Uganda the Pearl of Africa
Always be friendly to people living with HIV/AIDS
Home
About
Photos
Activities
Aids Camp
Facts About HIV/AIDS
Favorite Links
Guest Book
Volunteers
Contacts
THE EVOLVING DEFINITION OF AIDS
By Robert Root-Bernstein
Rethinking AIDS
The first definition of AIDS appeared in the September 24, 1982, issue of Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report published by the Centers for Disease Control:
CDC defines a case of AIDS as a disease, at least moderately predictive of a defect in cellÂmediated immunity, occurring in a person with no known cause for diminished resistance to that disease. Such diseases include KS [Kaposi's sarcoma], PCP [Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia], and serious OOI [other opportunistic infections]. These infections include pneumonia, meningitis, or encephalitis due to one or more of the following: aspergillosis, candidiasis, cryptococcosis, cytomegalovirus, norcardiosis, strongyloidosis, toxoplasmosis, zygomycosis, or atypical mycobacteriosis (species other than tuberculosis or lepra); esophagitis due to candidiasis, cytomegalovirus, or herpes simplex virus; progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy, chronic enterocolitis (more than 4 weeks) due to cryptosporidiosis; or unusually extensive mucocutaneous herpes simplex of more than 5 weeks duration. Diagnoses are considered to fit the case definition only if based on sufficiently reliable methods (generally histology or culture). However, this case definition may not include the full spectrum of AIDS manifestations, which may range from absence of symptoms (despite laboratory evidence of immune deficiency) to nonÂspecific symptoms (e.g. , fever, weight loss, generalized, persistent lymphadenopathy) to specific diseases that are insufficiently predictive of cellular immunodeficiency to be included in incidence monitoring (e.g., tuberculosis, oral candidiasis, herpes zoster) to malignant neoplasms that cause, as well as result from, immunodeficiency.(1)
It is evident from this definition that the CDC was not sure what AIDS was in 1982, other than that it appeared to be due to immune deficiencies of unknown cause that could be manifested by any of fourteen different opportunistic diseases. Crucial to the definition, however, was the statement that diagnosis for AIDS could be made only in people with these opportunistic diseases if they had "no known cause for diminished resistance to that disease." The reason for this caveat was that a number of groups of people had previously been identified as having a significant risk for each of these opportunistic diseases. Patients undergoing various cancer chemotherapies, transplant patients, people treated with high or chronic doses of corticosteroids to control inflammatory and autoimmune diseases, and people born with defective immune systems are prone to opportunistic infections of all kinds. They were excluded as AIDS patients by definition, as were men over the age of sixty who developed Kaposi's sarcoma, since such men were already known to be at risk for this cancer. A diagnosis of AIDS required no identified cause of immune suppression.
The definition of AIDS has evolved along with the disease itself. Just how much it has evolved can be seen from the following example. In May 1991 a new and unexpected AIDS risk was broadcast to the world. "Organ recipients test positive for AIDS virus!" screamed headlines. LifeNet Transplant Services of Virginia Beach, Florida, announced that threeÂpeople who had received organ transplants-one the heart and two others a kidney apiece- from a man who had died of gunshot wounds in 1985 had developed AIDS and died. Three other recipients of the man's tissues also tested positive for HIV. The frightening aspect of the cases was that the gunshot victim had been tested twice for HIV prior to the transplants and had been found to be HIV free. Subsequent reanalysis suggested that the tests used during 1985 did not have the sensitivity necessary to identify the man's very low level of infection. On the other hand, it is equally possible that the patients had latent HIV infections that were activated by the transplant procedure. In either case, the cases raised the spectre, validated by similar instances, (2) of hidden HIV infections unwittingly being transmitted to or reactivated in a significant number of transplant and blood transfusion recipients. The story, coming as it did at the same time that a number of states were considering banning HIVÂinfected surgeons and dentists from performing surgery, added fuel to the hysteria that perhaps there is not, and never can be, any real protection against AIDS. Even the most scrupulous and cleanÂliving individuals might, by chance and through no fault of their own, still contract this modern scourge through an improperly screened blood transfusion or an unwanted visit to the hospital.
