as a broad range of experts involved in humanitarian relief efforts weigh in with some surprising—and refreshing—answers.

Following a series of public admissions earlier this year from UNAIDS and the World Health Organization that HIV and AIDS estimates were exaggerated in India and Africa by 50% or more, global health advocates “are growing more outspoken in complaining that AIDS is eating up funding at the expense of more pressing health needs.”

Perhaps the most courageous among the new critics of the old regime is Roger England, head of Health Systems Workshop, a human-interest think tank based in the Caribbean island of Grenada. England actually asserts that UNAIDS “has outlived its purpose and should be disbanded.”

"The global HIV industry is too big and out of control. We have created a monster with too many vested interests and reputations at stake...too many relatively well paid HIV staff in affected countries, and too many rock stars with AIDS support as a fashion accessory," England wrote in the British Medical Journal this past May.

England points out that closing UNAIDS would free up its $200 million annual budget for other health problems such as pneumonia, which kills more children every year than AIDS, malaria and measles combined.

"By putting more money into AIDS, we are implicitly saying it's OK for more kids to die of pneumonia," England said. According to AP reporter Maria Cheng, England’s comments “touch on the bigger complaint: that AIDS hogs money and may damage other health programs.”

"Diarrhea kills five times as many kids as AIDS," said John Oldfield, executive vice president of Water Advocates, a Washington, D.C. based organization that promotes clean water and sanitation. "Everybody talks about AIDS at cocktail parties," Oldfield said. "But nobody wants to hear about diarrhea.”

"There needs to be a rational system for how to apportion scarce funds," said Helen Epstein, an AIDS expert who has consulted for UNICEF, the World Bank, and others.

Get the full story here: www.google.com

Robert Scott Bell Upstages World AIDS Day with a Three-Hour Dose of Health and Sanity

Hour one takes a refreshing break from “the pharmaceutical-lovefest” as Dr. Bell is joined by an all-star cast of experts working to reverse “ignorance and arrogance.” Guests include Professor Peter Duesberg, journalist Celia Farber, Dr. David Rasnick, protease inhibitor creator, and David Crowe, president of Rethinking AIDS. Click below to listen.

www.switchpod.com/f99219.html

In hour two, guests answer questions about living healthy and AIDS-drug free after testing positive on non-specific “HIV tests.” Features Henry Bauer, PhD (author of The Origin, Persistence and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory), Christine Maggiore (author of What If Everything You Thought You Knew about AIDS Was Wrong?), Clark Baker (author of Gallo’s Egg) and more from David Crowe. Click here to listen:

www.switchpod.com/f99217.html

And there’s more! Click below to hear a special bonus podcast with all the guests from the above radio programs (except Peter Duesberg…who might have been too busy making waves with his innovative cancer research to come back on the air!

www.switchpod.com/f99232.html

Another Paradigm Busted: Discover Mag on Flaws of Shaken Baby Syndrome

Please be sure to look for The Shaken Baby Debate, a highly informative and compelling feature in the December issue of Discover magazine (the one with Stephen Hawking on the cover) that takes on another faulty syndrome, SBS.

The article was inspired by Alive & Well founder Christine Maggiore’s efforts in The Shaken Justice Project, which works to assist innocent parents and caretakers wrongly accused of harming children. The article includes stories of couples whose lives were nearly destroyed by false and perhaps even malicious charges stemming from incorrect interpretations of medical evidence.

Media Alert: Amazing New Broadcast — "Does HIV Exist?"

"Prepare to be amazed," says George Kenny, host of Electric Politics, of this conversation with journalist Celia Farber on the topic of the AIDS debate and the big question about HIV.

Kenny writes, "When reputable — indeed, extraordinarily distinguished — scientists began to question whether HIV causes AIDS the backlash was stunning. Yet, to me, as a non-scientist, the skeptics make a lot of sense. And I question the establishment's explanation for why nobody has actually isolated an "HIV" virus. Perhaps the more radical case that HIV doesn't, in fact, exist, is right. What a thought! To get a graceful and philosophical, even poetic, look at what's going on I turned to the courageous independent journalist Celia Farber. I very much enjoyed talking with Celia and hope she'll be a return guest, perhaps on other subjects as well.

Total running time one hour and 14 minutes. Click here to listen: www.electricpolitics.com

Some 24 years after Dr. Robert Gallo told the world media he had discovered the cause of AIDS, a retrovirus later named HIV, the 2008 Nobel Prize in medicine honored the alleged discovery of HIV with awards to French researchers Dr. Luc Montagnier and Dr. Francoise Barre-Sinoussi and without a mention of Robert Gallo.

Media stories reporting on the Nobel announcement do not disclose why Gallo was omitted from the award, or how he managed to take credit for a discovery he apparently didn't make for more than two decades.

Coverage of the prestigious prize also fails to mention Montagnier's astounding admission that he and Barre-Sinoussi were not actually able to isolate or purify HIV from the cultures they believed contained the virus. Instead, they assumed HIV was present because of the detection of biochemical activities associated with the type of virus they believed HIV is.

As Montagnier put it in a 1997 interview with journalist Dejamel Tahi (Did Luc Montagnier Discover HIV?), "It is not one property but the assemblage of the properties which made us say it was a retrovirus...You cannot purify [HIV], but if you know somebody who has antibodies against the proteins of the virus, you can purify the antibody/antigen complex..."

Tahi's conversation with Montagnier captures him dancing around questions about purification of HIV with answers that often contradict themselves. When Tahi asked, "Why no purification?" Montagnier replies, "I repeat, we did not purify. We purified to characterize the density of the reverse transcriptase, which was soundly that of a retrovirus."

Once thought to be unique to retroviruses, reverse transcriptase activity is now known to be a part of normal cellular functions and its presence does not necessarily equate to the presence of a retrovirus.

As for photographic evidence of what is often characterized as the most important scientific discovery in human history, Montagnier told Tahi that he was quite sure such evidence existed...he just couldn't say where:

Tahi: "Do electron microscope pictures of HIV from the purification exist?"

Montagnier: "Yes. of course.

Tahi: "Have they been published?

Montagnier: "I couldn't tell you...we have some somewhere...but it is not of interest, not of any interest."

In a film interview from 2007, Montagnier offers other startling remarks that make him sound more like an "AIDS dissident" than an HIV advocate:

• HIV alone cannot cause AIDS, it requires co-factors
• Oxidative stress is the most important co-factor
• The immune systems of people that are healthy and properly nourished render HIV harmless
• Antiretroviral drugs for AIDS are toxic, do not specifically target HIV, and cannot be tolerated over the course of a lifetime

The choice to leave Gallo out of the prize may have something to do with recently published documents showing that Gallo adjusted his findings just days before their historic publication in the journal Science to make dramatic but totally unfounded claims about HIV. These documents, secured through the Freedom of Information Act by investigative journalist Janine Roberts, show quite clearly that Gallo did not discover a new retrovirus or prove it as the cause of AIDS.

One of the documents Roberts uncovered is a letter from Dr. Matthew Gonda, head of the US National Institutes of Health Electron Microscopy Lab, which was sent to Gallo's assistant, Dr. Mika Popovic, a month before Gallo announced his supposed discovery of HIV (then called HTLV). In this letter, Gonda warns that the electron microscope images Gallo plans to submit to Science are of cellular debris rather than a new retrovirus. He writes, "Dr. Gallo wanted these [electron] micrographs for publication because they contained HTLV particles [however] I would like to point out that the 'particles' are in the debris of a degenerated cell. No other extracellular 'virus-like particles' were observed free between cells anywhere in the pellet. The small extracellular vesicles are at least 50% smaller than HTLV mature particles...Again these vesicles can be found in any cell pellet. I do not believe any of the particles photographed are HTLV..."

Another remarkable document unearthed by Roberts is a draft of one of the four seminal papers by Gallo eventually published in Science and still used as the basis for claims that HIV is the cause of AIDS. Originally prepared by Popovic and dated just seven days before Gallo's infamous media announcement, the draft shows how Gallo made extensive handwritten "corrections" to Popvic's modest but honest statements, angrily crossing out inconvenient data and adding—with no scientific justification—bold claims that the virus that caused AIDS had been discovered. The most telling of the crossed-out lines: "Despite intensive research efforts, the causative agent of AIDS has not yet been identified."

A copy of this draft of the Science article with Gallo's cross-outs and handwritten notes may be seen at the web site of health advocate Gary Null who recently held a press conference with Roberts. (garynull.com). The entire collection of Gallo papers can be found in Robert's new book, Fear of the Invisible

With a name that roughly translates to the Human Rights Organization for HIV/AIDS Reappraisal, a small group of AIDS rethinkers are making a big impact in South Korea.

According to one of the group's founders, their questioning of the HIV hypothesis generated from within the country, specifically from an activist named Bara who was investigating alternative treatments for cancer and AIDS.

Raymund, a spokesperson for the Korean group, says, "Bara was dedicated to human rights activities for long time, and was also very interested in incurable diseases. He had written a book called 'Cancer, Yet We Have Hope' before becoming interested in AIDS. The more he studied about AIDS, the more skeptical he became. 'It's so strange,' he said, 'but I could not help thinking it does not really exist.' For a long time he felt he could not share this idea with anybody because he felt it was quite extraordinary.

"Bara finally revealed his thoughts to one of his best friends who told him the idea that HIV didn't cause AIDS seemed perfectly rational. Inspired by that experience, Bara studied more and more. Eventually, by chance, he learned of the dissident views about HIV promoted by researchers in the US, Australia, and other countries.

"With a strong conviction that he was doing right thing, Bara became the first dissident activist in Korea and created our organization which currently has 1,500 members. More than one million people have visited our website so far where papers by American, Australian and European 'AIDS dissidents' are available in Korean (http://www.noaids.co.kr).

"In January 2003, we published the first dissident Korean book 'There is No AIDS,' written by Bara. In February 2007, we began distribution of the American documentary 'The Other Side of AIDS' with Korean subtitles. We are now awaiting the publication of Celia Faber's book 'Serious Adverse Events: An Uncensored History of AIDS' in Korean."

Raymund reveals that his group "suffers severe persecution and reproach from orthodox AIDS organizations such as the Korean Alliance to Defeat AIDS."

But despite the attacks he says, "We have stood up under pressure and have saved many HIV-positives in Korea and given them hope."

HIV/AIDS vigilantes have accused HIV Skeptics and AIDS Rethinkers of contributing to the death toll by influencing some people to resist antiretroviral treatment. The enumeration of names of people who refused antiretroviral treatment and died is among the unsavory tactics of the vigilantes at "AIDSTruth" (see, for example, "Questioning HIV/AIDS: Morally Reprehensible or Scientifically Warranted?", Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, 12 [#4, Winter 2007] 116-120).

One problem with the AIDSTruth tactic is that their list of people who died lacks necessary information about the health risks that had affected the named individuals. The death of any given "HIV-positive" person who was not taking antiretroviral drugs might have resulted from any one of a large number of possible causes. Some of those on the list had taken AIDS medications for many years before quitting because of adverse effects, or because of a change of perspective; others had a history of compromised health caused by long-term drug or alcohol addiction, or health challenges not related to AIDS. Much of this information is not mentioned.

A direct response to the AIDSTruthers' exploitation of people's deaths is the appended list of high-profile AIDS activists, treatment advocates, and celebrities who followed doctors' orders to consume AIDS drugs and died anyway — often in the prime of their lives — from the very AIDS illnesses they believed the drugs would prevent, or from heart attacks, organ failures, cancers, or other conditions characteristic of chronic exposure to toxic anti-HIV chemicals. Notice that some of these deaths of AIDS activists are attributed to "AIDS-related conditions" or "AIDS complications" — terms that fail to disclose whether the death resulted from a heart attack, a stroke, diabetes, lactic acidosis, cancer, liver failure, or some other adverse effect of AIDS drugs.

As I've pointed out on several earlier occasions, the official Treatment Guidelines acknowledge that such "side" effects of HAART are responsible for more mortality than the "disease" supposedly being treated.

"In the era of combination antiretroviral therapy, . . . the risk of several non-AIDS-defining conditions, including cardiovascular diseases, liver-related events, renal disease, and certain non-AIDS malignancies [97-102] is greater than the risk for AIDS in persons with CD4 T-cell counts >200 cells/mm3; the risk for these events increases progressively as the CD4 T-cell count decreases from 350 to 200 cells/mm3" (p. 13, 28 January 2008 version).

Despite this acknowledgment, the numbers of "AIDS" or "HIV disease" deaths reported each year in the US are actually the numbers of people who tested "HIV antibody positive" or were living with an official AIDS diagnosis when they died of any cause at all, be it an accident, a homicide or suicide, or a non-AIDS illness like diabetes that may be a "side" effect of antiretroviral drugs [Walensky et al., cited in HIV/AIDS SCAM: Have antiretroviral drugs saved 3 million life-years?, 6 July 2008 ].

A recent post [HAART saves lives--- but doesn't prolong them!?, 17 September 2008] noted that the dramatic drop in deaths between 1996 and 1997, by about half, had not been accompanied by any dramatic increase in the median age at which HIV-positive people were dying: that median age had been increasing at about the same rate — ~0.4 years per year — since 1982. A nitpicker might point out that the rate was only ~0.3 years per year up to 1993 and about twice that thereafter — predictably, because since 1993 the definition of "AIDS" had included people with low CD4 counts but who are asymptomatic — i.e., people who are not ill —, a definition not adopted in such other regions as Australia, Britain, Canada, or Europe. "Side" effects of antiretroviral drugs would naturally take longer to kill people who had been initially healthy than those who had presented with some sort of illness at diagnosis.

Eleven of the people named below died before the HAART era, and 26 died after the introduction of HAART in 1996.

AZT medication from 1987 to 1996 can be blamed for at least 150,000 deaths [HAART saves lives--- but doesn't prolong them!?]: the immediate 50% decline in deaths from 1996 to 1997 seems the direct result of desisting from the administration of high doses of AZT. But HAART typically includes appreciable amounts of AZT or a similar drug, so HAART remains toxic, even if somewhat less so than pure high-dose AZT.

The latest published claims for HAART include that life expectancy for 20-year-old HIV-positives had increased by 13 years between 1996 and 2005 to an additional 49 years, and for 35-year-olds the life expectancy in 1996-99 was said to be another 25 years (Antiretroviral Therapy Collaboration, Lancet 372 [2008] 293-99). But the death statistics show that the median age of death from "HIV disease" was still only 45 in 2004 [HAART saves lives--- but doesn't prolong them!?]; and, indeed, the 26 people listed below who died after 1996 averaged 44 years of age at death. The activists' refrain that AIDS is now a chronic, manageable condition is contradicted by the facts — at least for those "HIV-positive" people who accept antiretroviral treatment

Researching and preparing this post has been no pleasant task. Death comes to all of us sooner or later, and most of us summon sympathy and empathy over any human death. Not many people are willing to use deaths of named individuals as talking points in an argument, as the AIDSTruthers do.

Unfortunately, the only answer that might be heard by these vigilantes is to cite deaths that directly contradict their claim, for the AIDSTruthers have explicitly refused to engage in reasoned, evidence-based discussion, and they have shown themselves impervious to more general argument. So, while regretting the need to do so, we present these data to correct the one-sided story put forth by the AIDSTruth vigilantes.

