December 1 was World AIDS Day - an annual landmark when we take stock of the current HIV/AIDS situation across the globe and assess how well or badly we are doing in the management of, possibly, the scariest disease in the world. It is the perfect time, we thought, to bring to the fore certain questions that the scientific community, on the whole, has been trying to sweep under the carpet. Questions that attack the very validity of the HIV -> AIDS hypothesis and, as a result, the very nature of the disease and the approach currently employed to combat its spread.At the outset, let us, at Hafta, say that we discourage high-risk behaviour like unprotected sex, multiple sexual partners, drug abuse, sharing of hypodermic needles and transfer of unscreened blood. Whatever be the learnings we take away from the text below we do not condone the above behaviours as they raise the individual’s risk of contracting and transferring Sexually Transmitted Disease(STDs). Also, we do not, necessarily, endorse any of the opinions that we present below. We present them because we feel Science is best served by debate and that if an alternative explanation to the AIDS conundrum exists pursuing that may hold the key to a possible solution. A large part of our readership may be offended by the hypotheses and the questions we raise. This indignation will be, mainly, because what we suggest goes against widely accepted dogma on HIV/AIDS. We urge you to question how generally accepted wisdom is formed. We urge you to question the financial, political and personal motivations involved and, though we don’t ask you to accept any alternative theories as true, we ask you to keep an open mind. Many of you will call us pseudo-scientists. We can live with that. What we couldn’t live with is the possibility that we are, yet again, fighting a war against an enemy that may not exist and that the resources employed may be better deployed elsewhere.
An estimated 38.6 million adults and children were living with AIDS at the end of 2005, an increase of over 30% over 1997. These statistics are part of a report compiled by UNAIDS, the Joint United Nations Program co-sponsored by the U.N., World Health Organization and World Bank. What is most disturbing is that countries like Uganda, which was considered a model for AIDS prevention and education, have seen a dramatic upswing in the number of cases reported. Globally the increase in cases reported over 2000 has been about 30%. AIDS has killed more than 25 million people. Surely a global epidemic of unheralded proportions is on the loose. Or is it?
The Immune System - 101
The body’s second line of defence - after the skin - are the White Blood Cells, also called lymphocytes. They are produced in the bone marrow and circulate along with the blood and in the lymphatic system. Some of these white blood cells are called ‘B’ cells. Other lymphocytes pass through the Thymus (an endocrine gland located near the heart) and become ‘T’ cells. Thee are several types of ‘T’ cells, each named after the number of the test that identifies it. For instance, T4 cells are also known as “helper” T cells. They scan the body looking for anything foreign they don’t recognize and then notify the body about the invader. For instance they warn against possible infection in case of wounds, microbial invasion and organ transplants.
Next, the B cells manufacture antibodies to fight any future intrusion by the same invader. This is the theory behind vaccines. A very small amount of the disease organism is introduced in the body intentionally; the T4 cells alert the immune system; the B cells create the antibody against the, say, smallpox bacteria; and the body is now ready to defend against any future smallpox invasion. In the meantime, while the antibody is being produced for future use, Killer T-cells are also released by the immune system to destroy cells in the body which are presently infected by the outside organism. The only problem with Killer T-cells is that they have to be calmed down at some point or the powerful immune system might damage its own body (called “autoimmune disease”). So there is another kind of T cell - the T8 “suppressor” cells - whose job it is to stop the immune response and call off the Killers. In a normal, healthy body, there are about 1,000 T4 cells per microlitre of blood, and the ratio of T4 (”helper”) cells to T8 (”suppressor”) cells is 2:1.
Immune Deficiency Syndrome is a breakdown of this system. Again, not a lot is known for certain about the different kinds of immune deficiency diseases. There are cases where the total number of T cells is so reduced (less than 200 T-cells per microlitre of blood) that there are simply not enough to do their job. Or sometimes the ratio of T4 to T8 cells is thrown out of balance so much that the major message getting to the body is to “suppress” the immune system rather than activate it. Or perhaps the T4 “helper” cells remain high enough in numbers, but stop performing their function for some unknown reason. Or something interferes with the orders to send out the Killers.
Immune Deficiency Syndrome is not a new disease. It has been recognized by the medical profession for many years; and its three main causes are also well-known: malnutrition, sleep deprivation, and intentional interference with the immune system through the use of drugs - for instance, in organ transplants (to force the body to accept a foreign substance), and in cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy. This intentional interference is known as “iatrogenic,” meaning “caused by the doctor.” What happens to a human body when the immune system can no longer function properly is quite clear: disease results, either from an outside invader the body can no longer fight off, or from one of the millions of bacteria, viruses, protozoan parasites, or fungi we all carry with us every day of our lives. These are called “opportunistic diseases,” since they would not occur unless the opportunity arose due to the malfunction of the normal immune response.