No one seems to have realized that just seven years earlier, the same three organ transplant recipients could have died of exactly the same opportunistic infections without raising an eyebrow and without being diagnosed as having AIDS. They would have been in a group specifically excluded from being considered for a diagnosis of AIDS: transplant recipients. Their causes of immune suppression were known: the drugs they were treated with in order to prevent their immune systems from rejecting their new organs. These drugs, along with the rigors of surgery itself and the possibility of an immune system disorder called graftÂversusÂhost disease in which the lymphocytes in the donated organ attempt to kill the recipient's body, result in very high rates of morbidity and mortality in organ recipients compared with the general populace or even with other surgery patients. Morbidity is the physician's term for sickness; mortality for death. Two of the transplant patients who died of "AIDS" received kidneys. Their probability of dying within three years of their operation was 20 percent if they developed no complications and 40 percent if they did. This figure rises to nearly 60 percent at five years for patients with complications.(3) Since the two patients who died clearly developed complications manifested as opportunistic infections, they were in the highÂrisk group. Thus, from a purely statistical point of view, each of these people was more likely to have died than to have been alive in 1991, no matter what their HIV status. The same approximate statistics apply to the unfortunate individual who received a heart transplant.
Chances are also good that the three would have died of the same symptoms and the same opportunistic infections whether they had contracted an HIV infection or not. HIVÂnegative transplant patients are prone to the same sets of opportunistic infections that characterize AIDS patients, including Pneumocystis pneumonia (originally known as "transplant lung"), cytomegalovirus, varicellaÂzoster virus, disseminated herpes simplex, and toxoplasmosis infections. (4) The only difference between the transplant patients who died of AIDS and those who die of the same symptoms but are not given a diagnosis of AIDS is the presence of antibody to HIV in the former group.
What, then, is AIDS? Why do we call a patient who dies of Pneumocystis pneumonia following a transplant operation unfortunate but one who dies of Pneumocystis pneumonia and HIV an AIDS tragedy? Ironically, this definitional problem has existed since the very beginning of the "epidemic." In the first report of GRID published by Michael S. Gottlieb and his colleagues at UCLA, one of the five patients was a twentyÂnineÂyearÂold male homosexual who had a known cause of immune suppression. He had been successfully treated with radiation therapy for Hodgkin's disease (a cancer of the white blood cells) three years earlier. (5) Radiation therapy is a wellÂrecognized cause of immune impairment. Nonetheless' this case stands as one of the benchmark cases heralding the discovery of AIDS.
Beginning in 1984, the definition of AIDS was changed to make the Hodgkin's case less anomalous and eventually to include transplant patients and other immunosuppressed individuals under certain circumstances. The CDC revised its definition by adding to the list of diseases diagnostic for AIDS any lymphoma (cancer of the lymph system) limited to the brain. (6) The discovery of HIV and its identification as "the cause of AIDS" during 1984 caused a second revision in June 1985. (7) To the previous set of fourteen diseases predictive of cellular immune suppression, the CDC added seven more diseases. If a person was found to be HIV seropositive by any test and had histoplasmosis (a fungus) disseminated beyond the lungs or lymph nodes; isosporiasis (a protozoal infection) causing chronic diarrhea for more than a month; bronchial or pulmonary candidiasis; many types of nonÂHodgkin's lymphomas; Kaposi's sarcoma over the age of sixty; chronic lymphoid interstitial pneumonitis if a child; or any cancer of the lymph system diagnosed three or more months after a diagnosis of any opportunistic infection, then he or she was an AIDS patient. Thus, a number of groups that had previously been excluded from diagnoses of AIDS, such as certain cancer patients and elderly men with Kaposi's sarcoma, were suddenly potential AIDS patients despite previously demonstrated risks for opportunistic diseases. The crucial question was whether they had become infected with HIV as well.
Even more important in the light of recent questions concerning the necessity of HIV for causing AIDS, the 1985 revision of the AIDS definition also stated that some opportunistic diseases previously diagnostic for AIDS would be diagnostic in the future only if HIV was present: "To increase the specificity of the case definition, patients will be excluded as AIDS cases if they have a negative result on testing for serum antibody to [HIV], have no other type of [HIV] test with a positive result, and do not have a low number of TÂhelper lymohocytes or a low ratio of TÂhelper to TÂsuppressor lymphocytes." (8) In other words, people with the same clinical symptoms as an HIVÂinfected person (for example, disseminated tuberculosis) but without evidence of HIV or obvious immune impairment were not AIDS patients. This alteration causes problems. Twelve of fourteen cases of Kaposi's sarcoma diagnosed in individuals without identified risk factors for AIDS during 1981 and 1982 had normal immunologic results and were not tested for HIV (since HIV had not yet been discovered). (9) According to the 1985 definition, they might not have been diagnosed as AIDS patients. Even more interesting are the more than twenty HIVÂnegative cases of Kaposi's sarcoma among homosexual men with normal immunologic results that have been reported in the medical literature during the last two years. Do these people have AIDS? If not, is there a second epidemic of Karposi's sarcoma (and perhaps other opportunistic diseases) superimposed upon the soÂcalled AIDS epidemic and appearing in the same risk group? How are these two diseases, if they are two, to be distinguished? What do they tell us about the necessity of HIV in AIDS?