We even understand — apparently, unlike the AIDSTruth Team — that anecdotes or lists cannot serve to establish reliable generalizations. Nevertheless, because these prominent AIDS "activists" and proponents of HAART were as well placed as anyone could be, to know about and to receive the very best antiretroviral treatment, their premature deaths do seem probative of the claims made for HAART. Moreover, their average age of death is consistent with the statistical data from death certificates reported by the Center for Health Statistics [Table 2 in HAART saves lives--- but doesn't prolong them!?].

Click HERE here to view the list.

We are still being told that Africa suffers a devastating AIDS epidemic. The gigantic numbers of infections yield gigantic amounts of public funds for research and thus researchers. What scientific judgment can we expect from experts who stand for a broad-based conviction that guarantees their income?

By Christian Fiala, MD, PhD

It took two decades, but finally we are being told the truth: most of what AIDS experts and the media have led us to believe is wrong.

First, UNAIDS admitted last December that it had overestimated the worldwide total number of people infected with HIV by a staggering 7 million, out of an estimated 40 million. This is a remarkable admission, coming after years of using inflated numbers in its highly successful campaign for more funding.

But the true overestimate is more than twice as high at 15 million, according to Dr. James Chin, the person formerly responsible for these very data at UNAIDS.

Dr. Chin has shared some of his inside knowledge in a new book with the telling title: The AIDS Pandemic: The Collision of Epidemiology with Political Correctness. In it he reveals that an AIDS epidemic was never expected in Europe or North America. He also explains how the inflated figures were used to scare the population and to argue for higher budgets.

The next revelation was an article in the well-respected British Medical Journal in May: "The writing is on the wall for UNAIDS." Author Roger England explains: "It is no longer heresy to point out that far too much is spent on HIV relative to other needs and that this is damaging health systems." Based on data and arguments, he recommends that "UNAIDS should be closed down rapidly because its mandate is wrong and harmful."

Finally in June, the head of the WHO's department of HIV/AIDS, Dr. Kevin de Cock, officially admitted that HIV outside sub-Saharan Africa was confined to high-risk groups.

These admissions of obvious facts come late. Many people realized long ago that HIV/AIDS is not a threat to the heterosexual population in Europe or North America in contrast to the numerous campaigns during the last two decades, intended to make us believe that "everyone is at risk." And those familiar with the data know there was never any reason to believe an epidemic would occur: In short: "For over twenty years, the general public has been greatly misled and ill-informed", explains Rebecca Culshaw, a scientist who has been working on mathematical models of HIV infection.

Now that the AIDS frenzy of an epidemic in the general population is finally over, it's just a question of time until public and private donors translate these facts into a reallocation of their budgets.

But what about Africa? Most people still believe what we've been told: A terrible HIV/AIDS epidemic is ravaging poor countries, mainly due to the heterosexual spread of HIV — which oddly enough is not occurring in Europe or North America. This discrepancy is just one of many contradictions in widely-held beliefs about AIDS. Another is the continuously high or even increasing population growth rate in countries said to be hit by a deadly HIV/AIDS epidemic. The best example is Uganda. This country was once hailed as the "epicentre of a worldwide epidemic." The journal Newsweek wrote back in 1986: "Nowhere is the disease more rampant than in the Rakai region of south-west Uganda, where 30 percent of the people are estimated to be seropositive." In 1995, the World Health Organization confirmed that "by mid-1991 an estimated 1.5 million Ugandans, or about 9 percent of the general population and 20 percent of the sexually active population, had HIV infection." Subsequently, estimates of the number of HIV-positive Ugandans increased even further, to 15 percent of the total population. Most were expected to die prematurely with disastrous consequences for their families and the country.

So it comes as a shock to look at Uganda today and find no trace of the predicted premature death of millions of people. Instead, Uganda is a country struggling with dramatic population growth. It has always had a very high growth rate, but for the last 15 years, it's been among the fastest growing countries in the world. Mortality has remained constant or even declined, while fertility rates have remained high and stable.

In other words, instead of the announced deadly epidemic of historic proportions we find an explosive annual population growth rate of 3.4 percent, which means the country is doubling its population in 21 years.

Obviously, this is paradoxical. But the contradiction between a predicted deadly epidemic and a dramatic population increase can easily be explained: most people who were HIV positive 15 years ago did not die prematurely as expected, but continued to live a normal life.

Therefore, the basic assumption in the HIV/AIDS paradigm — that a positive HIV test leads to AIDS and certain premature death — is wrong, as proven by the example of Uganda.

The obviously and admittedly inflated figures were based on wrong assumptions, baseless estimates, and fundamental mistakes in epidemiology. To begin with, HIV tests are highly inaccurate in Africa, as several studies have documented. Tests are typically done on a small number of people and the results extrapolated to the total population.

Furthermore, in 1986 WHO created a new definition of AIDS that was valid in poor countries only, and based on unspecific symptoms. According to this so-called Bangui definition, someone has AIDS if he is suffering from weight loss, fever, and cough. But these are the typical symptoms of tuberculosis, a widespread disease in poor countries. In short, the Bangui definition diagnoses well-known diseases and gives them a new name: AIDS. This re-labeling of frequently occurring diseases explains the huge increase of "AIDS cases" in the last 20 years in Africa, even while the total number of people dying has remained stable.

When the number of AIDS cases based on the Bangui definition were reported to UNAIDS headquarters in Geneva, even more cases were added to adjust for alleged "underreporting." Over the years, this padding increased drastically to the point where UNAIDS claimed in 1997 that only 3 percent of the estimated new AIDS cases in Africa had actually been reported. The other 97 percent were created on paper in Geneva.

At this point, AIDS experts arrived at a dead end. They could not possibly inflate their numbers further without losing all credibility. Instead, they simply changed strategies and stopped publishing details of how they obtain their HIV/AIDS data.

The strategy of presenting inflated figures and repeatedly announcing an imminent catastrophe has paid off handsomely for those who make their living off HIV/AIDS. As early as 1989, the German Medical Board wrote in its journal that the only explanation for the "confusing" way AIDS statistics are compiled is that "huge figures bring in large amounts of public money" to AIDS research and, by extension, into the pockets of the researchers.

Back in 1989, the authors probably never imagined just how prophetic their comment would be. HIV/AIDS is an unprecedented success story for those who make their living from it. So it's not surprising how anxious they are to defend conventional beliefs about HIV/AIDS (and their income). An impressive example is the reaction to Roger England's recent critical article in the well-respected British Medical Journal (as cited above). The author probably knew what he was talking about when he predicted: "Putting HIV in its place among other priorities will be resisted strongly. The global HIV industry is too big and out of control. We have created a monster with too many vested interests and reputations at stake." Reading the emotional reactions to this well-written and well-researched article conveys the impression of "the empire striking back." But the letters revealed something even more troubling: the majority were written by people affiliated with an HIV/AIDS organization, but not one of them disclosed a conflict of interest — an ethical requirement in the scientific literature.

What kind of quality of scientific judgment can we expect from experts who defend a widely-held belief that guarantees their income and who are unable to see an obvious conflict of interest?

Unfortunately, the almost hysterical focus on HIV/AIDS in Africa has done much harm over the last two decades. First, the huge political pressure has turned health care priorities upside down. Common problems or diseases are neglected. For example, Africa is a continent so poor that almost half of its population has no access to clean drinking water, and alleviation of this fundamental human need has been scandalously slow.

Second, financial resources are being diverted from other important issues. For example, UNAIDS urged African Ministers of Finance to "redirect existing project resources that could be supporting AIDS — billions of dollars programmed for social funds, education and health projects, infrastructure, rural development".

Third, even interventions like the focus on condoms may be harmful given that abortion is still illegal in most of Africa based on the antiquated laws of the former colonial powers. Condoms are not a very effective contraceptive. And a woman in Africa who finds herself with an unwanted pregnancy due to a condom failure has few options except to turn to illegal and unsafe abortion.

Tragically, effective methods of contraception are rarely available or even withheld on the grounds they do not protect from HIV.

Now that the obvious reality has finally been admitted, we can be relieved that the AIDS epidemic is not the killer we were made believe. But how can we prevent a similar deception in the future? One possible strategy is to avoid just believing what scientists tell us, and instead follow Albert Einstein's advice: "The important thing is not to stop questioning".

Christian Fiala, MD, PhD, is an Austrian specialist in obstetrics and gynecology. He is a researcher of AIDS in Uganda and Thailand.

Dr. Peter Duesberg and Dr. Henry Bauer on
Talk Radio Thursday October 2 at 11 a.m. Eastern

Rethinking AIDS Board member Professor Peter Duesberg and Professor Emeritus Henry Bauer, author of "The Origin, Persistence and Failings of the HIV/AIDS Theory" will be together to speak for an entire hour on "Crash! Are You Ready?", the second highest-rated program out of 35 on the GCN radio network among online listeners.

Listen to the live stream at gcnlive.com (Network 4)

Call in toll-free with your questions at 1-800-259-9231.

If you miss it live, the show will be constantly restreaming starting at around 3 p.m. Eastern until the next day's show, or download the podcast at http://www.gcnlive.com/pubpod/crash/pcast.php

For general information about the show, please visit www.hearitonline.com

Peter Duesberg on Talk Radio for Two Hours
Tuesday September 9 at 11 p.m. Eastern

Professor Peter Duesberg will speak for a whole two hours on The Richard Syrett Show on CFRB 1010, the highest-rated talk radio station in Toronto.

You can listen to the live stream on the evening of the broadcast at www.cfrb.com or if you miss in real time, the audio archive should be up at audioarchive by the end of this week.

Duesberg first appeared on Syrett's program this past April 24 and set a record for the most downloaded show for that entire month. Let's see if we can help set another record for September!

For general information about the show, please visit www.richardsyrett.com

New on How Positive Are You?
HIV Testing Traumas

Some of the many problems with so-called HIV tests are revealed through the experiences of people whose lives were sent into a tail-spin over inconsistent or false results. Hosts David Crowe and Christine Maggiore talk with Richard, a young gay man who took a series of tests and got a series of conflicting results — some from the same lab, some from different labs — which included different results on the same day. They also chat with Mike who tested HIV positive and lived with the devastating diagnosis for several years before discovering his results were wrong. Before the guests join the program, David and Christine review recent AIDS news.

Click here here to listen to this and other podcasts of How Positive Are You?

Poor Sanitation Poses Greater Risk than AIDS to Africans
Contaminated Water = Disease and Death

According to a leading hygiene specialist from Ghana, lack of clean water is a greater risk to the health of many African populations than AIDS.

Speaking with a national news agency, Emmanuel Nyavor of the Volta Regional Community Water and Sanitation Agency in Ghana noted that diarrheal disease caused by water contaminated with human and animal feces is the leading cause of child mortality in his country. The second top cause of death among children in Ghana is non-AIDS pneumonia.

Nvavor spoke as part of the United Nations International Year of Sanitation organized in collaboration with UNICEF. The program seeks to raise awareness of poor sanitation and its effects on the health and development of nations like Ghana where more than 15,000 children below the age of five die every year from preventable diarrheal disease due to unclean water.

Unfortunately, western relief agencies give funding priority to AIDS programs in countries where providing clean water — at a small fraction of the cost of AIDS efforts — would save countless millions of lives. Another challenge to meeting needs for safe water in Africa is the lack of celebrity support for this relatively simple and inexpensive to solve problem.

Read the whole report at news.myjoyonline.com

AIDS Industry Defectors Expose "Myths and Opportunism" and Confess That "Money Eclipses Truth"

A growing number of former AIDS industry insiders are now coming clean about having misled the public with scare stories about HIV and AIDS in order to rally support and increase funding for their work.

Dr Michael Fitzpatrick, author of the 1987 book, The Truth About the AIDS Panic, says in an August 29 article at Spiked Online, "It is a shame that AIDS insiders did not expose the myths and opportunism of the AIDS industry earlier, but better late than never."

Fitzpatrick refers to two recently released books, one by James Chin, an epidemiologist working in the World Health Organization's Global Program on AIDS from the late 1980s to the early 1990s, and another by Elizabeth Pisani, a journalist turned epidemiologist for UNAIDS, the agency that took over the global AIDS crusade in 1996.

"Once prominent advocates of the familiar doomsday scenarios, both Chin and Pisani have now turned whistleblowers on their former colleagues in the AIDS bureaucracy, a 'byzantine' world, according to Pisani, in which "money eclipses truth," Fitzpatrick writes.

In his new position of whistleblower Chin, the author of The AIDS Pandemic: The Collision of Epidemiology with Political Correctness, alleges that the notion of a heterosexual AIDS pandemic "is an example of a glorious myth, a tale that is gloriously or nobly false, but told for 'a good cause.'" He asserts that government and international health agencies along with AIDS advocate organizations such as the WHO "have distorted HIV epidemiology in order to perpetuate the myth of the great potential for spread into general populations." He further charges that HIV and AIDS estimates and projections are actually "cooked" or made up.

Chin's book also provides numerous examples of how AIDS experts "ride to glory" on declining numbers of estimates that in some cases were inflated by as much as 50%, and take credit for alleviating problems that didn't exist.

"HIV prevalence is low in most populations throughout the world and can be expected to remain low, not because of effective HIV prevention programs," says Chin, "but because the vast majority of the world's populations do not have sufficient risk behaviors to sustain an epidemic."

Chin says he can't understand the lack of critical thinking by his former colleagues in the AIDS industry. "Over the past decade, mainstream AIDS scientists, including most infectious disease epidemiologists, have virtually all uncritically accepted the many glorious myths and misconceptions UNAIDS and AIDS activists continue to perpetuate."

Fitzpatrick points out that while many experts fail to question the myths, others knowingly lie. "One shocking example of betrayal [of truth] can be found in a 1996 commentary on the British AIDS campaign entitled 'Icebergs and Rocks of the Good Lie.' In this article, UK Guardian journalist Mark Lawson accepted that the public had been misled over the threat of AIDS but argued that the end of promoting sexual restraint justified the means of exaggerating the risk of HIV infection. As Lawson put it, 'the government has lied and I am glad.'"

Fitzpatrick responds to Lawson's callous comment in the title of his article: "The authorities have lied, and I am not glad."

Author Pisani says there were no lies, only exaggerations, and disputes Chin's claim that UNAIDS deliberately overestimated HIV and AIDS. In her book The Wisdom of Whores: Bureaucrats, Brothels and the Business of AIDS, Pisani admits to manipulating statistics in order to maximize their scare value and keep funding and interest alive. She also acknowledges the falsity of years of ad campaigns she now calls "the everyone-is-at-risk nonsense."

Unfortunately, while Chin, Pisani and Fitzpatrick challenge the veracity of popular claims about HIV and AIDS incidence, they all seem to believe that we can take the word of AIDS researchers on other matters of science. None question the ability of HIV tests to accurately detect HIV infection, the safety and efficacy of AIDS drug treatments or how a non-cell killing virus like HIV could possibly devastate the cells of the immune system. Instead, they advocate "a more coercive approach to both testing and treatment" as part of sound public health policy.