HIV and AIDS - A Historical Perspective
In 1981, in Los Angeles, California, immunologist Michael Gottlieb tested the blood of a patient being treated by a colleague and found a very low number of T4 “helper” cells. An open lung biopsy then performed on the patient disclosed Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia. The patient soon died. By May of that year, Gottlieb and his colleagues had treated five similar patients and reported their work in the June 5, 1981, issue of the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report published by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). All of them had Immune Deficiency Syndrome and active opportunistic diseases. The only problem was that there was no known cause for the immune deficiency. None of them was suffering from malnutrition or sleep deprivation, and none was being treated with immunosuppressive drugs prior to coming down with an opportunistic disease. In short, they were suffering from Immune Deficiency Syndrome that had been “acquired” from some unknown cause.
The search was on for the source of this pandemic. Virtually every research scientist in every field started looking for the cause of AIDS. Bacteriologists sought a bacterial agent (as in Tuberculosis). Virologists looked for a virus (as in Polio). Public health officials searched for an environmental cause (as in Salmonella or Scurvy). And they all had a set of rules to determine whether or not the theories they proposed could be the actual cause of AIDS. These rules had been in effect and accepted by medical/science researchers for over 100 years. They’re called Koch’s Postulates, after Robert Koch, who first put them in writing. They are as under:
1. The germ must be found in the affected tissues in all cases of the disease.
2. The microbe must be isolated from other germs and from the patient’s body.
3. The microbe must cause sickness when injected into healthy hosts.
4. The same germ must be again isolated from the newly diseased person.
Research and testing such as this takes time and money and equipment and support. In the early 1980s, the virologists commanded most of the money and attention. The apparent success of Jonas Salk and the polio virus/vaccine in the 1950s and ’60s had given the virus hunters the edge over the others in terms of standing in the profession, credence for their theories, and money and laboratory space. Their most recent efforts had been to find a viral cause for cancer, which resulted in the discovery of “retroviruses.” (The virus later called “HIV” is a retrovirus.)
In late 1982, a Frenchman was diagnosed with cytomegalovirus - one of the opportunistic diseases. He had other symptoms of general debility, fatigue, and enlarged lymph nodes, and was almost certainly an AIDS case. Tissues from his body were sent to The Pasteur Institute, where Luc Montagnier began searching for signs of a retrovirus. On January 23, 1983, he found one, and called it LAV (Lymphadenopathy-Associated Virus). But this was just one retrovirus found in the tissues of just one patient, and it had not been tested to find out if it met Koch’s Postulates. So Luc Montagnier was not prepared to call it the cause of AIDS. It was only a possibility. Montagnier published his findings in May of 1983 so that other researchers could test and duplicate and corroborate his results, as is the standard procedure in any medical and scientific research. In July of 1983, the Pasteur Institute also sent a sample of the LAV virus to Robert Gallo, head of the prestigious National Institutes of Health (NIH) in the United States.
Skipping Koch’s Postulate Number One for the moment, Gallo tried to grow the LAV virus in his own lab (Koch’s Postulate Number Two), but was originally not able to do so. Another sample had to be sent from France in September; and by December, Gallo’s lab was successfully cultivating LAV.
But Gallo was already immersed in his own theory of what caused AIDS. A few years earlier, in his search for the cause of cancer, Gallo had discovered two retroviruses that looked similar, which he called HTLV-1 and HTLV-2 (Human T-cell Leukaemia Virus). In December of 1983, he submitted a paper for publication proposing the theory that an HTLV retrovirus was the cause of AIDS.
The logic here is a little hard to follow. Leukaemia is a form of cancer. Cancer is widely known and accepted to be an abnormal and uncontrollable multiplication of cells, which then form tumours. This means that a Leukaemia virus, such as HTLV-1 or -2, should cause the T-cells to multiply, not decrease, as found in AIDS.
Sometime between December 1983 and April 1984, Robert Gallo claims he made another new discovery - a third retrovirus in the HTLV family, which he called HTLV-3. But rather than submitting and publishing his research for others to verify, he chose another venue.
On April 23, 1984, Margaret Heckler (Secretary of Health and Human Services - a cabinet member in Ronald Reagan’s administration) called a press conference in Washington, D.C. and introduced Robert Gallo, who announced to the world that he had found the cause of AIDS: his new retrovirus, HTLV-3. He even showed pictures of HTLV-1, -2, and -3 to those in attendance. Unfortunately, HTLV-3 didn’t look anything like HTLV-1 or HTLV-2, and it was hard to see how they could be of the same family. As it turned out, the picture of HTLV-3 was actually a picture of the LAV virus sent to Gallo by Luc Montagnier of the Pasteur Institute.