These issues become more confused in the light of the next set of alterations announced by the CDC in August 1987. According to this set of revisions, the list of opportunistic infections indicative of AIDS grew to twentyÂfour, again enlarging the pool of potential AIDS patients. One set of twelve opportunistic diseases, including Pneumocystis pneumonia, Kaposi's sarcoma, disseminated cytomegalovirus infection, and esophageal candidiasis, were diagnostic for AIDS regardless of whether there was any evidence of HIV infection. Twelve other diseases were diagnostic for AIDS only in conjunction with a positive HIV antibody test. This meant that a large number of AIDS patients (45 percent of all cases diagnosed in the United States during the past decade and 1 percent of patients specifically tested for HIV seropositivity continued to be diagnosed as having AIDS in the absence of evidence of HIV infection. (10) By far the most important of the changes made in 1987 was the statement that "regardless of the presence of other causes of immunodeficiency, in the presence of laboratory evidence for HIV, any disease listed . . . indicates a diagnosis of AIDS." (11) In other words, acquired immune deficiency syndrome attributed to HIV infection is now diagnosed even among people who were born with congenital immune deficiencies; who have demonstrable, preexisting, or coexisting causes of immune suppression due to chemotherapy, radiation treatment, or corticosteroid use; among transplant patients who are on regimens of immunosuppressive drugs for life; and so forth.
AIDS, in short, has become a schizophrenic disease. Some people with diseases identical to those classically used to define the syndrome, such as disseminated tuberculosis, are not AIDS patients in the absence of HIV. Some people are AIDS patients if they develop opportunistic infections even in the absence of evidence of HIV. And in the presence of HIV, almost any rare disease is diagnostic for AIDS regardless of whether the person has other, more fundamental causes of immune suppression.
The definition changes are apparently not over. In 1992, the CDC proposed altering the definition of AIDS to include any person who had developed a significant loss of a particular type of white blood cell called TÂhelper lymphocytes. (12) Normally, a healthy person has a TÂhelper lymphocyte count of around 1,000 cells per cubic millimeter of blood. AIDS may now be diagnosed when the number of these TÂhelper cells falls below 200 per cubic millimeter of blood if the individual is HIV seropositive and even if he or she has no opportunistic infections. In other words, the primary criterion that allowed the identification of AIDS in the first place-that a person have an opportunistic disease in the absence of an identified cause of immune suppression-may be abandoned completely. People may be diagnosed as having AIDS even if they have no infections typical of AIDS, as long as they have a significantly low number of TÂhelper cells and antibody to HIV.
This latest proposed definition change has little, if any, scientific merit. Indeed, the CDC itself has been fighting against the definition change, and Dr. James O. Mason, assistant secretary for health in the Department of Health and Human Services, says forthrightly that changing the definition "messes up the baseline for comparison from past to future" and that it "will make interpretation of trends in incidence and characteristics of cases more difficult." (13) Then why alter the definition?
The reason for this latest definitional alteration is social and economic, not scientific. AIDS activists are now dictating how AIDS is to be diagnosed and who is to be included in the count. (14) For them, the issue is not one of correct diagnosis or elucidating the cause of AIDS; it is the understandable desire to increase access to health care. As Erik Eckholm has written in the New York Times, "The definition [of AIDS] has become a political as well as a medical question as people infected with the human immune deficiency virus, HIV, compete for treatment. For years, people weren't considered to have AIDS until they showed symptoms of certain infections and cancers that invade the body once the immune system breaks down. But after complaints that many ailing people were being excluded from the count, the Federal Centers for Disease Control has begun revising its definition. . . . It has been estimated that the broader definition . . . will add 160,000 people to the current caseload of 200,000 classified as having AIDS." (15) In other words, the number of AIDS cases may double with one fell swoop, not because AIDS has suddenly spread to new risk groups or even because it has spread within acknowledged risk groups but by definitional fiat.