"Public health is inherently a somewhat fascist discipline," says Pisani, who suggests that the quarantine restrictions of HIV positives practiced in countries under dictatorship might work well in democratic nations of the world.

Read Fitzpatrick's entire article at spiked-online.com

"Gallo's Egg", A New Report by LA Police Investigator, Reveals Flaws in HIV Theory and Threats by AIDS Experts Opposed to Debate

Clark Baker, a 28 year veteran investigator for the Los Angeles Police Department, recently looked into charges by AIDS activists that Professor Peter Duesberg and journalist Celia Farber are guilty of mass murder for questioning the role of HIV in AIDS causation.

Baker began his investigation as an unbiased party with no particular interest in AIDS and no idea of the raging international debate about HIV. Through the process of discovery, however, he became not only a staunch proponent of the need to question current beliefs about HIV, but a target for activist threats and harassments.

In producing this report, Baker identified Brian Foley, head of the HIV genome project at the U.S. government's Los Alamos National Laboratory, as one of the sources of harassing emails. Another vociferous and well connected opponent of open dialogue on AIDS turned out to be a student expelled from medical school for plagiarism. He also documents Cornell AIDS researcher John P. Moore’s infamous warning to AIDS rethinkers, "When you’re in a war, there are no rules. This IS a war, there ARE no rules, and we WILL crush you, one at a time, completely and utterly!"

Says Baker, "After having investigated thousands of crimes and arrested hundreds of criminal gang members and other assorted predators, I know a criminal enterprise when I see one. HIV/AIDS makes Enron look like a neighborhood poker game."

Check out a PDF version of Gallo’s Egg at www.rethinkingaids.com or read it online at exlibhollywood.blogspot.com

Audio Commentary on "Gallo’s Egg"
On the air with health freedom advocate Robert Scott Bell, former LAPD officer Clark Baker gives a first hand account of how he approached his investigation into the HIV hypothesis and charges that voicing alternative views on AIDS is tantamount to murder, and how AIDS activists in some surprisingly high places tried to stop him. Listen to the podcast at www.switchpod.com and a follow up discussion at www.switchpod.com

Cracking the Egg Further: Podcasts with Farber and Duesberg on the Baker Report
Celia Farber and Peter Duesberg discuss Gallo's Egg on the Robert Scott Bell radio program. Listen up at www.switchpod.com and to the additional off-air podcast at: www.switchpod.com

Award Winner Celia Farber Attacked by AIDS Activists (Again)
This broadcast from the June 23rd IndyMedia program "From the Trenches" gives background to Gallo’s Egg and insight into attacks on the Semmelweiss Society after they gave their "Clean Hands Awards" to two critics of the AIDS establishment, journalist Celia Farber and Professor Peter Duesberg. Hear the program at chicago.indymedia.org

Listings for New Podcast Program "How Positive Are You?"

Podcast #4: Dismantling AIDS News, Rethinking AIDS in Africa
After a review of recent AIDS news including the latest failed HIV vaccine, the "bad gene" theory of AIDS, and sloppy studies used to make unfounded claims in the media, David and Christine engage in a fascinating conversation with Dr. Charles Geshekter, a professor of African history and expert on the social and economic factors affecting Africa in the 19th and 20th centuries. Subjects include the impact of apartheid on AIDS numbers, the dubious diagnostics and estimates used by AIDS researchers, realities of life and death on the continent, myths about sexual behavior among blacks and more. Check out the new theme music by Steve Porcaro of the world famous 80’s band Toto!

Podcast #3: What is AIDS? plus Steve’s Adventures in HIV Land
David and Christine discuss this seemingly simple question and reveal how AIDS can be diagnosed in healthy HIV positives without disease, how non-AIDS diseases can result in an AIDS diagnosis, and how what is AIDS changes from country to country. Includes a (long) interview with Steve, a man who was told he would go blind or die of AIDS many years ago even though his level of health was good then and remains so today, and despite the fact he’s never followed doctor’s order. Don’t miss his story of the freckle that was called KS or the temporary theme music by Charlie, Christine’s 10 year-old son!

Podcast #2: The Racial Bias in AIDS and HIV Testing
Christine and David examine official news from the World Health Organization that AIDS is over--at least among white heterosexuals--and dubious claims that greater numbers of HIV positives occur among blacks due to sexual behavior. This episode includes excerpts from a special three-hour program on HIV and AIDS originally broadcast on LIB radio with host Keidi Awadu and guests…who made the job of creating original programming for HPAY slightly easier this week. Thanks, Keidi!

Podcast #1: How Positive Are You? The Adventure Begins
How positive are David Crowe and Christine Maggiore about their ability to make a fun and interesting podcast on HIV and AIDS? Will there be enough to talk about? Will there be embarrassing pauses and serious audio problems? Surprisingly, after months of sort of preparing, all goes pretty smoothly. They talk about their international meetings with AIDS rethinkers in Russia and India and about some harrowing experiences of HIV-positives they know. They entertain and engage each other, and will do the same for you, too, if you’ll just excuse the theme music!

AIDS Orthodoxy Accidentally Confirms Drug-AIDS Connection, Finds Risk of "AIDS Diseases" More Likely Among Crack Users

Women with HIV positive test results who regularly use crack are three times more likely to develop AIDS diseases and die—despite adherence to anti-HIV drug treatment—according to a US survey of 1,686 positive testing women who take pharmaceutical antiretroviral treatment.

The survey found that the 29% of participants who regularly or intermittently used crack cocaine were nearly 60% more likely to develop an AIDS-defining illness, and the 3.2% who used it persistently were three times more likely to die, despite adherence to anti-AIDS drug regimens.

Raising the question of what "viral load" actually measures (we know it’s not whole, infectious HIV), the study found that persistent crack users began the survey with "viral loads" that were on average three times higher than intermittent or non-users of crack, and that their "loads" remained higher even when figures were adjusted for reported adherence to treatment regimens.

The survey also found a high death rate among crack using participants with a total of 419 deaths during the study period. Of these 419 deaths, 197 (44%) were attributed to AIDS-related causes, 138 (33%) were officially declared non-AIDS related, while the cause of the remaining 84 deaths were not determined. In other words, 222 of the 419 deaths were not related to HIV or AIDS.

Another finding that strains for explanation within the HIV causes AIDS paradigm: Persistent crack use was more likely to predict a high "viral load" than high adherence to anti-HIV regimens was to predict a low "viral load."

Reporting on the new survey, mainstream AIDS activist/journalist Gus Cairns asks: "Are the study findings due to direct effects of crack on immune status…? Previous studies have shown that cocaine causes immune alterations in T-cells, inhibits the functions of other immune cells like macrophages and neutrophils, suppresses cell-signaling chemicals (cytokines)..and recent studies have also found that cocaine increases the permeability of the blood-brain barrier...and that crack users develop chronic lung disease because of inhaling crack contaminants. [In this study], there was a predominance of respiratory diseases in the women who developed AIDS-defining conditions: 18% developed bacterial pneumonia, 10% PCP and 4% TB."

Read Cairns’ entire article at www.aidsmap.com

Higher Mortality Among HIV Positives? Mainstream Claims Under Scrutiny

At his blog site hivskeptic.wordpress.com, Professor Henry Bauer points out some of the problems behind claims made in the recently published study "Changes in the Risk of Death After HIV Seroconversion Compared With Mortality in the General Population"

One significant problem he notes with the study is that researchers cannot accurately determine dates of sero-conversion among participants or validly estimate when sero-conversion may have occurred. There were very few instances where people included in the study were tested at frequent intervals before so-called sero-conversion, making an approximate date for change in sero-status anyone’s guess.

Another problem with the study is that it does not compare like to like. The multitude of health risk factors documented to be commonly found among HIV positives are not commonly found in the comparison group from general population, a factor which can only skew results.

Even the study’s authors admit that there are striking differences between people who test positive and their control group of healthy HIV negatives culled from non-risk groups: "Although we matched by age, sex, calendar time, and country, it is likely that HIV [positive] individuals in our study differ from the general population in other ways [besides HIV status]. Rates of smoking have been shown to be high…other risk behaviors, socioeconomic factors, and race/ethnicity are also likely to differ among [positive testing] persons. Those [who identify as] IDUs in particular are likely to be at higher risk of mortality than the general population regardless of HIV [status]…"

Bauer vigorously questions the study’s round-about endorsement of AIDS drug therapy offered in this statement: "We found that the gap in mortality rates between HIV-infected individuals in our study and the general population narrowed in every calendar period from 1996 onward."

In reply to the above, Bauer explains, "Everybody familiar with HIV science will recognize the standard ploy used here to guarantee the conclusion that deaths have decreased due to drug therapies. In fact, the AIDS Era is by arbitrary convention divided into a Pre-HAART Era (pre-1996) and a HAART Era (post-1996), and this naming-and-dating-technique allows researchers to disregard all other factors, such as changing the definition of AIDS to include clinically healthy HIV positives, the increased number of clinically healthy persons given AIDS diagnoses in those years, or the fact that the dramatic decrease in AIDS deaths started before HAART came into general use.

"These omissions leave the conclusion that, since there are fewer deaths in the period known as the HAART Era than in the Pre-HAART Era period, HAART must be the direct cause of the lower number of deaths. This ‘unassailable basic premise’ shields the researchers from all alternative explanations to the numerous contradictions they encounter — that is, if it allows them to detect contradictions at all — and unfailingly allows them to reach unwarranted pseudo-conclusions. For example, the authors of this paper conclude that ‘mortality rates for HIV-infected persons have become much closer to general mortality rates since the introduction of highly active anti-retroviral therapy.’ But this is not a scientifically established conclusion; it is simply the premise restated.

"The article’s unjustified take-home message is articulated by lead author Porter who claims in a an accompanying interview that ‘the study underscores the importance that people are identified and treated early.’"

Other commentary on the problems with the new study and its conclusions:

• "The authors want to correlate the increase in ‘uptake of HAART’ with the decrease in excess mortality, but unfortunately, mortality continued decreasing even after uptake of HAART leveled off. But the authors don’t even flinch at this inconsistency. Instead, they credit NNRTI-based HAART and AZT ‘boosters’ with the continued positive trend without offering proof that this is anything more than a convenient assumption."
  
  
• "The authors were not able to establish a straightforward correlation between uptake of HAART and decrease in excess mortality. However, they WERE able to establish a straightforward correlation between better drug adherence and higher mortality! They write, ‘We found that older age was highly predictive of excess mortality prior to 1996, and this effect broadly continued in later calendar periods, despite suggestions in the literature that increasing age is associated with better adherence to HAART.’ In other words, those who rarely miss a pill are at highest risk of dying!"
  
  
• "The authors state, ‘Some studies have found that older individuals experience slower immune recovery following HAART initiation, which could reflect the state of thymic function and may in part account for their continuing excess risk of death,’ but if this is so, why would their ‘slower immune recovery’ be significant since the excess mortality is measured against people with supposedly equally slow immune recovery? It apparently does not trouble the authors that the older people are, the less likely they are to lead the extreme lifestyles that were supposed to be the best explanation for excess excess (repetition intended) mortality. No doubt this study will go up on AIDStruth.org as an example of the rigor of HIV science.

For more information and commentary on this and other topics related to HIV and AIDS, please visit hivskeptic.wordpress.com

AIDS Critics Among Many Censored Scientists
"Against the Tide: A Critical Review by Scientists of How Physics and Astronomy Get Done, edited by Martín Lopez Corredoira and Carlos Castro Perelman, is a collection of essays by physicists, astronomers, and a chemist (our own Dr. Henry Bauer) about how current mainstream science excludes unorthodox views even of well established researchers in other disciplines.

"Viruses and Vaccines, HIV and AIDS: An Investigative Journey into a Reckless and Contaminated Medical Industry" This latest publication by investigative journalist Janine Roberts highlights dubious activity by "HIV co-discover" Dr Robert Gallo, offering proof of his scientific misdeeds in the form of documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act. These documents include facsimile copies of Gallo’s last minute alterations to the most important HIV paper ever published showing the many handwritten changes that hid the fact that his team had not isolated HIV or proved any virus to cause AIDS.

Robert’s research also shows that Gallo sent off non-specific proteins mischaracterized as HIV proteins to be used to create the first so-called HIV test and did so before doing the experiments claimed today as proving a virus caused AIDS. He then used the same non-specific material for the first PCR probes.

Roberts also shows that "illogical virology does not affect only AIDS. HIV is not the only virus claimed to cause disease that was never properly isolated and proved to cause illness. Many childhood vaccines are based on a nightmare of bad science and illogical presumptions about the nature of viruses and the relationship between cells and viruses. The information here may well help parents whose children have become autistic after receiving vaccinations."

With over 600 footnotes, a scientific glossary and index, Roberts says, "I am hoping this book might eventually help to forge an alliance between the many parent groups worried about vaccines and people worried about HIV."

In an unusual move, Roberts invites critics and skeptics to point out errors in her work. "If any of the science in my book can be shown wrong, I am prepared to produce new editions with corrections. If you see anything questionable in this book, let me know!"

Roberts’ new book can be found at Amazon.com

From the UK, Officials Say AIDS Pandemic is Cancelled

India Asks, “Is HIV the Cause of AIDS?”

New Radio Shows and Podcasts with AIDS Rethinkers

The latest news in AIDS is at least two decades old, but 20 years ago—and as recently as last month—UNAIDS and the World Health Organization continued to deny it, squelching data that showed AIDS was not affecting the general public around the globe.

Back in 1987, Rethinking AIDS board member Gordon Stewart, Emeritus Professor of Public Health at the University of Glasgow, tried unsuccessfully to point out that AIDS predictions didn’t add up and that the notion of a global AIDS epidemic among heterosexual populations was at best a huge mistake, or at worst, a dishonest marketing scheme.

Now, hundreds of billions of dollars later, the recklessly ignored facts are coming to light as the top AIDS official at the World Health Organization finally admits there is no evidence that the world at large is--or ever was--at risk for AIDS, and UNAIDS comes under fire for promoting unfounded fear and squandering precious healthcare dollars on a problem that didn’t exist.

The new official word on AIDS is the old word: Everyone is not at risk; AIDS is confined to distinct high-risk groups such as injection drug users and men having sex with men…except if you live in certain parts of Africa.

According to the new version of orthodox AIDS-think, unlike other people in other parts of the world, heterosexual Black Africans still remain at high risk for AIDS. Dr. James Chin, former epidemiologist for the World Health Organization, claims this is because 20% to 40% of the adult population in sub-Saharan Africa participates in "multiple concurrent overlapping relationships” involving sexual intercourse with several different people and several changing partners every few weeks.

The startling concept of African AIDS epidemics due to wildly promiscuous Blacks and the remarkable admission that 20 years of global AIDS policy followed a false premise have yet to be reported by any major US media.

Excerpted from the June 12, 2008 UK Guardian
The Exploitation of AIDS
By Brendan O’Neill

“The AIDS scare was one of the most distorted, duplicitous and cynical public health panics of the last 30 years…”

Finally we have a high-level admission that there is no threat of a global AIDS pandemic among heterosexuals. After 25 years of official scaremongering about western societies being ravaged by the disease – with salacious, tombstone-illustrated government propaganda warning people to wear a condom or "die of ignorance" – the head of the World Health Organization's HIV/AIDS department says there is no need for heterosexuals to fret.