This declaration also ended the government’s possible application of the discovery by NIH and CDC researchers between 1981 and 1983 that recreational drugs caused major immune dysfunction. This discovery appeared to offer an opportunity for curing AIDS. Secretary Heckler, who was not a medical professional, probably never heard of this earlier research. Dr. Gallo appears to have used his NIH status to convince Secretary Heckler with incomplete information, and thereby hijacked the nation’s health agenda for his own profit. One can not fault Ms. Heckler, because she was not a medical doctor or researcher. However, she should have consulted many other scientists for confirmation.
In science, a researcher normally publishes in a peer-reviewed scientific journal before public announcements are made. Peer-review enables other scientists who are also experts in a field to evaluate the new evidence before it is publicized to ensure accuracy and reliability. Peer-review is medical science’s quality-control system. However, Dr. Gallo and his colleagues bypassed the peer-review process to give inaccurate information to Secretary Heckler who was not qualified to evaluate the weaknesses of their research. Dr. Gallo’s studies examined relatively small, specially selected groups that failed to accurately represent the condition of all people who had HIV and AIDS. This rush to judgement has had horrific consequences.
Dr. Gallo left NIH in disgrace. He was accused of serious unethical scientific behaviour. For instance, in science, credit for a new discovery is a major issue that demands the highest level of integrity. Dr. Gallo claimed to be the sole discoverer of HIV. However, Dr. Luc Montagnier of the Pasteur Institute sent Gallo the sample from which he made his “discovery.” After heated international legal action, the Presidents of France and the USA officially recognized both Dr. Gallo and Dr. Montagnier as the co-discoverers of HIV. At that time, they both claimed HIV was the only cause of AIDS. Today, there is still no credible research that proves HIV causes AIDS.
At last, the cause of AIDS had been discovered. Granted, it was a Leukaemia virus that should send the T-cell count out the roof instead of plummeting toward zero. Granted, HTLV-3 had not been found in every AIDS patient - or even one AIDS patient (Koch’s Postulate Number One). Granted, no one else had had the opportunity to isolate and grow it in their own labs (Koch’s Postulate Number Two). And granted, no animal testing had been done to see if HTLV-3 would cause AIDS if introduced into a healthy body (Koch’s Postulate Number Three).
But the search was over. The cause of AIDS had been found. It was discovered by Robert Gallo. Or was it? The French didn’t think so. The picture of Gallo’s HTLV-3 was indisputably a picture of Montagnier’s LAV virus. And so began a three-year, ultra-high-level, diplomatic negotiation between the U.S. and France that ended in 1987 with an agreement that the cause of AIDS had been jointly discovered by both countries.
Who cares? It should only be important that the cause of AIDS had been found, and now lives could be saved. But that wasn’t the issue. You see, on the very same day that Gallo announced at his press conference that he had found the cause of AIDS, he filed a U.S. patent application for the blood test that would detect the HTLV-3 virus. This patent would be worth about $100 million a year in sales and $100,000 personally to Gallo. The French had also filed a patent request in 1983 for the blood test for their LAV virus, but it had never been approved in the U.S. The issue, as usual, was money.
And there was another problem. In Gallo’s patent documentation, he stated under oath - as is required - that the virus could be massed produced for the tests within indefinitely growing, “immortal” T-cells. But isn’t the cause of AIDS supposed to kill T-cells?
Despite these glaring inconsistencies, and the lack of any scientific or research evidence, and the absence of any conformity to Koch’s Postulates, and the inability of any of his peers to make independent verification of his claims, Robert Gallo was a hero. He had discovered the cause of AIDS - the HTLV-3 virus, as he called it - or the LAV virus, as the French called it. To settle this dispute, in early 1987 an international committee came up with a new name for the virus: Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV). The name itself solidified the relationship of this new retrovirus to the disease called AIDS, although no scientific evidence had yet been presented that there was any relationship at all - much less a causal one.
Secretary Heckler’s HIV/AIDS declaration was extraordinary because the US government usually demands examination of numerous published scientific reports before making an important announcement, especially far reaching ones that lead to huge expenditures. The US taxpayers have spent approximately $3 billion annually on AIDS research since 1984 for a total exceeding $50 billion in 2000. However, for the last 20 years there has been no progress in curing AIDS. Given the medical establishment’s lack of success, why has NIH completely ignored the alternative explanations for AIDS causality suggested by over 400 top scientists worldwide?
The Inconsistencies
By means of press releases to the public media, it was purported that AIDS was caused by HIV, even though HIV had not been found in every case of AIDS and had not been proven to cause AIDS in test animals. It had also not been proven to have any effect on the T-cells or human immune system, even though AIDS was supposed to be an immune deficient disease. And to add insult to injury, AIDS was declared to be highly contagious (infectious) and transmitted by sexual contact.