It is worth putting these developments in historical perspective. Mirko Grmek, a French physician and historian of medicine, notes in his History of AIDS that AIDS "is not a disease in the old sense of the word, inasmuch as the virus is immunopathogenic, that it affects the immune system and produces symptoms only through the expedient of opportunistic infection or malignancy... Its pathological manifestations could not even have been understood as a disease before the advent of new concepts resulting from recent developments in the life sciences. In the past, a disease was defined either by clinical symptoms or by pathological lesions, which are morphological changes in organs, tissues, or cells. Nothing of the sort, neither clinical symptoms nor lesions, observable by the old means, characterizes AIDS. It is not a disease in the sense given to the term before the midÂtwentieth century. Persons affected by HIV virus suffer and die with the signs and lesions that are typical of other diseases. As recently as twenty years ago, these opportunistic disorders were the only reality that physicians could observe and conceptualize." (16) In other words, AIDS is new not only in the sense that it was only recently recognized; AIDS is also new in the way that biomedical researchers have defined it. These are important points to remember when we try to determine what AIDS is, what causes it, and whether its causes are in fact new. After all, if the biomedical tools and concepts did not, as Grmek asserts, exist twenty years ago for recognizing AIDS, how could it have been observed even if it had existed?
The schizophrenic and metamorphic nature of the definition of AIDS are of considerable importance in evaluating the possible cause or causes of the syndrome. Consider an analogy. A man drowns. The pathologist finds that he has much too much carbon dioxide in his blood. From a purely factual standpoint, we know that too great a percentage of carbon dioxide in the air one breathes can be fatal. This is the point of the rebreathers that divers sometimes use; they absorb the carbon dioxide from the air supply, allowing prolonged reuse of the air. We also know that when people drown, the level of carbon dioxide in their blood increases dramatically since their cells continue to respire even when their lungs cease to exhale. Yet it does gross injustice to logic to maintain that the level of carbon dioxide in a drowned man's blood is his cause of death. One must take a step back and ask why the man's carbon dioxide level became so high; that reason, quite clearly, is that he could not breath; he could neither exhale nor inhale. Thus, the high level of carbon dioxide in his blood is what is known to pathologists and philosophers of science alike as an epiphenomenon-a secondary or additional symptom or complication arising during the course of a malady, treatment, or experiment. Clearly the drowned man had many problems besides this buildup of carbon dioxide. For instance, he also ran out of available oxygen, a problem at least as severe as the increase in carbon dioxide levels that he experienced. Yet neither the buildup of carbon dioxide nor the lack of oxygen is, in a purely logical sense, the primary "cause" of death. Indeed, there is no single cause of drowning, no matter how similar the outcome. At the most fundamental level, the man drowned because he could not swim, because he got a cramp that incapacitated him, because he had a heart attack, because he struck his head on something and passed out, because someone held his head under the water until he was unconscious, or any number of other reasons. In short, the existence of high levels of carbon dioxide in the man's blood is factually correct, it is a finding invariably present in drowning victims extremely rare in other people, but it is most definitely not the primary cause of death.
The drownedÂman analogy is highly relevant to understanding AIDS. We must be absolutely certain that HIV is not an epiphenomenon of AIDS before we assert that it is the primary cause. The fact that it is an extremely frequent finding in AIDS patients is not logically compelling. It is only suggestive. Other active infections, such as cytomegalovirus, are also nearly universal among AIDS patients. If both are correlated with AIDS, which is the cause? Or are both viruses reactivated by previous and perhaps more diverse causes of immune suppression? How do we know what is cause and what is effect?
The existence of the full range of AIDS symptoms and opportunistic infections in both HIVÂfree and HIVÂinfected transplant and cancer patients warns us that this logical caveat is one that must be acknowledged in AIDS. HIV infection may be an epiphenomenon of immune suppression rather than a necessary cause. Immune suppression may predispose people to HIV infection (just as it predisposes them to other opportunistic infections) rather than resulting from such an infection. I argue in my book Rethinking AIDS, in fact, that HIV may be just such an epiphenomenon. Every AIDS patient has multiple causes of immune suppression other than HIV, many of which precede HIV infection and some of which occur in the total absence of HIV. The existence of these largely unrecognized immunosuppressive agents in AIDS not only requires a rethinking of the definition of the syndrome as occurring mainly in people without previously identified causes of immune suppression but also necessitates a critical look at the role of HIV as a causative agent in AIDS.