Kevin de Cock, who has headed the global battle against AIDS said that outside very poor African countries, AIDS is confined to "high-risk groups,” and even in these communities it remains quite rare. In other words, all that hysterical fear mongering about AIDS spreading among sexed-up western youth was a pack of lies.

Much of the media has treated Dr. De Cock's admission as a startling revelation when in truth, experts have known for many years that in the vast majority of the world, AIDS has little impact on the "general population.” In her new book The Wisdom of Whores, Elizabeth Pisani – who worked for 10 years in what she refers to as "the AIDS bureaucracy" – admits that by 1998 it was clear that "HIV wasn't going to rage through the billions in the 'general population', and we knew it.”

And it isn't the case that the heterosexual pandemic failed to materialize because officialdom's omnipresent pro-condom propaganda was a success. According to James Chin, a clinical professor of epidemiology at the University of California at Berkeley and author of the new book The AIDS Pandemic, it was always a "glorious myth" that there would be an "HIV epidemic in general populations." That myth was the product of "misunderstanding or deliberate distortions of HIV epidemiology" by UNAIDS and other AIDS activists, says Chin.

It is time to recognize that the AIDS scare was one of the most distorted, duplicitous and cynical public health panics of the past 30 years. Instead of being treated as a sexually transmitted disease that affected certain high-risk communities, the "war against AIDS" was turned into moral crusade.

Governments exploited the disease to create a new moral framework for society. Through baseless fear mongering, officials sought to police and regulate the behavior of the public. No longer able to appeal to outdated Victorian ideals of chastity or restraint, the powers-that-be used the specter of an AIDS calamity to terrify us into behaving "responsibly" in sexual and social matters.

They were aided and abetted by the radical left. Gay rights campaigners, feminists and left-leaning health and social workers stood shoulder-to-shoulder in spreading the "glorious myth" of a possible future AIDS pandemic. An unholy alliance of old-style, prudish conservatives and post-radical, lifestyle-obsessed leftists latched on to AIDS as a disease that might provide them with a sense of moral purpose.

And they ruthlessly sought to silence anyone who questioned them. Those who challenged the idea that AIDS would devour sexually promiscuous young people and transform once-civilized western societies into diseased dystopias were denounced as "AIDS deniers" and "heretics." Anyone who suggested that homosexuals were at greater risk than heterosexuals was denounced as homophobic. Nothing could be allowed to stand in the way of the glorious moral effort to make everyone submit to the sexual and moral conformism of the AIDS crusaders.

Even in Africa, the international focus on AIDS has been motivated more by pernicious moralism than straightforward charity. Diseases such as malaria and tuberculosis are bigger killers than AIDS. Yet focusing on AIDS allows western governments and NGOs to lecture Africans about their morality and personal behavior.

The relentless politicization and moralization of AIDS has not only distorted public understanding of the disease and generated unnecessary fear and angst – it has also potentially cost lives. James Chin estimates that UNAIDS wastes around $1billion a year in activities such as "raising awareness" about AIDS in communities that are at little risk. How many lives could that kind of money save?

Excerpted from Guerilla News Network
June 13, 2008
WHO Confesses to 25 Years of Misguided AIDS Policies…But They Still Want You to Believe Them
By Liam Scheff

It’s official: AIDS is not explicable by sexual transmission, at least not outside of Sub-Saharan Africans, gay men, intravenous drug users and prostitutes. For the rest of us, there is no heterosexual AIDS pandemic, and further, there will be no heterosexual AIDS pandemic.

“Threat of world AIDS pandemic among heterosexuals is over, report admits,” The Independent announced on Sunday, June 8, 2008 (mimicking what I have been reporting for years and what some of my colleagues have been reporting for decades).

But take it from someone you trust, Dr. Kevin de Cock of the World Health Organization (WHO): “[T]here will be no generalized epidemic of AIDS in the heterosexual population outside Africa.”

The authorities explain that they misled the entire world, for decades, because admitting the grandeur of their farce would have encouraged their critics: “Any revision of the threat was liable to be seized on by those who rejected HIV as the cause of the disease.” Of course! We’ve got to protect flawed science from criticism!

But, regardless of past and current performance (and admissions of outright massive fraud), the authorities at the WHO and UNAIDS still want you to believe them when they talk about AIDS, Bird Flu, SARS, and other advertised but not achieved super-pandemics.

Such a weak defense might encourage a curious mind to wonder at the other flaws in their paradigm. For example, are we now to believe that there is a virus that causes a fatal disease, but only in Africans, (wherever in the world they may be), gay men and drug addicts? But not the entirety of the human population that is sexually active?

The answer to the riddle may be found in the actual cause of “HIV” – namely, “HIV testing.” Figure out who is tested, how the tests work (or, more to the point, how they don’t work), and who the tests are said to be accurate for, and you’ll get an understanding of how the “AIDS” diagnosis – now, no better than a brand name applied to poverty and drug addiction – actually works.

“HIV tests” come up as “false positives” in numbers far exceeding “true positives”:

“Sir, In the May 9 issue of The Lancet, Round the World correspondents discussed AIDS-associated problems in former Eastern bloc countries…I would like to emphasize another alarming concern – namely, the rapid growth in false-positive HIV tests in the former USSR, and in Russia especially. In 1990, of 20.2 million HIV tests done in Russia only 12 were confirmed and about 20,000 were false positives. 1991 saw some 30,000 false positives out of 29.4 million tests, with only 66 confirmations.” (The Lancet, June 1992)

They have no ability to determine if someone has or does not have the antibodies they think they’re looking for; the interpretation of “HIV positive” is subjective and not consistent:

“At present there is no recognized standard for establishing the presence or absence of antibodies to HIV-1 and HIV-2 in human blood.” (Abbott labs HIV-1/2 test, 1986 to the present).

They don’t produce singular or diagnostically specific results – they cross-react all over the map:

“Heterophile antibodies are a well-recognized cause of erroneous results in immunoassays. We describe here a 22-month-old child with heterophile antibodies reactive with bovine [Cow] serum albumin and caprine [Goat] proteins causing false-positive results to human immunodeficiency virus [HIV] type 1 and other infectious serology testing. (CLINICAL AND DIAGNOSTIC LABORATORY IMMUNOLOGY, July 1999)

“False-positive ELISA test results can be caused by alloantibodies resulting from transfusions, transplantation, or pregnancy, autoimmune disorders, malignancies, alcoholic liver disease, or for reasons that are unclear.” (Doran, et al. False-Positive and Indeterminate Human Immunodeficiency Virus Test Results in Pregnant Women. Arch Family Medicine, 2000)

The secondary tests that are sometimes used to give a sense of validity to an initial test are either reformulations of the same material (the Western Blot), or are synthetic genetic probes (PCR Viral Load) that likewise cross-react and give no diagnostically specific reaction (and these tests are rarely to never used when you’re talking about “AIDS in Africa”):

“Persons at risk of HIV-1 infection have been classified incorrectly as HIV infected because of Western blot results, but the frequency of false-positive Western blot results is unknown.” (JAMA. 1998; 280: 1080-1085)

“The HIV-1 PCR assay was designed to monitor HIV therapy, not to diagnose HIV infection…In patients (like ours) with a low prior probability of disease, almost all positive test results are false positive.” (False Positive HIV Diagnosis b HIV-1 Plasma Viral Load Testing. Ann Intern Med, 1999.)

“Helminth (parasitic worm) “load“ is correlated to HIV plasma Viral Load, and successful deworming is associated with a significant decrease in HIV plasma Viral Load.” (Treatment of intestinal worms is associated with decreased HIV plasma viral load. J.AIDS, September, 2002)

AIDS in Africa is and has always been a clinical diagnosis. Essentially, the test is dispensed with and “AIDS” is diagnosed based on the symptoms of hunger, TB and malaria – in other words, poverty:

“Our attention is now focused on the considerably large number of the seronegative group (135/227, 59%) who were clinically diagnosed as having AIDS. All the patients had three major signs: weight loss, prolonged diarrhoea, and chronic fever. Many of them also had other AIDS-associated signs, such as lymphadenopathy, tuberculosis, dermatological diseases, and neurological disorders.” (Hishida O et al. Clinically diagnosed AIDS cases without evident association with HIV type 1 and 2 infections in Ghana Lancet. 1992 Oct 17).

The numbers that have been reported are also entirely fabricated based on exponential projections from one small group to entire populations. Very recently, these numbers have been revised to such a massive degree so as to drive the AIDS prognosticators to painful public redaction: In Swaziland this year, the rate of HIV infection among young women decreased remarkably, from 32.5 to 6 percent. A drop of 81% – overnight. UNICEF’s Swaziland representative, Dr. Alan Brody, told the press “The problems is that all the sero-surveillance data came from pregnant women, and estimates for other demographics was based on that.” (August, 2004, IRIN News)

Who are the tests considered “accurate” for? The tests are only considered to be “accurate” for certain groups. Those considered to be at “high risk” are much more likely to be tested, and to have their tests interpreted as either a “true positive,” or, as you can see below, a “false negative.” In other words, if they want you for the “AIDS” diagnosis, they’ll get you:

“Suppose, for example, a single rapid test that has 99.4% specificity is administered to 1,000 people, meaning six will test false-positive. That error rate won’t matter much in areas with a high prevalence of HIV, because in all probability the people testing false-positive will have the disease...

“But if the same test was performed on 1,000 white, affluent suburban housewives – a low-prevalence population – in all likelihood all positive results will be false, and positive predictive values plummet to zero. (Coming to Your Clinic – Candidates for Rapid Tests. AIDS Alert, 1998)

Here, from the Independent, is the new philosophy of AIDS, and it’s quite a shift: “Whereas once it was seen as a risk to populations everywhere, it was now recognized that, outside sub-Saharan Africa, it was confined to high-risk groups including men who have sex with men, injecting drug users, and sex workers and their clients.”

So how did we get to, “It’s only gay men, Africans, drug addicts and prostitutes,“ from the version advertised for 25 years: “Everyone is at equal risk to contract HIV and to develop AIDS.”

What happened to the theory of sexual transmission?

The 10-year 1997 study by Dr. Nancy Padian had a lot to do with its downfall. The study took 175 “mixed” heterosexual couples (that is, one partner testing “positive” and one “negative”) who practiced vaginal and anal sex [for the latter – 37.9% at the commencement of the study, decreasing to 8.1% by the end], both with and without condoms [32.2% condom use at the beginning, increasing to 74% at the end]. But no matter how these folks did it, nobody who was negative became positive:

“We followed up 175 HIV-discordant couples [one partner tests positive, one negative] over time, for a total of approximately 282 couple-years of follow up… No transmission [of HIV] occurred among the 25% of couples who did not use their condoms consistently, nor among the 47 couples who intermittently practiced unsafe sex during the entire duration of follow-up…We observed no seroconversions after entry into the study [nobody became HIV positive]…This evidence argues for low infectivity in the absence of either needle sharing and/or other cofactors.”“

Padian determined that outside of intravenous drug use, this was not a very transmissible “sexually-transmissible disease.” But there is a contention made by Dr. de Cock that some sort of special sexual activity in Sub-Saharan Africa must (but is not evidenced to) explain the differences in “HIV prevalence.” It’s worth looking at studies of sex and “HIV positivity” for comparison. Does sex correlate with “HIV positivity” more than I.V. drug addiction?

In West Africa, these women, all prostitutes, have remained negative for more than five years:

“[This study involved] a group of repeatedly exposed but persistently seronegative female prostitutes in The Gambia, West Africa…have worked as prostitutes for more than five years, use condoms infrequently with clients and only rarely with their regular partners and have a high incidence of other sexually transmitted diseases” (Rowland-Jones S et al. HIV-specific cytotoxic T-cells in HIV-exposed but uninfected Gambian women. Nat Med. 1995 Jan)

In sum, lots of STDs, lots of exposure to HIV positive persons, and no HIV.

Here, as reported on PBS’s “RX for Survival” (2005) a group of prostitutes refuses to get sick:

“In Nairobi, a group of prostitutes appear to have natural immunity against HIV…because they have an abnormally large number of killer T-cells.” (New York Times, 2005. Author: ANITA GATES)

In this study in Tel Aviv, girl and boy prostitutes don’t turn “positive,” unless they’re injection drug users:

“Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) prevalence was studied in an unselected group of 216 female and transsexual prostitutes … All 128 females who did not admit to drug abuse were seronegative; 2 of the 52 females (3.8%) who admitted to intravenous drug abuse were seropositive. “ (Modan B et al. Prevalence of HIV antibodies in transsexual and female prostitutes. Am J Public Health. 1992 Apr)

In Tijuana, among a group of hundreds of prostitutes, condoms were used by a slight majority, but then, they said, for less than half the time:

“In order to determine whether prostitutes operating outside of areas of high drug abuse have equally elevated rates of infection, 354 prostitutes were surveyed in Tijuana, Mexico… None of the 354 [blood] samples…was positive for HIV-1 or HIV-2. Condoms were used by 59% of prostitutes but for less than half of their sexual contacts. ... Infection with HIV was not found in this prostitute population despite the close proximity to neighboring San Diego, CA, which has a high incidence of diagnosed cases of AIDS, and to Los Angeles, which has a reported 4% prevalence of HIV infection in prostitutes.” (Hyams KC et al. HIV infection in a non-drug abusing prostitute population. Scand J Infect Dis. 1989)

No condoms, no drug use – zero positivity. The same is found in the US and throughout Europe. Injection drug use, not sex, equals “HIV positivity.”

“HIV infection in non-drug using prostitutes tends to be low or absent, implying that sexual activity does not place them at high risk, while prostitutes who use intravenous drugs are far more likely to be infected with HIV. Other prostitute studies tend to be small but similarly emphasize the central role of drug use as a major risk factor: in New York City, 50 per cent of 12 drug users were positive, compared with 7 per cent of 65 nonusers; in Italy, 59 per cent of 22 drug users were positive, whereas none of the nonusers were. None of the 50 prostitutes tested in London, 56 in Paris, or 399 in Nuremberg were seropositive.” (Rosenberg MJ, Weiner JM. Prostitutes and AIDS: a health department priority?. Am J Public Health. 1988 Apr)

That doesn’t sound like much of an STD.

So, do you still believe the WHO, and the medical authorities when they talk about AIDS? Despite their incredible, world-changing lies and deceptions, advertising campaigns and persecution of dissenting scientists, do you still believe them when they say that AIDS is still a sex-disease, but now, only if you’re Black, gay or poor?

Talk Radio Tackles AIDS with Professor Henry Bauer and Christine Maggiore

AM Talk Radio Host Jeff Farias invited Professor Emeritus of Chemistry and Science Studies and Dean Emeritus of Arts and Sciences at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Henry Bauer, and Alive & Well founder Christine Maggiore to chat about AIDS rethinking on his popular AM radio program last week.

Topics covered in the show include the racial bias in HIV testing, the real data on sexual transmission of HIV, the fact that so-called HIV tests have never been validated by purification of the virus from HIV positives, and that testing HIV positive does not signify infection with HIV.