Tall claims, but all the evidence is to the contrary. Let us have another look at Koch’s Postulates:
The germ must be found in the affected tissues in all cases of the disease - In all the research that has been done, no particle of the virus called HIV can be found anywhere in the tissues of most AIDS patients. What has been found in a percentage of AIDS patients is the antibody against the virus called HIV. In fact, the famous HIV blood test does not test for the virus itself, but for the HIV antibody. In simple terms, someone who has tested HIV Positive has not been found to have the HIV virus, but to have the antibodies against HIV.
Having the antibody against a virus means that the body’s immune system - at some point in the past - detected the presence of the virus called HIV by means of its T4 “helper” cells, sent out the Killer T-cells to destroy all traces of the active virus itself (which is why no active HIV virus can be found in most HIV Positive AIDS patients), and developed special agents (antibodies) to combat any future harm from this particular invader. In short, being HIV Positive means that the body’s immune system was functioning perfectly at the time, and all threats from whatever the virus called HIV might do had been neutralized within weeks after “infection.”
In addition, there have been over 4000 reported cases of AIDS where the patient was HIV Negative - meaning that not only did they not have the virus called HIV, but they also didn’t have the HIV antibodies.
And there may be many more HIV Negative AIDS patients. It’s difficult to give exact figures or percentages because only a small portion of diagnosed AIDS cases are tested for HIV. For instance, from 1985 to 1989, only seven percent (7%) of all AIDS cases in New York and San Francisco were tested for HIV, even though these two cities contributed over one-third of all AIDS cases in the U.S. that year.
But the question of how many AIDS cases might have tested HIV Negative is moot. If there is even one case of AIDS without active HIV, then HIV fails Koch’s Postulate Number One and cannot be the cause of AIDS.
The microbe must be isolated from other germs and from the patient’s body - Let us give Robert Gallo this one although there is much to suggest that HIV is almost impossible to cultivate in isolation. Also, there are suggestions that Robert Gallo also had to steal the special T-cell culture “HUT78″ required to grow HIV in his own lab.
The microbe must cause sickness when injected into healthy hosts - Many attempts have been made to make the virus called HIV meet this criterion, and all have failed. For example, out of 150 lab chimpanzees who have been injected with purified HIV since 1984, none has yet developed AIDS. Out of 5,000,000 medical professionals and AIDS researchers working with and treating more than 400,000 AIDS patients in the last ten years, there is not one case (other than anecdotal) in the scientific literature of a health care worker who contracted AIDS from a patient. Out of 15,000 haemophiliacs in the U.S. infected with the virus called HIV prior to blood testing in 1984, fewer than two percent (2%) develop AIDS each year, and their wives have not developed AIDS.
But if the virus called HIV doesn’t cause AIDS in animals or in whole human bodies, what about in individual human cells? Robert Gallo, in his patent application, claimed he was growing HIV in healthy T cells. In fact, the HIV antibody blood test is made from virus that is mass-produced in T cells which continue to grow, rather than die. According to Gallo himself, the virus called HIV does not kill the very T cells it must kill in order to cause immune deficiency. Rather, T cells and HIV seem to grow happily side-by-side.
The fourth postulate is inapplicable simply because the third is not satisfied. Collectively that means that HIV fails 3 of the 4 postulates. Some parts of the medical community will tell you that Koch’s Postulates are outdated. We only ask how convenient the timing is for such an admission.
Is HIV contagious?
To be called “infectious” or “contagious,” a disease must meet criteria similar to Koch’s Postulates. For example, Farr’s Law says that infectious diseases spread exponentially. In other words, the number of cases of a new epidemic will start small, then explode into the population as rapidly as the microbes can be spread from one person to another. The rise and fall of every epidemic can be plotted on a bell curve, increasing drastically in the early stages and decreasing just as rapidly in the later stages.
While the number of cases of AIDS might conform to a Bell curve (depending on which AIDS definition is in vogue at the time), the incidence of the virus called HIV certainly does not. In fact, the number of HIV Positive people in the United States has held steady at approximately 1,000,000 since testing for HIV antibodies first started in 1984. (Medical science normally interprets this kind of statistical behaviour to mean that HIV is an old virus, rather than something appearing on the scene in the last couple of decades.) In fact, recently. the CDC has recast this figure at a lower value of 800,000. If HIV were contagious, it would have to be multiplying exponentially, which it is not.
In addition, if HIV were contagious, we would see geographical “clusters” of HIV Positives, as the microbe infected those nearby. However, there is no “cluster” pattern for HIV.
If HIV is not contagious, is AIDS? No, it can’t be. The first epidemiological law of viral and microbial diseases holds that men and women must be affected equally, because no virus or microbe can discriminate between genders. In the United States and Europe, more than ninety percent (90%) of AIDS cases are male.