Before turning to the adequacy of the arguments supporting HIV as the sole, necessary cause of AIDS, two final comments are necessary concerning the definition of AIDS. The effects of the definition changes go far beyond mere questions of who has AIDS or how it is to be diagnosed. Much of our public health policy rests upon calculations of how fast AIDS is growing and into what groups it seems to be spreading. Each time the definition of AIDS changes, all of these calculations change as well. Previously exe eluded people suddenly qualify as AIDS patients. Diagnoses skyrocket. The 1985 definition change resulted in about a 4 percent increase in the number of diagnoses, a small enough fraction that translates into 2,000 additional cases a year in the U.S. The 1987 revision resulted in about a 30 percent increase in diagnoses, or some 10,000 cases in 1988 and some 15,000 additional cases during 1991. The proposed 1992 definition may double the the number of diagnoses overnight. In consequence, a significant proportion of the continued explosive growth of AIDS throughout the past decade has been fueled not by the transmission of AIDS to new groups of people but rather by the inclusion of previously excluded groups of people into the category of AIDS. People fitting these revised definitions of AIDS had always existed, but they were not counted as AIDS cases. Indeed, prior to 1981, they were not even recognized. Thus, despite claims that AIDS is the worst plague since the Black Death of the Middle Ages, despite the fact that AIDS is now the tenth most common cause of death in the United States, and despite the fact that there are no new miracle cures for the most common causes of death-heart disease, cancers, diabetes, stroke, and accidents-life expectancy for people in the U.S. has increased every year since 1980 at an almost constant rate. (17) One could justifiably argue that the AIDS epidemic is due at least partially to the grouping of two dozen causes of death under one rubric rather than to a new disease.
Finally, it is imperative that one gaping lacuna in the AIDS definition be pointed out: There are no criteria listed in any definition of AIDS that allow for a person to fight off AIDS or to be cured of it. Once a person is diagnosed, he or she will have AIDS forever after, regardless of any improvement in state of health and regardless of whether death results from a nonÂAIDS associated disease (for example, heart disease or diabetes). This is another way in which the definition of AIDS is a medical novelty. A person has pneumonia as long as he or she is symptomatic and the germ causing the disease is present. Destroy the germ and eradicate the clinical symptoms, and the person is cured, regardless of the fact that both antibody to the germ and scarring of the lungs may persist for their lifetime. Even in slowly progressing diseases such as cancer or heart disease, fiveÂyear survival is often taken as tantamount to a cure if disease symptoms are essentially absent. No such criteria exist for AIDS, despite the fact that some AIDS patients are still alive a dozen years after diagnosis with Kaposi's sarcoma, Pneumocystis pneumonia, and other opportunistic diseases. As AIDS survivor Michael Callen writes in his inspirational book, Surviving AIDS, (18) longÂterm AIDS survival does occur, but no one, once diagnosed definitively with AIDS, has ever been taken off the lists kept by the CDC except at death. This makes AIDS the first disease that no one can survive, by definition. Not only is this description of AIDS logically bankrupt, it sends the demoralizing and inaccurate message to people with HIV or AIDS that they have a disease that is not worth fighting. A more legitimate, and more hopeful, definition must be devised. *
Robert S. Root-Bernstein, an associate professor of physiology at Michigan State University, East Lansing, is the author of Rethinking AIDS: The Tragic Cost of Premature Consensus (New York, Free Press, 1993) and Diversity (Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press, 1989). He is a former MacArthur Fellow (1981-1986).
References:
1. Centers for Disease Control. 1982. Update on acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS)-United States. MMWR 31 (37):507Â508 .
2. Associated Press. 1987. Patients infected with AIDS after kidney transplants. Lansing State J. 29 Sep. 3A; DummerJS, Erb S. Breinig MK, et al. 1989. Infection with human immunodeficiency virus in the Pittsburgh transplant population. A study of 583 donors and 1043 recipients, 1981Â1986. Transplantation 47:134Â140.
3. Kjellstrand CM, Hylander B. Collins AC. 1990. Mortality on dialysis-on the influence of early start, patient characteristic, and transplantation and acceptance rates. Am J Kidney Dis 15:483490; Held PJ, Brunner F. Odaka M, Garcia JR, Port FK, Gaylin DS. 1990. FiveÂyear survival for endÂstage renal disease patients in the United States, Europe, and Japan, 1982Â1987. Am J Kidney Dis 15:451Â457.
4. Salt A, Sutehall G. Sargaison M, et al. 1990. Viral and toxoplasma gondii infections in children after liver transplantation. J Clin Patholol 43:63Â67; Singh N. Dummer JS, Kusne S. et al. 1988. Infections with cytomegalovirus and other herpes viruses in 121 liver transplant recipients: Transmission by donated organ and the effeet of OKT3 antibodies. J Infect Dis 158:124Â131.