Listen to the broadcast minus commercial interruption by clicking here: www.rethinkingaids.com

The Failure of HIV Testing to Explain AIDS and Racial Bias in Results

Professor Henry Bauer offers surprising facts about HIV and HIV testing that couldn’t make it into the radio broadcast:

My studies complement what Christine point out on the radio. I've analyzed the accumulated data from so-called HIV tests and have shown that what these tests detect is not something infectious, because the prevalence of it—the rate at which people test positive—has not changed during a quarter of a century, whereas infections, epidemics, show increases followed by decreases.

"HIV" varies in a regular fashion with age, race, sex, and geography whereas infectious agents do not discriminate in this way by race, and they strike in different geographic regions at different times. Globally, "HIV" has remained restricted largely to southern Africa and the Caribbean. In developed countries, it has remained restricted largely to people with TB, drug addicts, and groups of gay men.

Careful analysis of a multitude of studies show:

• There is no correlation geographically between "HIV" and AIDS.
• There is no correlation between "HIV" and AIDS over time.
• There is no correlation between "HIV" and AIDS in their relative impacts on women and on men.
• There is no correlation between "HIV" and AIDS in their relative impacts on white and black people.

And when two things are not correlated, one cannot be the prime cause of the other.

As Christine has pointed out, the criteria for a positive “HIV test” vary from lab to lab and country to country, but there is no disease for which tests in different locations deliver different verdicts.

One of the central tenets of HIV/AIDS theory is that following “HIV infection,” there is an asymptomatic latent period, lasting on average 10 years, before any symptoms of illness appear. Yet all the HIV-test data show that the greatest risk for testing positive is among adults of around 40 years of age, while the data for deaths in the United States show that the highest rates of death from "HIV disease" are also among adults of around 40 years of age. This means there is no latent period.

Furthermore, no infectious disease kills people aged around 40 while sparing the very young and the old; infectious diseases are most dangerous for babies and seniors. "HIV disease" is obviously not an infectious disease.

AZT, the first antiretroviral drug approved to treat AIDS, was introduced in 1987. Later it was also used also for prophylaxis against AIDS (given to asymptomatic HIV positive testing people). In the mid-1990s, combination therapy or HAART (Highly Active AntiRetroviral Treatment) was introduced, and immediately described as "life-saving." Because of HAART, it is said that AIDS is no longer fatal, it’s described instead as a chronic, manageable condition. If that is the case, then the ages at which HIV positive testing people die should have increased steadily since 1987, particularly after the mid-1990s when HAART was introduced. However, death statistics show that the age at which the risk of dying is greatest has remained at around age 40 from 1987 until at least 2004 (the last year for which such data appears to be available). In other words, there is no sign of any life-extending effect of antiretroviral treatment.

Instead, it has become increasingly clear that antiretroviral treatment harms, rather than helps when used as directed. The latest version of the official US guidelines for administering anti-HIV drugs states:

"In the era of combination antiretroviral therapy, several large observational studies have indicated that the risk of several non-AIDS-defining conditions, including cardiovascular diseases, liver-related events, renal disease, and certain non-AIDS malignancies is greater than the risk for AIDS in persons with CD4 T-cell counts >200 cells/mm3; the risk for these events increases progressively as the CD4 T-cell count decreases from 350 to 200 cells/mm3."

In other words, more HIV positive testing people are dying from liver, heart, and kidney failure which are typical effects of AIDS drugs than are dying from AIDS illnesses.

The mistaken view that testing positive for "HIV" denotes fatal infection by a virus has led to the unnecessary, iatrogenic, deaths of innumerable people because of drugs that were known from the very beginning to be highly toxic. These unnecessary deaths will continue as long as this mistake is not corrected. Those people who characteristically tend to test

HIV positive most frequently are under the greatest danger: Africans, African-Americans, and people of African ancestry in other parts of the world.

There is a profound racial bias in the tendency to test HIV positive. In the USA, the latest figures are that black men test positive 7 times as often as white men, and black women 21 times as often as white women. Similar racial disparities are reported from Europe and from South Africa.

Under the HIV/AIDS dogma, this must come about because of the particular sexual behavior of black people. That behavior, according to James Chin, former epidemiologist for the World Health Organization, is that 20% to 40% of the adult population in sub-Saharan Africa participates in "multiple concurrent overlapping" sexual relationships: intercourse with several people over the space of a few weeks, and changing partners every few weeks.

Now that "HIV/AIDS" in the USA is acknowledged as a problem primarily for black communities, analogous sexual behavior is alleged for them.

On the other hand, no actual observations or studies have found any marked difference in sexual behavior between black people and others. The willingness to believe in this "otherness" of Africans and African-Americans in this respect reflects long-held---even if suppressed or subconscious---racist prejudices.

The tendency to test positive varies by race because of differences in immune response. Asian Americans always test positive 30-60% less frequently than white Americans. Native Americans test positive not much more often than white Americans. Hispanics on the west coast, who are largely of Native American stock, test positive not much more often than white west coasters, but Hispanics on the east coast, who are largely of Caribbean-African stock, test positive nearly as often as African Americans. In South Africa, "coloreds" test positive at rates between those of black and white South Africans.

All the data on racial differences in testing HIV positive demonstrate that testing positive does not reflect an infection, and indicting black people for this difference reveals deep-seated if unacknowledged racist stereotypes.

“How Positive Are You?”
New AIDS Rethinking Podcast Debuts

Christine Maggiore and David Crowe launched a new podcast program that reports the other side of AIDS news. You can listen to the first episode, essentially a test run, at iTunes (phobos.apple.com) or through either of the below links:

aras.ab.ca

feed://aras.ab.ca

Duesberg Debate on Radio

On May 23, Professor Peter Duesberg of UC Berkeley debated Len Horowitz, an AIDS conspiracy theorists who believes HIV is a man-made virus created by the US government, on the George Whithurst Berry show. The discussion includes the origin of HIV (natural or a bio-weapon), whether it has a role in AIDS, and the part that drugs like AZT play in the development of disease. Listen up at the link below:

aras.ab.ca/audio

Duesberg in Conversation with Robert Scott Bell

Those interested in a friendly discussion of the facts according to Dr. Duesberg will enjoy the following interview with Talk Radio Network host Robert Scott Bell:

www.switchpod.com

Here’s more from Duesberg and RS Bell in the form of an internet podcast:

www.switchpod.com

Daily New Analysis of India Asks the Big Question, Quotes Big Names in AIDS Rethinking

The below article appeared last week as a full page, full color article in DNA, a national Indian newspaper:

Is HIV the cause of AIDS?

The failure of a much sought-after vaccine against the virus has re-ignited an old debate. Mayank Tiwari explores the spectacular science controversy.

Last September, AIDS researchers were dealt a heavy blow when clinical trials of the most promising candidate for an HIV vaccine were stopped after it turned out to be a dud. The clinical trials showed that the vaccine might have put the people who received it at greater risk of infection rather than preventing HIV or reducing its effect. A survey of top AIDS scientists conducted by The Independent showed most believed a vaccine was nowhere near, with some even believing that effective immunization against HIV may never be possible.

“Nearly a billion dollars is spent globally on AIDS research annually, and yet the sobering reality is that at present there are no promising candidates for an HIV vaccine,” wrote Harvard Medical School’s Bruce Walker in the journal Science, summing up the failure of the expensive effort.

The development has strengthened the position of a vocal minority of scientists who argue that HIV is a harmless passenger virus (found in diseased tissue, but not contributing to the cause of the disease).

This community of scientists includes Peter Duesberg, professor of molecular and cell biology at the University of California, Berkeley, David Rasnick, a prominent American biochemist, and Nobel laureate Kary Mullis, another American biochemist, and enjoys the support of South African President Thabo Mbeki. They have from the very beginning of the AIDS era—supposed to be 1984 when US biomedical researcher Robert Gallo published a series of papers arguing that HIV was the cause of AIDS—questioned the “causal link” between the virus and the disease.

Other developments, too, have strengthened the position of the AIDS dissidents. Among these are: periodic revisions of the number of people suffering from AIDS; the demographic factor, which is against the nature of infectious viruses to spread regardless of identity clusters; and AIDS symptoms like tuberculosis and cancer being common results of lifestyle conditions. Duesberg even says that it is AIDS drugs, such as AZT, that cause the disease owing to their high toxicity. The dissenters also cite data showing HIV+ individuals tend to get AIDS when they take AZT and get better if they stop taking the drug.

Among the main reasons dissenters cite in favour of their movement is skewed health funding, especially in developing countries. On May 10, the British Medical Journal carried an article calling for UNAIDS to be shut down as it distorts health funding. In it, Roger England, who heads a Grenada-based think tank, Health Systems Workshop, argued that too much is being spent on HIV compared to other diseases which kill more people. “It is no longer heresy to point out that far too much is spent on HIV relative to other needs and that this is damaging health systems. Although HIV causes 3.7% of mortality, it receives 25% of international healthcare aid and a big chunk of domestic expenditure. HIV aid often exceeds total domestic health budgets themselves.”

Purushottam Muloli, a New Delhi-based member of Rethinking AIDS, a loose group of scientists and policy makers who do not agree with the prevalent HIV/AIDS theory, says he has been questioning the Indian health ministry and UNAIDS about the scientific evidence behind labeling sections of the population, such as homosexuals, high-risk groups. “The health policy of the country is being controlled by international donors. Can you believe that the entire health budget of India is less than the amount of international funding the country receives on HIV?”

Rethinking AIDS president David Crowe says the AIDS “dogma” persists because doctors are trained to obey their superiors. “There are many examples of bad medical advice becoming dogma due to the power of senior medical people. The dogma of AIDS has resulted in hopelessness and despair caused by the stigma of HIV positive status. ”

Call for End to UNAIDS in British Medical Journal

"Why a UN agency for HIV and not for pneumonia or diabetes, which both kill more people? UNAIDS mandate is wrong and harmful."

Writing in the May 2008 British Medical Journal, health management expert Roger England asserts that the joint United Nations program on HIV and AIDS should be "closed down rapidly." England is chairman of Health Systems Workshop, an independent advisory group on health management in poor countries. According to England,"UNAIDS should be disbanded as its mandate is wrong and harmful."

Launched in 1996, UNAIDS is based in Switzerland and works in more than 80 countries worldwide against the alleged spread of HIV and AIDS. England says the UNAIDS agency was set up on the argument that "AIDS and its impact are exceptional" and need more attention, effort and funding than all other health threats faced by the world today.

England says AIDS is "a major problem in southern Africa, but it is not a global catastrophe." He also asserts that language from a top UNAIDS official that describes AIDS as "one of the make-or-break forces of this century ... a potential threat to the survival and well-being of people worldwide," is "sensationalist."

"Worldwide," he states, "the number of deaths from HIV each year is about the same as that among children aged under five years in India."

England argues that "far too much is spent on HIV relative to other needs and that this is damaging health systems. HIV causes 3.7% of global mortality but receives 25% international healthcare aid and a big chunk of domestic expenditure."

"HIV exceptionalism is dead," he says, "and the writing is on the wall for UNAIDS. Why a UN agency for AIDS and not for pneumonia or diabetes, which both kill more people?"

"UNAIDS should be closed down rapidly, not because it has performed badly given its mandate, but because its mandate is wrong and harmful. Its technical functions should be refitted into [the World Health Organization], to be balanced with those for other diseases."

Source: www.inthenews.co.uk

AIDS Maverick Peter Duesberg Profiled in Discover Magazine

The June 2008 issue of Discover, currently available on newsstands, features a lengthy, sympathetic and very interesting profile of University of California at Berkeley professor Peter Duesberg, an expert in retroviruses and the first scientist to openly question the role of HIV in AIDS causation in a paper published in the medical journal "Cancer Research" in 1987.

Summarizing the original reason for Duesberg's skepticism of the HIV hypothesis, Discover says, "He knew that HIV is a retrovirus --- the subject of his own heralded research --- and that retroviruses don't kill the host cells they infect. If anything, the make them proliferate. That is the opposite of what happens with AIDS where special immune cells are knocked off. The more Duesberg looked for answers, the more he came to believe that the original hypothesis of top AIDS researchers --- that, at least in the US, AIDS was brought on by drug use and other immune suppressing causes --- was correct...By 1986, after more than two years of research, Duesberg was so convinced that the HIV theory was dead wrong that he spent nine months writing his paper on HIV for Cancer Research."

The article poses bold questions, "Could it be, as Duesberg suggests, that the antiretroviral drugs used to attack HIV actually do more harm than good, contrary to the common assumption that they have dramatically reduced AIDS deaths?" and includes a summary of his alternative hypothesis of AIDS causation along with an update on his innovative cancer research.

Anticipating that AIDS activists will attack author Jeanne Lenzer and Discover for daring to give coverage and credibility to Dr. Duesberg and the AIDS debate, please consider taking a stand for open dialogue by sending a supportive email to the magazine at editorial@discovermagazine.com

Skeptical Scientist and Whistle Blowing Journalist Honored for Exposing AIDS Fraud

Rethinking AIDS, an international group of more than 2,500 scientists, doctors, journalists, health advocates and others, announced that a prominent research scientist and a well-known AIDS journalist will accept "Clean Hands" awards as part of events on May 13-14 in Washington, D.C. The awards, given by the Alliance for Patient Safety and Semmelweis Society International, recognize public health "whistleblowers" -- in their case, for their work in exposing fraud in AIDS research.

University of California at Berkeley microbiologist Peter Duesberg, Ph.D. (a board member of RA) and journalist Celia Farber will be two of 19 individuals to accept the awards at a ceremony Tuesday, May 13, at the Library of Congress in Washington (see event details below). On Wednesday, May 14, Dr. Duesberg and Ms. Farber will testify before a "No FEAR Tribunal" to inform members of Congress and the public of the dangers to all when whistleblowers are silenced.

The awards are presented as part of the second annual "Whistleblower Week in Washington." Whistleblower Week is sponsored by a coalition of organizations led by the No FEAR Institute, a group supporting government employees seeking fair treatment and employment protection for those who expose corruption. Since May 2002, when the federal No FEAR Act (Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act) passed, the Institute has sought even stronger guarantees for whistleblowers.

These historic events honor those taking a stand for integrity and courage in public affairs and the abuses of the public trust endemic to AIDS research.