For either HIV or AIDS to be contagious, Farr’s Law and epidemiological law must be ignored the same way Koch’s Postulates have been ignored to claim HIV as the cause of AIDS. And if AIDS is not contagious, it can’t be transmitted to anybody by any means, including sex, no matter what anyone might tell you. Period.
What, in Heaven’s name, is going on?
Unfortunately, it’s very hard to say what the real story is. There have been so many changes in the definition of AIDS and so much manipulation of statistics that it’s extremely difficult to separate fact from fiction. For example, the Centers for Disease Control originally defined AIDS as the appearance of one or more opportunistic diseases caused by an underlying immune system defect. Then in 1985, after Robert Gallo announced his miraculous discovery, the CDC revised its AIDS definition to require that the patient be Positive for HIV antibodies. It also required that there must be a low number of T4 “helper” cells or a low ratio of T4 to T8 cells to prove immune deficiency.
This meant a lot of lab work and expensive tests, and doctors in the field were not too happy. So the CDC changed their minds again in 1987. Now you needed no evidence of malfunctioning T-cells. Nor did you need an HIV test. If you had one of the opportunistic diseases, you were considered to have AIDS, and you were simply assumed to be HIV Positive. On the other hand, if you had an opportunistic disease and a laboratory-verified low T-cell count, but tested HIV Negative, you were still classified as an AIDS patient.
To add to the confusion, the CDC began expanding its list of AIDS diseases to include more than just the opportunistic infections. Kaposi’s sarcoma, certain kinds of lymphoma (cancer), dementia (mental deterioration), and wasting syndrome (losing weight and body mass) had begun appearing in many of the diagnosed AIDS patients. Even though none of these diseases had anything to do with a suppressed immune system, by 1987 they were all AIDS diseases by definition.
Kaposi’s sarcoma quickly became the hallmark disease of AIDS, with its ugly lesions on the chest and face and mouth. This was a little surprising, since Kaposi’s sarcoma (KS) had always been defined as cancerous lesions on the lower legs and limited to elderly men of specific Jewish or Italian background. Apparently the AIDS lesions looked so similar to Kaposi’s sarcoma that someone just adopted the name. However, recent research has proven that what has been called KS in AIDS patients is not a cancer at all, but in fact disappears totally from the patient just before death (which no cancer does).
Between 1987 and 1993, the CDC decided to add more non-opportunistic diseases to the list for AIDS, this time including infections like tuberculosis, recurrent pneumonia, and cervical cancer. All in all, the list now contains 30 different diseases.
Who gets AIDS?
There are 800,000 people in the United States who are HIV Positive. We know for a fact that over half of them have not developed AIDS (they aren’t sick) in 16 years, despite the warnings from the National Institutes of Health and the CDC in the 1980’s that AIDS would “explode” within a year or two. Then it was 5 years before you’d get AIDS. Then 10 years. And now, for every year that goes by without these HIV Positives getting AIDS, the CDC adds another year to the “latency” period of HIV (the time it takes for the virus to cause disease).
So if the HIV Positives in the United States are not developing AIDS in epidemic proportions, who is?
Ninety-seven percent (97%) of all AIDS cases come from three distinct “risk” groups:
Homosexuals (62%),
IV drug users (32%),
and blood transfusion recipients and haemophiliacs (3%).
Ninety-eight percent (98%) are over 20 years of age.
Ninety percent (90%) are male.
Why are homosexuals the highest risk category? Is it because of their sexual preference? Doubtfully. Every single homosexual diagnosed with AIDS has also been a drug user. For example, in various studies…
- 80-100% of homosexual AIDS patients had used nitrite inhalants
- 50-84% had used cocaine
- 50-65% had used amphetamines
In fact, from the very beginning it has been unfair and inaccurate to classify the highest risk group as “homosexuals,” since it is only the homosexuals who use extraordinary amounts of all kinds of drugs related to their sexual lifestyle that are placed at risk for AIDS. “Clean” homosexuals do not get AIDS.
Why are IV drug users (the vast majority of whom are male) getting AIDS? Is it because they shoot up with needles contaminated with the virus called HIV? Doubtfully. Like the “homosexual” risk group, the more logical reason is that the drugs they are using (heroine, cocaine, crystal meth, etc.) are all known to destroy the body’s immune system over time and give rise to opportunistic diseases.
Why are haemophiliacs and blood transfusion recipients getting AIDS? Frankly, the question really should be: Why are haemophiliacs and blood transfusion recipients even included in AIDS, since the cause of their immune deficiency is well known - immunosuppressive drugs intentionally included in their therapy to force the body to accept foreign blood and clotting agents? If we want to include everyone with immune deficiencies in the category of “Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome,” then we have to include anyone with opportunistic diseases from immunosuppression with known causes as well - such as cancer patients on chemotherapy.