5. Centers for Disease Control. 1981. Pneumocystis pneumonia- Los Angeles. MMWR 30 (21):250Â252.
6. Selik RM, Haverkos HW, Curran JW. 1984. Acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) trends in the United States, 19781982. Am J Med76:493Â500.
7. Centers for Disease Control. 1985. Revision of the case definition of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome for national reporting- United States. MMWR 34 (25):373Â375.
8. Centers for Disease Control. 1985. MMWR 34(25):373Â375.
9.Selik et al. 1984. Am J Med 76:493Â500.
10. Centers for Disease Control. 1989. Update: Acquired immunodeficiency syndrome-United States, 1981Â1988. MMWR 38:229236.
11. Centers for Disease Control. 1987. Revision of the CDC surveillance case definition for acquired immunodeficiency syndrome. MMWR 36 (Suppl lS):3SÂlSS; Imrey HH. 1988. AIDS case clefinition. Science 240:1263.
12. Centers for Disease Control. 1991. Extension of public comment period for revision of HIV infection classification system and exe pension of AIDS surveillance case definition. MMWR 40:891.
13. Cimons M. 1991. Federal government to expand definition of AIDS. LA Times, 9 Aug. A37.
14. Cimons. 1991. LA Times, 9 Aug. A37; Associated Press. 1992. Center holds off on AIDS definition. Lansing State J. 5 Jan.
15. Eckholm E. 1991. Facts of life. More than inspiration is needed to fight AIDS. NY Times, 1 August, sec. 4, pl.
16. Grmek M. 1990. RC Maulitz, J Duffin, trans. History of AIDS. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 109.
17. Centers for Disease Control. 1992. Mortality patterns-United States, 1989. MMWR 41:121Â125.
18. Callen M. 1990. Surviving AIDS. New York: Harper Collins.
VIRUSMYTH HOMEPAGE
By Robert Root-Bernstein
Rethinking AIDS
The first definition of AIDS appeared in the September 24, 1982, issue of Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report published by the Centers for Disease Control:
CDC defines a case of AIDS as a disease, at least moderately predictive of a defect in cellÂmediated immunity, occurring in a person with no known cause for diminished resistance to that disease. Such diseases include KS [Kaposi's sarcoma], PCP [Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia], and serious OOI [other opportunistic infections]. These infections include pneumonia, meningitis, or encephalitis due to one or more of the following: aspergillosis, candidiasis, cryptococcosis, cytomegalovirus, norcardiosis, strongyloidosis, toxoplasmosis, zygomycosis, or atypical mycobacteriosis (species other than tuberculosis or lepra); esophagitis due to candidiasis, cytomegalovirus, or herpes simplex virus; progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy, chronic enterocolitis (more than 4 weeks) due to cryptosporidiosis; or unusually extensive mucocutaneous herpes simplex of more than 5 weeks duration. Diagnoses are considered to fit the case definition only if based on sufficiently reliable methods (generally histology or culture). However, this case definition may not include the full spectrum of AIDS manifestations, which may range from absence of symptoms (despite laboratory evidence of immune deficiency) to nonÂspecific symptoms (e.g. , fever, weight loss, generalized, persistent lymphadenopathy) to specific diseases that are insufficiently predictive of cellular immunodeficiency to be included in incidence monitoring (e.g., tuberculosis, oral candidiasis, herpes zoster) to malignant neoplasms that cause, as well as result from, immunodeficiency.(1)
It is evident from this definition that the CDC was not sure what AIDS was in 1982, other than that it appeared to be due to immune deficiencies of unknown cause that could be manifested by any of fourteen different opportunistic diseases. Crucial to the definition, however, was the statement that diagnosis for AIDS could be made only in people with these opportunistic diseases if they had "no known cause for diminished resistance to that disease." The reason for this caveat was that a number of groups of people had previously been identified as having a significant risk for each of these opportunistic diseases. Patients undergoing various cancer chemotherapies, transplant patients, people treated with high or chronic doses of corticosteroids to control inflammatory and autoimmune diseases, and people born with defective immune systems are prone to opportunistic infections of all kinds. They were excluded as AIDS patients by definition, as were men over the age of sixty who developed Kaposi's sarcoma, since such men were already known to be at risk for this cancer. A diagnosis of AIDS required no identified cause of immune suppression.