EVENT SCHEDULE: (No reserved admission; arrive early)

Presentation of "Clean Hands" Awards, Tuesday, May 13, 2008, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Members' Room, Thomas Jefferson Building, The Library of Congress, First Street S.E., between Independence Avenue and East Capitol Street, Washington

Screening of film "The Constant Gardener", Introduction by Peter Duesberg and Celia Farber; discussion following, Tuesday, May 13, 2008, 6 p.m. to 9 p.m., Location to be announced

"No FEAR Tribunal", Wednesday, May 14, 2008, , 9 a.m. to 12 p.m. - House of Representatives Testimony, Room 2200, Rayburn House Office Building, Independence Avenue, South Capitol Street, First Street, and C Street S.W., Washington, , 1:30 p.m. to 4 p.m. - Senate Testimony, Room 215, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Constitution Avenue, C Street, First Street, and Second Street N.E., Washington

MEDIA CONTACTS:

David Crowe, President, Calgary , Alberta , Canada (Mountain time zone), 1-403-289-6609 (office), 1-403-861-2225 (mobile), david.crowe@aras.ab.ca

Elizabeth Ely, Public Relations Chairperson, Brooklyn, N.Y., U.S. (Eastern time zone), 1-718-704-9672 (mobile), publicrelations@rethinkingaids.com

Rethinking AIDS: The Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV/AIDS Hypothesis ("RA" or "the Group") was formed in 1991 to express the concerns of a growing number of renowned scientists and medical doctors about HIV research and the resulting human rights abuses. In 1995, by a letter published in Science, the Group called for a thorough reappraisal of the existing evidence for and against the HIV/AIDS hypothesis and recommended that critical epidemiological studies be undertaken., , Among RA's founders and key members are University of Toronto professor emeritus and former cancer researcher Dr. Etienne de Harven; Harvard microbiologist Dr. Charles Thomas; 1993 Nobel laureate for chemistry Dr. Kary Mullis; Nature/Biotechnology co-founder Dr. Harvey Bialy; University of California at Berkeley molecular biologist Dr. Peter Duesberg and the late Yale mathematician Dr. Serge Lang, both members of the National Academy of Sciences; professor of medical physics at the Royal Perth Hospital in Western Australia Dr. Eleni Papadopulos; and Glasgow University professor emeritus of public health and World Health Organization consultant Dr. Gordon Stewart.

Alive & Well is back in operation after an extensive IRS audit involving a five year review of our fiscal records, board meeting notes, newsletters, meeting agendas and educational materials. We are happy to report having passed this inspection with flying colors and to let you know that our non-profit status is officially reconfirmed.

We will resume posting news on a quarterly basis beginning in May. In the meantime, please visit the following web sites for current news and information:

• Rethinking AIDS
  
• Alberta Reappraising AIDS Society
  
• News from Not AIDS
  

• $2.5 Million Award Over False HIV Positive
• Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons Questions AIDS
• HIV Positive Journalist Speaks Out After Stopping Meds
• Pope Calls for Food to Fight AIDS
• The Other Side of World AIDS Day

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
By Rodrique Ngowi, December 5, 2007

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
Worcester.IndyMedia.org

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.”

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.

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…"

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.”

“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
• Top UK Medical Expert Calls AIDS “Epidemic That Never Was”
• Conservative Radio Star Rush Limbaugh Questions AIDS
• President Thabo Mbeki: Still an AIDS Skeptic
• Mises Institute Joins AIDS Debate

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
Population With Virus Overstated by Millions
by Craig Timberg, Washington Post, November 20, 2007

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
How the Media Makes Good News out of Bad Information
hivskeptic.wordpress.com 29 November 2007

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). Naďve 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)
- How the number of HIV-positive Americans has remain unchanged for two decades during a supposedly spreading epidemic (pp. 1-2)
- Poor performance of the computer models used by the CDC, (p. 223)
- How the CDC increasingly disseminates estimates rather than actual counts (pp. 221-2)

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…

(www.rushlimbaugh.com)

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 Ł900 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 Ł20 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.

Following 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)

An 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
by Brad Edmonds, www.mises.org

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.

Yet 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
Yahoo News November 13, 2007

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
• What’s Wrong with Using T Cell Counts and Viral Load as HIV Surrogate Markers
• Surprising Admissions from International AIDS Conference

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
by Lawerence K. Altman, New York Times, November 8, 2007

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
by Sarah Rubenstein and Mark Schoofs

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?*
by David Rasnick

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
by David Rasnick, PHD*

“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:
1. Goodwin, J. S. (1981) OKT3, OKT4, and all that, Journal of the American Medical Association 246, 947-948
2. Roederer, M. (1998) Getting to the HAART of T cell dynamics, Nature Medicine 4, 145-146
3. Seligmann, M., et al. (1994) Concorde: MRC/ANRS randomised double-blind controlled trial of immediate and deferred zidovudine in symptom-free HIV infection, Lancet 343, 871-881
4. Fleming, T. R., et al. (1996) Surrogate end points in clinical trials: are we being misled?, Annals of Internal Medicine 125, 605-613
5. Sande, M. A., et al. (1993) National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases state-of-the-art Panel on Anti-retroviral therapy for adult HIV-infected patients, Journal of the American Medical Association 270, 2583-2589
6. Fleming, T. R. (1994) Surrogate markers in AIDS and cancer trials, Statistics in Medicine 13, 1423-1435

Good Antibodies Vs Bad Antibodies: How Can Merck (or Anyone) Say Who’s Really Infected with HIV?
by David Rasnick, PhD*

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”
New Book Endorsed in Public Choice review

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
USA e-mail: shughart@olemiss.eduAIDS

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

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

Investigative 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
www.liamscheff.com

Notes on a Scandal: Censorship in AIDS
www.liamscheff.com

Inside Incarnation
A radio interview (text and audio) with an employee of Incarnation Children’s Center, Mimi Pascual, who speaks candidly on AIDS drug experiments and her experiences working at the New York City foster home featured in “Guinea Pig Kids.”
www.liamscheff.com/content/view/77/31

Various and Sundry Blog on Guinea Pig Kids and the BBC Decision
dan-variousandsundry.blogspot.com

Guinea Pig Kids and AIDS Censors
This & That, a blog on the politics and medicine of AIDS that begins with this thought provoking quote from Voltaire: “Those who can make you believe absurdities, will make you commit atrocities.”
elmaltes.blogspot.com

AIDS “Denial” and Human Experiments
Sepp Hasselberger’s medical and health news blog, New Media Explorer.
www.newmediaexplorer.org

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
The Business (Kenya)
by Atieno Amisi

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.

James Chin, MD, MPH is a clinical Professor of Epidemiology at the School of Public Health at the University of California at Berkeley. His surprisingly candid book on the exaggeration of the global AIDS epidemic is reviewed here by Gordon T. Stewart, MD, Emeritus Professor of Public Health, University of Glasgow, UK, and member of the board of the Rethinking AIDS group:

James Chin is deservedly described in the Foreword as a pillar of the public health establishment by Jeffrey Koplan, of whom the same can be said. The book reflects their companionship as well as their expertise. It is replete with experience, data and reasoning, seasoned by enthusiasm which makes it entertaining as well as required reading in what is regarded as the Great Plague of our time.

But it is not easy to review because, although no paragraph can ignored, there are many repetitions and contradictions which prevent it attaining cumulative authority in resolving some of the basic problems in the arguable compendium of 27 or more diseases registrable since 1985 as HIV/AIDS. There are also some surprising omissions, for instance with regard to the specificity of diagnostic tests, the questionable plurality of clinical features and the isolation of HIV itself. These also detract from the book’s authority but unintentionally leave space for informative correction.

Chapter One is an introduction and overview of ten following chapters in which, with summaries and a glossary, Chin links epidemiological analyses of facts to opinion and conclusions in a logical sequence. He begins, in Chapter 2, by describing his happy emergence in 1961 from medical school into a career in public health in California via a series of brief appointments in academic and field training programmes provided by the expanding epidemiological intelligence service of the Centres for Disease Control of the USA. He became quickly mature overseas where he gained practical experience in surveillance and control of leprosy and cholera in Malaysia before returning to California eventually as State Epidemiologist in the 1970s. He was therefore a key witness of the emergence of AIDS there as a devastating new disease of homosexual men in 1980, and was appointed by the WHO as one of the first consultants to the new unit headed in HQ Geneva by Jonathan Mann, who had detected similar cases in Zaire.

This leads him logically in the book to discuss the probable – I would say possible – origin of HIV and to its rapid spread to 7000 males (32/mn) in similar communities and in needle-sharing drug users (IVDU) in coastal cities in the USA by 1984 (1) when there were only 247 (4.3/mn) in UK and 762 (~ 2/mn) in all of Europe – a tenfold difference in period prevalence which is persisting in 2007 with over a million registrations in the USA. Chin refutes beliefs that AIDS is mainly an American disease by concentrating instead and at length on evidence of “explosive” spread in developing countries, especially in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) where deaths are thought to exceed 10 million.

Chin’s experience thereafter relates mainly to field studies of the description, incidence and distribution of AIDS internationally, with emphasis and insider detail of events in countries of high prevalence, mainly in SSA, SE Asia and the Phillipines. He is critical of academic, desk-top “modellers” and activists who use and persuade or coerce health authorities to acknowledge high estimates, because of lack of basic experience, or local insight, or “to facilitate receipts of donor support” for their AIDS programs (p 137). In this respect, Chin’s personal experience and independence extending into retirement, is obvious and should not be ignored by the persons with lesser experience but more authority, influence and above all FUNDS who are running the show for better or worse. Until now, Chin has been diplomatic in such situations where political correctness is mandatory but now he writes frankly about the “myths, misconceptions and credibility“ of official estimates which have led to “Titanic” projections of HIV/AIDS.

On the other hand, Chin accepts the HIV hypothesis of causation of AIDS, despises all dissidents as “flat earthers” and dismisses them collectively as “disciples of Duesberg.” In so doing, he conforms to the politically correct climate of the prevailing consensus that submerges independent evidence and blocks opportunities to resolve differences by convergence of the natural and biomedical approaches, which have controlled HIV/AIDS in all developed and many developing countries. The book is light in references to alternative viewpoints but full of competitive data for statisticians and anomalies for sceptics, and is perhaps the best practical manual for identifying and filling gaps in the epidemiology, aetiology and management of AIDS along with its profoundly unhealthy accompaniment of related disorders, equally in need of attention and insight, especially in unaware and deprived locations.

The Book is Back!

“What If Everything You Thought You Knew About AIDS Was Wrong?” Fourth Revised Edition Arrives November 1st

The book that will change your view of HIV and AIDS and possibly change your life will be available once again in a revised fourth edition due to roll off presses at the end of next month. This seventh reprinting features a new color scheme, a slightly changed cover, several new pages of web site listings and a whole new chapter, “HIV and AIDS in 2007,” a brief update that powerfully answers questions about the book’s validity seven years after the original publication—and it’s still a quick read at just 128 pages including references.

Unfortunately, due to increase costs of paper and ink, the book also has a new price of $12.95, but according to Bill Maher, host of HBO’s Real Time, it’s well worth the addition two bucks. As Bill puts it, “This is a book every American should read, and not a moment too soon!”

Advance orders can be placed now at Alive & Well’s online store. In December, books will be available once again through Amazon.com and at bookstores around the country.

In the meantime, here’s a sampling of some 2007 updates covered in the book’s new chapter:

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 by Kim Collins.

Like most people, I hadn't spent much time thinking about HIV and AIDS. The issue hadn't touched me personally, nor anyone with whom I've worked as a birth doula and childbirth educator. I had no reason to question the accuracy of HIV tests nor to contemplate the consequences of an HIV positive diagnosis. Then I was asked to interview a mother dealing with the death of her child for this issue of the magazine, and I was introduced to Christine Maggiore, author and mother of two.

I first became aware of Christine and the debate over prescribing AZT to pregnant women, due to a memorable 2001 cover story in Mothering magazine. HIV positive and healthy, pregnant with her second child (due just over a month before I was due with my second child), Christine appeared on the cover, her abundant belly emblazoned with the universal "No" symbol- a circle with a diagonal line through it-over the letters "AZT." But somehow, I had missed the many interviews, sensationalized "Primetime" talk-shows and even plot lines in TV dramas that followed, often painting her as a lone, delusional voice on this subject for not only refusing to take the drug, but for questioning the entire HIV theory.

In preparation for the interview I started reading Christine's book, “What If Everything You Thought You Knew About AIDS Was Wrong?” Immediately, I saw many parallels between her experience of being diagnosed HIV positive and childbirth in America: the lack of truly informed consent and the pervasive feeling that it's not okay to ask too many questions or to say "No, thanks" to tests or protocols- that are sometimes flawed or have not been shown to improve outcomes--with matters only being complicated by healthcare economics.

An HIV statistical anomaly, Christine is a straight woman who has not abused drugs. She was a successful businesswoman who agreed to have an HIV test as part of her normal physical in 1992, at the age of 35, because it was the 'responsible' thing to do. Maggiore tested HIV positive and was told that she had five to seven years to live. In response, she became a public speaker and educator for several prominent AIDS groups.

About a year into her diagnosis, she retested at the request of a doctor who said she "didn't fit the profile of an AIDS patient." The result was a series of contradictory tests: indeterminate followed by positive, followed by negative, followed by positive. This unsettling experience caused Maggiore to question the accuracy of HIV tests and to ultimately question everything she was currently teaching people about AIDS.

In her research, Maggiore discovered studies published in the medical literature that showed HIV tests can cross react with antibodies to more than 60 different diseases and conditions including pregnancy, vaccinations and common viral infections resulting in "false positive" tests. She learned there is no universal standard for deciding what constitutes a positive result and no universal definition for AIDS.

In her book, Maggiore explains that the term "AIDS" is used to describe not one singular disease but a collection of long existing and common diseases, each with known causes-none related to the HIV virus-and established treatments. The diseases classified as AIDS change from year to year and vary from country to country.

She further explains that the probability of a false positive HIV test result, and the occurrence of the diseases grouped together as AIDS, are more common in areas where poverty-and all of the problems associated with rampant poverty-like unsafe drinking water, malnutrition, lack of basic medical care, and crowded living conditions, exist.

In spite of this information, Christine maintains that she is not on a crusade to recruit individuals away from a line of thinking that is working for them. Maggiore has said "...I can't say the tests actually test for HIV or any [HIV] specific marker, but it might put [someone's] mind at ease to take the test. This isn't about deciding for other people, it's about making information available so people can make decisions for themselves."

Regarding treatment, Maggiore saw that people who were taking AZT and other drugs were oftentimes much worse off than those, like herself, who were healthy and drug-free. During the 18 months she served on the board of one AIDS group, "Women at Risk," Maggiore witnessed every single woman on the board who was taking the drugs die. AZT, the first medication given to people with HIV, was actually developed for and rejected as a cancer treatment. Its label carries a skull and cross bones warning. More current medications act by destroying enzymatic functions.

Along with others, such as acclaimed microbiology professor and author Dr. Peter Duesberg, Maggiore began asking whether the road AIDS research and treatment was careening down was really the right one after all.

No longer feeling a part of the orthodox HIV/AIDS community, she began her own organization, Alive & Well AIDS Alternatives, a non-profit providing information to people who want to make informed choices about their health. As a result, Christine Maggiore became the poster child "AIDS dissident," not a title she chooses for herself or her work.

POSITIVE MOTHERHOOD

Christine is married to award-winning filmmaker, Robin Scovill, who remains HIV negative after over ten years of latex-free sex. When she was pregnant with their first child, Charlie, now nine, she went to several OBs and was either turned away or told she had to take AZT and have a cesarean birth.

Though initially she thought the idea of a midwife sounderd "medieval," Christine researched birth options "and decided [she] had to have a paradigm shift." She went on to find an experienced midwife who supported her decisions to avoid AZT and other drugs, give birth normally and nurse her children. Of the experience Christine says, "I'm just so thankful that the system tried to slap me down, because while laying there, I found out some pretty cool stuff."