In short, all those who have gotten or are getting AIDS (by current definition) are those with extensive and extended drug histories - whether it be recreational drugs, or immunosuppressive drugs, or antibiotics to fight normal infections.
Although those who question the hypothesis that HIV causes AIDS are in the minority of medical practitioners and researchers, they must be taken seriously. This controversial group is composed of many of the top scientists in the world, including Nobel Prize winner, Dr. Kary B. Mullis (1993 Nobel Prize in Chemistry and inventor of the Polymerase Chain Reaction). As Dr. Mullis has explained:
We have not been able to discover any good reasons why most of the people on earth believe that AIDS is a disease caused by a virus called HIV. There is simply no scientific evidence demonstrating that this is true.
We have also not been able to discover why doctors prescribe a toxic drug called AZT (Zidovudine) to people who have no other complaint other than the fact that they have the presence of antibodies to HIV in their blood. In fact, we cannot understand why humans would take this drug for any reason.
In 1990, Dr. Luc Montagnier, the co-discoverer of HIV, made a dramatic reversal in his stand on the HIV-AIDS hypothesis. In an article in the March issue of Research in Virology, Montagnier demonstrated conclusively that HIV is unable to kill human T-cells in culture dishes. In fact, HIV is one of the weakest viruses in existence; it would have a difficult time killing anything. In an interview, Montagnier also explained “There are too many shortcomings in the theory that HIV causes all signs of AIDS”. Why are medical professionals and the general public unaware of this crucial change in the understanding of the cause of AIDS?
Dr. Steven Jonas, Professor of Preventive Medicine, SUNY, Stony Brook, NY stated “Evidence is rapidly accumulating that the original theory of HIV is not correct”. Dr. Harry Rubin, Professor of Molecular and Cell Biology, University of California at Berkeley said “It is not proven that AIDS is caused by HIV infection, nor is it proven that it plays no role whatever in the syndrome”. Over 400 other top scientists worldwide have challenged the HIV/AIDS hypothesis. Identification of the actual cause of AIDS is important because it determines how this disease is treated. The cause of AIDS appears to be different in different parts of the world.
Even though it is commonly assumed that HIV causes AIDS, many scientific studies suggest other causes. Many chemicals can cause major immune dysfunction. Chemicals that can weaken and destroy the immune system include recreational drugs (i.e., cocaine, nitrite inhalants, and heroin), alcohol abuse, pesticides, over-use of certain medicines (i.e., antibiotics), industrial pollutants, and other environmental toxins. Lifestyle factors that suppress and damage the immune system include prolonged malnutrition, repeated infections, chronic stress, and sleep deficit. The majority of AIDS patients exhibit several of these chemical and lifestyle risk factors. Before 1984, several US government-funded researchers identified several recreational chemicals that induced immune dysfunction similar to that attributed to AIDS.
Furthermore, a substantial body of research has also suggested that anti-HIV medication itself has contributed to the majority of deaths that were once attributed to AIDS. The British medical journal, The Lancet, provides a recent example. Researchers found that AIDS patients who were treated with a new combination of highly active antiretrovirals had four times the non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma levels than patients who did not take these drug cocktails. The World Health Organization (WHO) has estimated that from the beginning of the HIV epidemic in 1981 through 2001, approximately 22 million people have died from AIDS.
The extensive evidence documenting the toxic side effects of anti-HIV drugs suggests that most of these 22 million deaths were actually caused by the administration of these medications.
In the US, the federal government has been financing the administration of highly toxic medications to all Americans who have been exposed to HIV, even though many researchers claim HIV is harmless. Some researchers have even offered to inject themselves with HIV on national television to demonstrate how harmless HIV really is. People with disproportionately high HIV levels are mainly low-income, inner city African Americans and other minority groups. No one has offered a credible explanation why African Americans have such high AIDS death rates.
In Africa, the combination of malnutrition, repeated infections, and chronic stress appear to cause the so-called “AIDS deaths,” not HIV. According to Dr. Peter Duesberg:
Furthermore, the African AIDS statistics may not be comparable with Western data. The World Health Organization (WHO) definition of AIDS in Africa is very different from that in any other part of the world. WHO does NOT require a blood test for confirmation of HIV antibodies in Africa. WHO has defined an African AIDS patient as any person who presents a combination of persistent cough, fever, diarrhoea, and a 10% or more weight loss in two months or less. These symptoms could also indicate malaria, tuberculosis, dysentery, and dozens of other diseases. In fact, many Western tourists have had these symptoms from eating African foods that contained microbes to which they were unaccustomed.