The definition of AIDS has evolved along with the disease itself. Just how much it has evolved can be seen from the following example. In May 1991 a new and unexpected AIDS risk was broadcast to the world. "Organ recipients test positive for AIDS virus!" screamed headlines. LifeNet Transplant Services of Virginia Beach, Florida, announced that threeÂpeople who had received organ transplants-one the heart and two others a kidney apiece- from a man who had died of gunshot wounds in 1985 had developed AIDS and died. Three other recipients of the man's tissues also tested positive for HIV. The frightening aspect of the cases was that the gunshot victim had been tested twice for HIV prior to the transplants and had been found to be HIV free. Subsequent reanalysis suggested that the tests used during 1985 did not have the sensitivity necessary to identify the man's very low level of infection. On the other hand, it is equally possible that the patients had latent HIV infections that were activated by the transplant procedure. In either case, the cases raised the spectre, validated by similar instances, (2) of hidden HIV infections unwittingly being transmitted to or reactivated in a significant number of transplant and blood transfusion recipients. The story, coming as it did at the same time that a number of states were considering banning HIVÂinfected surgeons and dentists from performing surgery, added fuel to the hysteria that perhaps there is not, and never can be, any real protection against AIDS. Even the most scrupulous and cleanÂliving individuals might, by chance and through no fault of their own, still contract this modern scourge through an improperly screened blood transfusion or an unwanted visit to the hospital.
No one seems to have realized that just seven years earlier, the same three organ transplant recipients could have died of exactly the same opportunistic infections without raising an eyebrow and without being diagnosed as having AIDS. They would have been in a group specifically excluded from being considered for a diagnosis of AIDS: transplant recipients. Their causes of immune suppression were known: the drugs they were treated with in order to prevent their immune systems from rejecting their new organs. These drugs, along with the rigors of surgery itself and the possibility of an immune system disorder called graftÂversusÂhost disease in which the lymphocytes in the donated organ attempt to kill the recipient's body, result in very high rates of morbidity and mortality in organ recipients compared with the general populace or even with other surgery patients. Morbidity is the physician's term for sickness; mortality for death. Two of the transplant patients who died of "AIDS" received kidneys. Their probability of dying within three years of their operation was 20 percent if they developed no complications and 40 percent if they did. This figure rises to nearly 60 percent at five years for patients with complications.(3) Since the two patients who died clearly developed complications manifested as opportunistic infections, they were in the highÂrisk group. Thus, from a purely statistical point of view, each of these people was more likely to have died than to have been alive in 1991, no matter what their HIV status. The same approximate statistics apply to the unfortunate individual who received a heart transplant.
Chances are also good that the three would have died of the same symptoms and the same opportunistic infections whether they had contracted an HIV infection or not. HIVÂnegative transplant patients are prone to the same sets of opportunistic infections that characterize AIDS patients, including Pneumocystis pneumonia (originally known as "transplant lung"), cytomegalovirus, varicellaÂzoster virus, disseminated herpes simplex, and toxoplasmosis infections. (4) The only difference between the transplant patients who died of AIDS and those who die of the same symptoms but are not given a diagnosis of AIDS is the presence of antibody to HIV in the former group.
What, then, is AIDS? Why do we call a patient who dies of Pneumocystis pneumonia following a transplant operation unfortunate but one who dies of Pneumocystis pneumonia and HIV an AIDS tragedy? Ironically, this definitional problem has existed since the very beginning of the "epidemic." In the first report of GRID published by Michael S. Gottlieb and his colleagues at UCLA, one of the five patients was a twentyÂnineÂyearÂold male homosexual who had a known cause of immune suppression. He had been successfully treated with radiation therapy for Hodgkin's disease (a cancer of the white blood cells) three years earlier. (5) Radiation therapy is a wellÂrecognized cause of immune impairment. Nonetheless' this case stands as one of the benchmark cases heralding the discovery of AIDS.
Beginning in 1984, the definition of AIDS was changed to make the Hodgkin's case less anomalous and eventually to include transplant patients and other immunosuppressed individuals under certain circumstances. The CDC revised its definition by adding to the list of diseases diagnostic for AIDS any lymphoma (cancer of the lymph system) limited to the brain. (6) The discovery of HIV and its identification as "the cause of AIDS" during 1984 caused a second revision in June 1985. (7) To the previous set of fourteen diseases predictive of cellular immune suppression, the CDC added seven more diseases. If a person was found to be HIV seropositive by any test and had histoplasmosis (a fungus) disseminated beyond the lungs or lymph nodes; isosporiasis (a protozoal infection) causing chronic diarrhea for more than a month; bronchial or pulmonary candidiasis; many types of nonÂHodgkin's lymphomas; Kaposi's sarcoma over the age of sixty; chronic lymphoid interstitial pneumonitis if a child; or any cancer of the lymph system diagnosed three or more months after a diagnosis of any opportunistic infection, then he or she was an AIDS patient. Thus, a number of groups that had previously been excluded from diagnoses of AIDS, such as certain cancer patients and elderly men with Kaposi's sarcoma, were suddenly potential AIDS patients despite previously demonstrated risks for opportunistic diseases. The crucial question was whether they had become infected with HIV as well.