Charlie was born healthy in 1998. Their second child, Eliza Jane (EJ) was born, also healthy and normal, in 2001. The family used Los Angeles pediatricians Dr. Paul Fleiss and Dr. Jay Gordon for their children, in addition to more holistic practitioners. Though aware that Christine had a positive diagnosis, the pediatricians never requested that the children be tested.

In the spring of 2005, at almost three and a half, Eliza Jane was under the weather for the first time ever with the stubborn cold going around school. She was seen by Drs Fleiss and Gordon, and then twice more by a pediatrician friend from out of state who was visiting. All three doctors pronounced EJ's lungs clear, oxygen levels fine and diagnosed a simple ear infection.

After a few days when Eliza Jane's ears didn't clear on their own, amoxicillin (a common antibiotic) was prescribed by the visiting pediatrician who examined Eliza Jane at home on Saturday, May 14. After the second dose, EJ vomited, a common side-effect of which the family had been made aware. Following the third dose, on day two of the regimen, Christine became concerned that EJ looked pale and was cold and asked Robin to call the doctor again. It was during this call that Eliza Jane collapsed and stopped breathing. Paramedics were called and revived her and then rushed her by ambulance to the hospital, where Emergency Room doctors ran exhaustive tests, including a CAT scan, two chest x-rays and a spinal tap in an attempt to diagnose what was wrong.

After four hours in the ER, Eliza Jane went into cardiac arrest and was pronounced dead on May 15. The EMT report said that cause of death was cardiac arrest, while the hospital attending physician suspected sepsis. With no explanation for her death, Eliza Jane was referred to the LA County Coroner for an autopsy.

The initial autopsy report, filed by Dr. S. Changsri, found no cause of death. It did note that all of EJ's vital organs were grossly enlarged with circulatory fluids, which would normally indicate a toxic reaction. After ten days of testing and no identified cause of death, the coroner's office asked Senior Deputy medical examiner, Dr. James Ribe, to conduct an exam.

Four months later, Dr. Ribe finalized his report with the conclusion that EJ had died of AIDS-related pneumonia. The family was alarmed and surprised at this conclusion, given that EJ's initial autopsy report and x-rays had shown no physical evidence of pneumonia. Learning that an investigator from the LA County Coroner's office had asked Dr. Fleiss if he knew about Maggiore's book and her position on HIV, caused Christine and Robin to speculate that Eliza Jane's death was viewed as "AIDS by association."

According to published reports in several Los Angeles newspapers, Dr. Ribe has been the subject of a number of reprimands by the District Attorney, and also subject to credibility challenges over his autopsy conclusions and court testimony in other cases.

Looking for answers, the family arranged to have Dr. Mohammed Al Bayati, a board-certified toxicologist and pathologist, review EJ's autopsy report. (Dr. Bayati is on the advisory board of Alive & Well AIDS Alternatives, Maggiore's non-profit organization.) He concluded that EJ had died from a fairly rare form of delayed anaphylactic shock in reaction to the antibiotics. Supporting his conclusion was the amount of displaced fluids in EJ's body, consistent with toxicity. In his opinion the sepsis caused multiple organ failure culminating in cardiac arrest.

A media storm ensued when Dr. Ribe's unreleased report was leaked to The Los Angeles Times. The article announced that Maggiore and Scovill were being placed under criminal investigation for negligence. Anticipating custody of son Charlie being jeopardized, they had him tested three times-once at home, once with Dr. Fleiss and once at Dr. Gordon's lab-and he was found to be HIV negative every time, just as Robin was. Despite three negative test results and a record of perfect health and school attendance, the Department of Child and Family Services stated they would take custody of Charlie unless his parents agreed to a fourth test. After a fourth negative test, DCFS kept the case open for several months before investigators were satisfied that Charlie was healthy and safe.

The original autopsy report from the LA coroner's office stated that an HIV test was done but did not include the results. Despite numerous requests by Maggiore's attorneys for lab evidence of her daughter's HIV status, the coroner's office has refused to provide this "absent a subpoena."

Regarding the cause of her daughter's death, Maggiore has said, "Essentially, the way it's been explained so far is that my daughter was remarkably immune suppressed but managed somehow to show no signs of that during the first three years and five months of her life. Then, suddenly and unusually, she developed an unseen, undetected case of AIDS pneumonia that even at her autopsy couldn't be found. There's a leap going on here that I'm not prepared to take. I want more information."

MOTHER COURAGE

Christine Maggiore and her family continue to fight to clear their names, having brought a lawsuit against the LA County Coroner's Office. Friends help maintain a website, www.justiceforej.com, where reports, interviews and updates can be found. Hate mail and scathing blogs have been balanced by support from celebrities, like HBO's Bill Maher and the rock band Foo Fighters, academics, doctors, and average people just touched by the story.

Christine remains healthy fifteen years after her original positive diagnosis-without the use of AIDS drugs. She and Robin continue their work and are upheld by a community of friends and neighbors as they raise their son Charlie and remember their brief, but blessed time, with Eliza Jane.

Underneath the story of Christine's journey as a person who has tested HIV positive and her advocacy work on behalf of all those testing positive there is, finally, the story of a mother losing her child. Where does she get the daily courage to continue her work and her life? Below is a small portion of my interview with Christine at her home in Los Angeles, conducted over the phone and through e-mail.

TMH: Losing a child is hard to think about or imagine. What keeps you going? What keeps you sane?

Christine Maggiore: Survival went from a moment to moment occurrence--I can't even use the word decision as it happened without my will or desire--to an hour by hour, and then day by day struggle, with blinding pain and bottomless despair. At first, it felt like the only reason I didn't die was that my heart kept beating. It was very hard to want to stay alive. The beautiful spring days following EJ's death were like an assault. Nights were torturous. I'd sit outside for hours in the darkness, feeling hollow and alone. For weeks, I couldn't breathe.

But my son was my north star and my husband was like my compass, they kept me from becoming lost in sadness. And we had so much help from friends, some of whom we didn't even know until after Eliza Jane died. For many weeks, our house was always full of life and love. People brought flowers and food, stayed late into the night, checked on us every day, made us dinner, played music, helped us laugh, let us cry, and shared stories of their own losses and survival. Robin, Charlie and I held on to each other while they held us.

When the media storm and police investigation started up four months later, we had a shelter of love and friendship built on the foundation of our truth. As time went on, I met intelligent, capable, compassionate mothers who had also lost children. I found them through friends and teachers at our school rather than in a support group. Knowing these women and their stories has helped me to understand that I am not on this path alone, that I, too, can reconstruct my broken heart and survive. I also understand that the absence becomes its own presence, that the pain will always be there and that I will learn to live with it.

Books have been of great help and comfort, in particular On Grief and Grieving, by Elizabeth Kubler Ross, Journey of Souls, by Dr. Michael Newton, and Expecting Adam, by Martha Beck. Since I couldn't speak to any of my friends about Eliza Jane once the police investigation began and I couldn't afford a therapist, I found a counselor who allowed me to defer payment. And here's an example of some of the magic EJ brings to my life: after several weeks of seeing this therapist, I learned she lost a four year-old son named Charlie who was born in December like Eliza Jane, and who died in May, the same month as EJ. I also learned that she specializes in cases involving legal and police matters. I found the perfect therapist by chance, by taking a chance. Some words of advice given to me: Be open to the magic of life and it will find you.

TMH: You have stated in other interviews that you have no regrets and have not questioned your convictions as a result of EJ's death. This speaks to me of incredible personal strength. Where do you think this strength comes from? Did you always have it?

CM: Regarding strength, I think we can all call forth tremendous strength and power when we need it. Finding that strength and power when your heart is shattered and everything seems impossible is the hard part, but it's always right there. I think you have to make yourself step forward despite the fear and the darkness with the faith that the path will be there and light will come.

With regard to the second part of your question, I don't believe I have "convictions," I believe I have knowledge about HIV and AIDS that remain open to challenge and correction. What tests my strength in this regard are people who make cruel comments and uninformed statements about my daughter's death and, after speaking out, won't engage in conversation or even answer questions. If my daughter's death has proved anything to me about HIV and AIDS, it's that reason and even decency are utterly absent from most discussions on these topics.

As far as regrets, I do not regret for a second that I declined the dictates of the AIDS mainstream with regard to toxic drugs, C-section births and formula feeding. As you may know, the coroner's office has refused to provide us with laboratory evidence of Eliza Jane's HIV status and, despite ideas about so-called HIV transmission, my son Charlie and my husband Robin both test negative. It's important to understand that they took tests only after it became apparent that our lack of participation in mainstream medical practices was being viewed as criminal behavior. I still have seen no indication there are HIV tests actually approved by the FDA for the specific intended purpose of diagnosing infection with HIV or any tests that have been validated by the direct isolation of HIV from positive testing individuals.

I absolutely regret not recognizing that EJ was having an adverse reaction to the antibiotic and not being able to save her.

TMH: Growing up, who influenced you to think so independently?

CM: From an early age, my father encouraged us to stand up for what we think is right, even if we're the first or only ones standing. I think our children learn a lot by seeing us help, speak up for and protect ourselves and others, especially when it's easier to be quiet, give in or turn the other way. Another valuable lesson my Dad taught by example: Be open to change and be able to be wrong.

TMH: Do you view your journey since your original HIV test as a blessing, curse or neither?

CM: I think it's a blessing any time we learn, grow, create new possibilities, and connect and share with others. Through my work in this area, I've met so many remarkable people and have had so many extraordinary adventures, like spending time in South Africa with President Thabo Mbeki and with Winnie Mandela and her family. Charlie and EJ's first experience of snow was when I did a TV show in New York. Charlie loved our recent trip to Mexico City, where I filmed three news segments for national television. Testing positive has made for a different life and more challenging life than the one I expected but a full and beautiful one, nonetheless.

TMH: Professionally and personally, has the death of EJ resonated in terms of how others with whom you work(ed) closely treat you? Have any sources of support disappointed or pleasantly surprised you?

CM: Professionally, I haven't encountered any person or group whose view of me became tainted by my daughter's death. The people and groups from any area of my life that disparage me are ones with no direct knowledge of me or my family. So, while it hurts that people talk or write about me as if I'm a fool or criminal, I recognize that those who do so are not well informed.

Countering that is all the support and encouragement from people I've never met who reach out to me after discovering the media response to my daughter's death. One example is an invitation to speak for an association of journalists in Washington, DC. They think my experience exemplifies a modern day version of a witch-hunt.

TMH: I assume you and your husband, Robin, have made decisions together yet he is seldom mentioned in regard to your health decisions and EJ's death. Why do you think the "story" is so focused on you, the mom?

CM: I think the stories focus on me for obvious reasons like I'm the one who tests positive and lives in health without the supposedly necessary, allegedly life-saving medication, and I'm the one who wrote the book and birthed the children, and I believe the focus is also singular for subtle reasons such as suggesting I stand alone, that I am an anomaly, unsupported personally or professionally or scientifically, which is not at all correct but creates more drama and poses far less challenges to mainstream beliefs.

TMH: In terms of protecting our children against allergic reaction to antibiotics, what have you learned?

CM: I learned too late that there are over 70 citations in the medical literature to adverse reactions caused by amoxicillin--including death--and that amoxicillin is among the top five drug reactions that prompt emergency room visits in the US according to a recent news article that appeared in the Los Angeles Times.

TMH: I've read your advice to pregnant, birthing and nursing women who may be uninsured or needing public assistance and how that can complicate matters. What advise do you have for woman and families not facing those challenges, but who can expect to have less and less choice about HIV and other medical testing/medical mandates?

CM: Become informed and stand up and speak out for informed choice. It's the only way to maintain choice and prevent mandates for testing and medication for a variety of questionable conditions.

TMH: I understand that you are unable to speak freely about your pending lawsuit against the Coroner's office, but is there any new information about the legal situation that you can share?

CM: Here's what I can say: my husband and I have filed a law suit against the LA County Coroner's office and deputy coroner Dr. James K. Ribe, whose conclusion that Eliza Jane died of AIDS stands in opposition to the physical evidence. In investigating our case with the LA County Coroner's office, we discovered the cases of three people currently serving life sentences because of Dr. Ribe's dishonesty. Our goal [with our law suit] is to shine a cleansing light on the LA County Coroner's office in order to arrive at truth and justice for our family and for those three people wrongly convicted of crimes they did not commit.

TMH: If you could say just one thing to readers about HIV and AIDS, what would that one thing be?

CM: There is so much more to the AIDS issue than what we think we know and, unfortunately, the scope of acceptable discussion has narrowed to the point of strangulation of new ideas and different possibilities. Solutions to problems begin with open investigation and dialogue and are created through access to information. AIDS is a problem with no safe and effective solution and no open investigation or dialogue. I think we need to start from the beginning together to create solutions that can truly be of help to people.

Famous Boxer Fights Conventional AIDS Views After Flip-Flop HIV Tests

A July 22 New York Times article reports that boxer Tommy Morrison is back in the ring after positive results on a series of so-called HIV tests ended a promising career as a heavy weight fighter back in 1996. This year, two separate blood tests show Morrison coming up negative, remarkable news that raises serious questions about the reliability of HIV tests. However, apart from the New York Times piece and brief mentions on sports blogs, the point that someone can inexplicably alternate between positive and negative has not made headlines.

The near silence on the subject of Morrison’s flip-flop HIV status may have something to do with the incredible contradictions involved in his case and the fact that Morrison, when given a chance to speak on the topic “derides conventional views on HIV and AIDS.”

According to documents obtained by the New York Times, Morrison registered antibody negative at a lab in Arizona, DNA negative in a blood test in Virginia, and positive for antibodies but negative for RNA at Specialty Labs in Valencia, California in tests conducted over the past few months.

Some medical experts blame the boxer rather than the tests for his inconsistent results. Dr. David Watson, chief ringside physician in Nevada where Morrison originally registered positive eleven years ago stopped just short of calling him a liar, remarking “I seriously, seriously doubt he would pass [as negative] with new testing.”

Other efforts to explain Morrison’s equivocating results end up in startling revelations about the unreliability of HIV diagnostics or sounding like nonsense. Dr. Michael Busch, a professor of laboratory medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, told the Times that there is a “biological basis” for testing false positive for antibodies to HIV “which make some people repeatedly test false positive,” while Dr. William Lathan, former medical director for the New York Athletic Commission offered his view that tests “are not saying Tommy is infectious,” but that “nobody can prove that he isn’t.”

Dr. Daniel Kuritzkes, a Harvard professor in charge of AIDS research at a Boston hospital said, “It’s hard to tell for sure what’s going on, but I suspect he was never HIV infected.” In 1996, a pathologist for Quest Diagnostics in Las Vegas declared Morrison’s results “unequivocally positive.”

Another startling inconsistency with regard to Morrison’s supposed HIV status: Despite what he describes as an “astronomical number of sexual partners,” no one with whom he has had relations, including his two ex-wives, test HIV positive.

Maybe the best news to come out of the fighter’s unsettling lab and life experiences is that more than a decade after testing positive and losing hope for any kind of future, Morrison is still alive and well. “The day they told me I was clinically dead, I didn't feel any different sitting in that chair than I do standing up here right now in the ring.”