Millions of Africans die of starvation every year. The United Nations has said that this year’s drought may cause 13 million to starve to death. There are parts of Sub-Saharan Africa that have had no rain for three years. No crops grow. Some of the symptoms of AIDS are similar to those of starvation: weight loss, immune system dysfunction, diarrhoea, muscle wasting, etc. Note that starvation eventually causes complete destruction of the immune system without HIV. Because the WHO does not require a blood test to verify HIV status in Africa, millions of starvation deaths may have been counted as AIDS fatalities.
In addition, the governments and non-governmental organizations in Africa keep very incomplete statistics on morbidity and mortality. Most people who die in Africa are not examined by a physician to determine their cause of death. Autopsies are very rare on this continent. In addition to widespread starvation, there have also been increased deaths due to the resurgence of many infectious diseases such tuberculosis. Some of these illnesses are thought to be “AIDS defining.” HIV blood tests, however, have seldom been administered to determine whether these patients are actually HIV positive. Thus, the African “AIDS” statistics cited by the WHO, other institutions, and media may be completely erroneous. In reality, AIDS in Africa is causing fewer deaths and is occurring at much lower levels than reported by the World Health Organization and the pharmaceutical industry.
In the canons of modern science, it is generally understood that cause precedes effect temporally. As the causal factor increases, the effect should also increase in a parallel, dose-response manner. In the United States, however, HIV and AIDS are completely unrelated statistically. On the other hand, several studies show that drug usage and AIDS and other immune system disorders appear highly related in the United States and Europe. Over many years, the sex and age of those dying from AIDS also matches the age and sex of those dying from recreational drugs. While association does not prove anything, these findings raise many questions about the validity of the HIV-causes-AIDS theory that have never been answered credibly. Because there is no real relationship between HIV and AIDS rates, how can our leaders base a global anti-HIV campaign on something that is nonexistent?
The Paradox of Treating an Immune Disease with Medications that Destroy the Immune System
AIDS treatment regimes have turned modern medicine on its head. Normally, there is a distinction between disease and treatment, i.e., treatment is supposed to reduce disease, not increase it. Glaxo Wellcome, the manufacturer of AZT (Retrovir, Combivir), admits in the Physicians’ Desk Reference 2000 that it was often difficult to distinguish between the adverse events associated with AZT treatment and the underlying symptoms of AIDS. Anti-HIV medications have a wide range of extremely hazardous side effects, including destruction of the immune system and death.
Approximately 30 years ago, a DNA chain terminator, AZT, was formulated to treat Leukaemia. AZT’s anti-Leukaemia mechanism of action is to kill growing lymphocytes through termination of DNA synthesis. Lymphocytes, or T-cells, are white blood cells that are an important part of the immune system and help protect the body from disease. Because AZT failed to prolong the lives of laboratory animals with Leukaemia, it was rejected for cancer chemotherapy in humans.
In spite of objections from some of the FDA’s own scientists, AZT and other DNA chain terminators were approved to treat people who tested HIV positive, which means HIV antibodies were detected in their blood. HIV antibodies are evidence of past infection, but not of present disease. Later, the FDA approved AZT use to “prevent” AIDS in healthy people, even when they had no clinical symptoms and almost undetectable levels of HIV.
If people are diagnosed as HIV positive, physicians will generally prescribe anti-HIV medications to them the rest of their lives. How can doctors prescribe AZT for long-term use when the Physicians’ Desk Reference summaries on AZT drugs have stated: “Long-term safety and effectiveness are not known, especially for people with less advanced stages of AIDS”? Scientific studies such as the European Concorde project verify that there is no credible long-term evidence that AZT, ddI, or other DNA terminators cure or prevent AIDS. The same was found true for protease inhibitors and various drug cocktails. Almost all of the short-term studies that evaluated these drugs have been conducted by or funded by the same firms that make them. Short-term studies can not justify long-term therapy. However, in spite of thousands of deaths of people who take anti-HIV drugs, the FDA has managed to quell the concerns of physicians about these medications, and the FDA even encourages their continued use. Why has the medical diagnosis of HIV positive has become a death sentence with execution administered via prescription medication?
A lawsuit by a California organization charged the NIH and FDA with collusion in expediting the approval of AZT in exchange for a $55,000 donation from the AZT manufacturer, Burroughs Wellcome (since merged with Glaxo). There have been numerous exposés in the print and TV media questioning the scientific legitimacy of the clinical trials that formed the FDA’s basis for approving AZT’s use on humans. Apparently, there were several FDA and NIH cover-ups of the fact that many subjects in these approval trials died and were replaced by other participants to complete the studies.
What Is the Medical Rational for Using AZT?
The HIV retrovirus depends on DNA synthesis for multiplication and AZT ends DNA synthesis. Therefore, AZT should terminate AIDS, if HIV causes AIDS, and if HIV multiplies during AIDS. Research shows that HIV does not multiply very much during AIDS, if at all. In fact, numerous studies show that only 1 in 1,000 lymphocytes are ever infected by HIV, even in people “dying” from AIDS. Because AZT cannot distinguish between an infected and an uninfected cell, 999 uninfected cells must be killed to kill only one HIV-infected cell.
Lymphocytes, or T-cells, are an essential part of the immune system that maintains health. The immune systems of people who take AZT and other anti-HIV drugs are progressively weakened by their medications. Consequently, the people become increasingly vulnerable to a wide range of opportunistic infections, many of which are life threatening.
In addition to the destruction of the immune system and other blood cells, AZT also kills dividing cells everywhere in the body, which stops the creation of new cells and inhibits normal physiological processes. AZT has been found to cause liver, kidney and neurological damage. AZT destroys bone marrow, where red blood cells are produced. Thus, patients taking this drug often develop serious anaemia and need numerous blood transfusions. AZT causes a wide range of other health problems, including ulcerations and haemorrhaging, damage to hair follicles and skin, killing of mitochondria (the energy-producing part of the cells), and wasting of muscles. One brave FDA official also said AZT was “presumed to be a potential carcinogen.” Recent research has also shown that anti-HIV drugs cause diabetes. It is paradoxical that AZT and other highly toxic drugs have been used to treat AIDS, because these medications destroy the immune system, which is the main symptom of the disease that they are supposed to cure or prevent. A recent US survey revealed that virtually all AIDS patients who take the various anti-HIV medications are dying. Not one person has ever been cured using this medical strategy. Nevertheless, medical professionals have continued to force their patients to take combinations of these dangerous drugs.
Some the most damning evidence on the toxic effects of anti-HIV medications comes from the National Institutes of Health. At the 13th International AIDS Conference in Durban, South Africa, Dr. Anthony Fauci, head of the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, presented research showing that AIDS patients become healthier and feel better when they stop taking anti-HIV medications. During this “interrupted therapy” anti-HIV drug treatment is intermittently suspended for several weeks at a time, which gives temporary relief from the toxic effects of these medications. Dr. Fauci said, “Patients are absolutely delighted at the prospect of spending half of their lives off therapy.” At that conference, Dr. Mauro Schecter of the University of Rio de Janeiro said, “We won’t cure HIV with the present drugs.” If AZT and other anti-HIV medications, including protease inhibitors and various highly active antiretroviral cocktails, are as toxic as research indicates, the World Bank’s and United States government’s proposed HIV treatment campaign might kill 34-50 million innocent people. This would be the largest single act of genocide in world history. How and why did the US government get into the business of providing highly toxic drugs to the world’s most vulnerable nations?
He Who Pays the Piper Calls the Tune
Campaign donations are crucial for political success in the United States, because according to several studies the candidate with the most money wins 90% of the time. Books, such as The Buying of the President 2000 and The Buying of Congress (by Charles Lewis of the Center for Public Integrity), have documented that corporations contribute large sums of money to the re-election of US political leaders. Consequently, the United States government’s endeavours are strongly influenced by the needs (mainly financial profit) of those corporations, groups, and individuals that make large donations. This virtual bribery is especially evident in the pharmaceutical and weapons industries.
Anti-HIV drugs are one of the most profitable segments of the pharmaceutical industry. In the United States, the cost of treating one person with anti-HIV medication without major co-morbidity is approximately $15,000 to $17,000 per year, or more. Under pressure from the pharmaceutical industry and organizations funded by the drug firms, Congress classified AIDS as a medical disability, thus anti-HIV treatment expenses are often paid with taxpayers’ money through the Medicaid and Medicare programs.
A globally focussed agenda is but a small step away from an American cause of action. Is it possible that the World’s resources - money, effort and scientific research - are being diverted - via a scientific cul-de-sac - into corporate coffers while the real reasons for deaths across the globe are not being adequately addressed?
Are you surprised?
References:
1. Rober Gallo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
2. AIDS reappraisal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
3. Dean’s World - Six Questions on the HIV-AIDS Hypothesis
4. The Definition of AIDS, The Relationship between HIV and AIDS
5. HIV & AIDS - AIDS: Is Anyone Positive?
6. HIV & AIDS - The Thinking Problem in HIV Science
7. The Memory Hole: HIV=ADS Controversy
8. WRONGFUL DEATH: The AIDS Trial
African AIDS is proposed to result from protein malnutrition, poor sanitation and subsequent parasitic infections. This hypothesis resolves all paradoxes of the virus-AIDS hypothesis. It is epidemiologically and experimentally testable and provides a rational basis for AIDS control.
Also by Fungus
- Pulling Strings - November 6th, 2006
- Fun with Maglevs - October 9th, 2006