(Sources: New York Times, 7/22/07, Morrison Says Error in HIV Test Hurt Career; www.sherdog.com and www.hotboxingnews.com accessed 7/23/07)

Anti-HIV Measure Causes Devastation in Africa

The Washington Post reports that a decade-long global initiative to discourage HIV positive mothers from breastfeeding caused a 20- fold increase in deaths among children in Botswana last year.

By pushing free formula as an AIDS prevention measure, health experts interfered with the once universal practice of breastfeeding, a plan “that left children more vulnerable to other, more immediate lethal diseases” such as diarrhea caused by consumption of septic water.

In 2006, after a season of heavy rains, government surveys of water pipes in 26 villages in northeastern Botswana found contamination in every one. Tests on sick children in the area revealed the presence of dangerous waterborne pathogens such as cryptosporidium and E coli. In one village alone, 30 percent of formula fed babies died that year while all those receiving breast-milk remained alive and well.

Formula feeding puts lives at risk even when clean water is available. Government clinics often run out, causing parents fearful of breast-feeding to give children diluted porridge or flour mixed with water.

Health officials now admit that formula promotions jeopardize the lives of both positive and negative children on the continent. “Everyone found that those who formula fed for the first six months of life really have problems,” said Hoosen Coovadia, a pediatrician from the University of Kwa-Zulu-Natal, South Africa. “The [children] get diarrhea, they get pneumonia, they get malnutrition, and they die.”

Campaigns that portray formula as a way to protect against HIV are particularly disturbing given a 1999 study published in the medical journal Lancet which proved infants of HIV positives mothers who breastfed exclusively for the first six months of life actually tested positive less frequently than infants of positive mothers who used formula exclusively. Although several other studies conducted since then confirm that exclusive breast-feeding results in lower rates of positivity and disease, most AIDS awareness programs omit this important fact. They also fail to note that HIV has never been directly purified from human breast milk.

Underscoring the unnecessary nature of the deaths, the Post cited one study comparing the outcomes of breastfed and formula-fed babies of HIV positive mothers in Botswana in which researchers found that “formula-fed babies were more likely to die.”

After handing out millions of packs of free formula in the name of AIDS prevention, UNICEF is finally recognizing that “the nutrition and antibodies in breast milk are so crucial to young children that they outweigh the small risk of transmitting HIV.” A late but laudable admission that exemplifies a huge inconsistency in the HIV theory: How can the antibodies so crucial to children’s health also be used to diagnose deadly disease?

(Reference: The Washington Post, 7/22/07, Anti-AIDS Measure Backfires in Africa)

The inside story of how leading AIDS experts walked off the set of a national news program when given a chance to face off with “AIDS dissidents” in a live debate.

By Dr. Charles Geshekter, Emeritus Professor of History, California State University, Chico

In anticipation of the 17th International AIDS Conference that will convene in Mexico City in August 2008, the popular Mexican journalist and well-known television personality Ricardo Rocha began reading articles and books about HIV and AIDS which led to serious questions about the definition, cause, cure, and prevention of AIDS.

Over the past 25 years in Mexico, as elsewhere throughout the world, the AIDS orthodoxy had spent billions of dollars in the media, for education, and on research. Their drumbeat, homogenous message insisted that sexual activities caused AIDS, that the antibodies for HIV predicted the onset of a disease rather than signaling that the body had mounted an immune response, that extremely toxic AIDS drugs were actually good for one’s health, that breast-feeding was dangerous for infants of HIV positive mothers, and that behavior modification schemes were the key to containing and managing the “AIDS pandemic.”

Rocha familiarized himself with these orthodox assumptions, found many of them unsupported by the data, and was bold enough to pose hard questions about them.

Historic Broadcast of AIDS Controversy

By late 2006, Rocha’s research inspired him to produce three one-hour segments on his investigative news program, Reporte 13, which is carried on the 2nd largest Mexican television network, TV-Azteca. The three programs were entitled “All the Truth About AIDS,” “Has Anyone Seen HIV? and “AIDS is Curable.” Each broadcast featured a balanced but sympathetic treatment of criticism and skepticism about the infectious viral theory of AIDS.

The segments included two medical experts critical of the HIV hypothesis--author and infectious disease specialist Dr Roberto Giraldo of New York, and Dr Juan Jose Flores of Veracruz who has successfully treated hundreds of HIV positive and immune compromised patients without using toxic AIDS drugs. The programs also included interviews with “AIDS dissident” Professor Peter Duesberg of UC Berkeley; Dr Roberto Stock, a PhD researcher at a leading Mexican university, author Christine Maggiore who remains healthy and medication free after testing positive in 1992, and a number of healthy HIV positives from various parts of Mexico who quit or have never taken AIDS drugs.

Angry AIDS Activists Respond

Controversy immediately erupted following the broadcasts as leading members of the AIDS orthodoxy in Mexico expressed outrage and condemned Rocha’s programs. In the print media and on radio and television, the orthodoxy blasted Rocha, claiming the information he presented was wrong, outdated, and a danger to public health. Furious at him and his station for daring to broadcast the views of AIDS critics, top figures in the Mexican AIDS industry demanded that they be given “the right of response.”

Rocha recognized this as a ludicrous request since for 25 years their singular viewpoint had maintained a rigid monopoly. Most all information, data and claims about AIDS describe it as an infectious viral disease. Nevertheless, in reply to their charges, TV-Azteca invited the AIDS authorities to participate in a live, two hour televised debate with Rocha as moderator. Rocha grasped the importance of having such a dramatic program on Mexican television and sought to stage a carefully organized event that would assemble four speakers from the orthodox side of AIDS in the studio together with four leading dissidents. The debate would be a rarity in the annals of AIDS science and education.

Official Flip Flopping

At first, four government AIDS officials agreed to participate in a televised debate, but then withdrew as the mid-February 2007 event approached. When TV-Azteca insisted they would air the debate without them – and show four empty chairs in the studio bearing their names - the orthodox representatives threatened to protest the taping and even vowed to block the entrance to the studio!

Rocha and executives at TV-Azteca warned that they would not be intimidated by such threats, and that the taping would proceed as planned, with or without the participation of AIDS officials. On February 15th, a few days before the scheduled program, the four participants relented and agreed to debate, but with the stipulation that they be given their own separate one-hour program beforehand.

After considerable negotiations, Rocha acceded to the orthodoxy’s demand for their own pre-debate program, and everyone agreed with the clear and explicit understanding that immediately after that one-hour program was taped, the two sides would assemble in the studio for the original two-hour, structured debate.

Rocha identified four AIDS dissidents for the program – Robert Giraldo, a Colombian physician working in New York; Dr. Roberto Stock, a biologist working at a research institute in Cuernavaca, Mexico; Christine Maggiore, a leading AIDS activist from Los Angeles; and Dr. Charles Geshekter, a professor of African history at California State University, Chico.

After considerable hesitation among the orthodoxy, the Secretary of the Department of Health (Dr. Jose Angel Cordova) and his Undersecretary Dr. Mauricio Hernandez assured Rocha that on Sunday, February 18th there would be four representatives at TV-Azteca to engage in the debate with their critics.

Thus, the stage was set for an unprecedented public debate about AIDS in the country that was the host venue for the next international AIDS conference.

TV Debate is On

Giraldo, Stock, Maggiore and I assembled at the Radisson Hotel Paraiso’s conference room early Saturday evening, February 17th for a meeting with Rocha, two translators and the program’s producers. Rocha explained that he would pose four basic questions, then give each side a total of approximately 12 minutes to reply. That worked out to around three minutes per speaker.

The four questions were: 1) What exactly is AIDS? 2) Is AIDS contagious? 3) Is there or is there not evidence proving the existence of HIV? 4) Can we cure AIDS?

Upon hearing the questions and learning of the format, I casually predicted that the orthodox group might retreat from confrontation on these issues, imagining how they might very well tape their one hour pre-debate program, have second thoughts about the actual debate to follow, and leave the studios without facing us. No one gave any credence to my wild speculation.

The entire staff from TV-Azteca left the hotel by 9:30 p.m., allowing we four dissidents time to divide up our labors and to exchange a diversity of interdisciplinary information. We bantered back and forth deciding who would answer each question, agreed on rough allocations of air-time minutes, found time to briefly quarrel among ourselves, but returned to our rooms by 11:00 p.m., since we needed to get dressed, have breakfast and be ready to go to the studio by 8:00 a.m. In the morning at breakfast, we admitted that we had remained awake for several more hours, refining and honing our presentations.

Count Down at TV Station

We got to the studios by 8:45 a.m. and were immediately sequestered in a separate viewing room where we would be able to watch the presentations and responses from the orthodoxy as they aired live. Due to the inexplicably and unprofessionally late arrival of AIDS orthodox representative Dr. Patricia Volkow, the entire day’s shooting schedule was pushed back by over an hour.

Instead of the promised four, we saw there were actually five prominent members of the Mexican AIDS orthodoxy in the studio, seated on separate chairs in a semi-circle with Ricardo Rocha facing them: Dr. Juan Calva Mercado, Dr. Juan Sierra-Madero, Dr. Luis Enrique Soto, Dr. Luis Xochiua, and the aforementioned Dr. Volkow.

As each one was being introduced, we had a chance to study their faces and watch their body language. They all seemed remarkably brittle, stiff and not at all comfortable. Dr. Volkow who had a reputation for sarcastic dismissals of any dissidents’ questions ironically appeared to be the most awkward, as she averted the camera, looked away frequently, showed pursed lips and a sullen demeanor, seeming altogether nervous. Collectively, their faces exuded an angry, impatient and arrogant state of mind. We would soon realize why.

Sabotage Plan Unfolds

Dr. Soto kept his arms crossed tightly over his chest as he peered angrily into the camera. He and others offered only the most general cliches in answer to Rocha’s specific questions. As the questions became more difficult, the five speakers resorted to venomous insults and unprofessional slurs to attack the dissidents. They called us “ unethical quacks,” insisted that AIDS was incurable, and huffed that for anyone to suggest otherwise “was immoral.”

Like robots, they repeated the familiar mantra that using condoms, practicing sexual abstinence and ingesting so-called anti-retroviral drugs were proven ways to “manage the AIDS epidemic.”

They described miraculous scenes where AIDS patients whom they claimed were at death’s door, took life-saving drugs, then arose Lazarus-like from their beds. Although their claims remain utterly undocumented in the medical literature, Rocha tolerated their smug insinuations for the moment.

Whenever Rocha peppered his guests with questions or disputed their claims, they glibly responded with scorn, insisting, “There are no doubts.” Dr. Soto proclaimed, “We are doctors and we love to debate.” But a few minutes later, Dr. Volkow qualified it by intoning that “We cannot debate the undebatable.”

AIDS Officials Walk Off Set

With about 12-15 minutes left in the program, Rocha was pursuing a line of questions that disputed the orthodoxy’s claims about the life-saving efficacy of certain drugs, including AZT and Nevirapine. In response to the AIDS official’s dogmatic insistence that they were right about the drugs, Rocha casually reminded them that there would be ample opportunity to pursue this contentious topic in the upcoming debate format that would follow.

That was when members of the orthodoxy nonchalantly admitted that, despite their earlier agreement, they would not in fact remain for the scheduled debate. Rocha’s face was expressionless as he leaned forward to make absolutely sure he had heard them correctly. They confirmed that, despite their initial promise to participate in the debate provided they were give a one hour program of their own, they would not stay to face off with the dissidents.

The next 15 minutes were priceless and unprecedented. As the cameras zoomed in on the nervous and edgy faces of the orthodox speakers, Rocha appealed to their sense of professionalism to honor the promise they had made. The officials rejected this appeal.

Rocha next challenged their sense of ethics: They had agreed to debate and were now reneging after calling the dissidents unethical. Shifting nervously in their chairs, they were obstinate and unyielding. When Rocha tried to shame and even embarrass them as unreliable and untruthful, they remained resolute. They would not debate.

With a placid facial expression and in a calm professional voice, Rocha asked an assistant to bring his cell phone and, while still on camera, dialed the Undersecretary of Health, Dr. Mauricio Hernandez to tell him about the blatant double-cross by the AIDS orthodoxy. After leaving a message for Hernandez, Rocha returned to grilling his guests for the remaining 10 minutes of the program.

From our vantage post in the separate viewing room, we cheered on Rocha’s tough questions, expressed shock at name calling and the unscrupulous deception by the orthodox spokesmen, and wondered aloud if we might somehow confront them elsewhere in the studios. But the orthodox speakers scurried out of the building through a back exit, before we were ushered into the main studio where we found host Ricardo Rocha still fuming, trying to decide how next to proceed.

Debate With Four Empty Chairs

As promised, Rocha left the four empty chairs of the orthodox speakers on the set, with their name cards prominently displayed on each of the vacant seats. Taping a follow-up sequence to the just-completed debacle, Ricardo invited the four dissidents to give impressions of the “walkout” we had just witnessed. With a combination of pity, disappointment and anger, we condemned their unscientific, and cowardly behavior.

In place of the debate, we four dissidents spent an entire hour responding to the questions Rocha imagined our opponents would have asked had they kept their promise to debate. Our responses were brief, focused and evidence-based. When it was all over, Ricardo paid us high compliments, and invited participants and crew to lunch at a superb restaurant. Not only did the AIDS orthodoxy miss a perfect opportunity to prove us wrong, they also missed out on a great meal!

Lessons Learned

The antics of the AIDS officials and the debate episode were instructive in several ways. First, it revealed to a mass audience how members of the AIDS establishment routinely denounce their critics but run from a chance to prove them wrong, preferring instead to hurl insults from the safety of their own echo chambers, websites and journals. In this instance, millions of televisions viewers saw how they fled rather than dare to meet face-to-face in a setting where their claims could be scrutinized and debated.

Secondly, the program showed how defenders of the orthodoxy imagine themselves as beyond reproach, doubt or criticism. It also revealed their extraordinary lack of confidence in the thinking skills and judgments of ordinary people, whom they apparently regard as impressionistic children too naďve, stupid or susceptible to bad ideas to handle a frank discussion of the facts. The overt paternalism of the AIDS orthodoxy has probably never been more apparent than it was on the set of Reporte 13.

Despite a 25-year tidal wave of slogans, papers, books, news reports, conferences, symbols, and celebrity spokesmodels, Rocha’s program made the orthodoxy’s unspoken fears of the slightest challenge to the HIV paradigm obvious. For once, viewers could see how officials avoid any discussion about AIDS that may lead to questions or doubts. Walking off the set was tantamount to an admission that 60 minutes of inquiry could cause the whole paradigm to collapse and crumble.

I salute Ricardo Rocha and TV-Azteca for their resolute commitment to a diversity of viewpoints about AIDS. They had the courage to stand up to the intellectual thuggery that characterizes the dogmatists of the AIDS establishment thereby showing millions of viewers why the infectious viral theory of AIDS is a flawed and fruitless concept whose time has passed.

[Note from Alive & Well: English dubbed versions of the three historic news broadcasts and AIDS debate will be available on DVD sometime in 2008. Please watch this web site for news updates.]