Even more important in the light of recent questions concerning the necessity of HIV for causing AIDS, the 1985 revision of the AIDS definition also stated that some opportunistic diseases previously diagnostic for AIDS would be diagnostic in the future only if HIV was present: "To increase the specificity of the case definition, patients will be excluded as AIDS cases if they have a negative result on testing for serum antibody to [HIV], have no other type of [HIV] test with a positive result, and do not have a low number of TÂhelper lymohocytes or a low ratio of TÂhelper to TÂsuppressor lymphocytes." (8) In other words, people with the same clinical symptoms as an HIVÂinfected person (for example, disseminated tuberculosis) but without evidence of HIV or obvious immune impairment were not AIDS patients. This alteration causes problems. Twelve of fourteen cases of Kaposi's sarcoma diagnosed in individuals without identified risk factors for AIDS during 1981 and 1982 had normal immunologic results and were not tested for HIV (since HIV had not yet been discovered). (9) According to the 1985 definition, they might not have been diagnosed as AIDS patients. Even more interesting are the more than twenty HIVÂnegative cases of Kaposi's sarcoma among homosexual men with normal immunologic results that have been reported in the medical literature during the last two years. Do these people have AIDS? If not, is there a second epidemic of Karposi's sarcoma (and perhaps other opportunistic diseases) superimposed upon the soÂcalled AIDS epidemic and appearing in the same risk group? How are these two diseases, if they are two, to be distinguished? What do they tell us about the necessity of HIV in AIDS?
These issues become more confused in the light of the next set of alterations announced by the CDC in August 1987. According to this set of revisions, the list of opportunistic infections indicative of AIDS grew to twentyÂfour, again enlarging the pool of potential AIDS patients. One set of twelve opportunistic diseases, including Pneumocystis pneumonia, Kaposi's sarcoma, disseminated cytomegalovirus infection, and esophageal candidiasis, were diagnostic for AIDS regardless of whether there was any evidence of HIV infection. Twelve other diseases were diagnostic for AIDS only in conjunction with a positive HIV antibody test. This meant that a large number of AIDS patients (45 percent of all cases diagnosed in the United States during the past decade and 1 percent of patients specifically tested for HIV seropositivity continued to be diagnosed as having AIDS in the absence of evidence of HIV infection. (10) By far the most important of the changes made in 1987 was the statement that "regardless of the presence of other causes of immunodeficiency, in the presence of laboratory evidence for HIV, any disease listed . . . indicates a diagnosis of AIDS." (11) In other words, acquired immune deficiency syndrome attributed to HIV infection is now diagnosed even among people who were born with congenital immune deficiencies; who have demonstrable, preexisting, or coexisting causes of immune suppression due to chemotherapy, radiation treatment, or corticosteroid use; among transplant patients who are on regimens of immunosuppressive drugs for life; and so forth.
AIDS, in short, has become a schizophrenic disease. Some people with diseases identical to those classically used to define the syndrome, such as disseminated tuberculosis, are not AIDS patients in the absence of HIV. Some people are AIDS patients if they develop opportunistic infections even in the absence of evidence of HIV. And in the presence of HIV, almost any rare disease is diagnostic for AIDS regardless of whether the person has other, more fundamental causes of immune suppression.
The definition changes are apparently not over. In 1992, the CDC proposed altering the definition of AIDS to include any person who had developed a significant loss of a particular type of white blood cell called TÂhelper lymphocytes. (12) Normally, a healthy person has a TÂhelper lymphocyte count of around 1,000 cells per cubic millimeter of blood. AIDS may now be diagnosed when the number of these TÂhelper cells falls below 200 per cubic millimeter of blood if the individual is HIV seropositive and even if he or she has no opportunistic infections. In other words, the primary criterion that allowed the identification of AIDS in the first place-that a person have an opportunistic disease in the absence of an identified cause of immune suppression-may be abandoned completely. People may be diagnosed as having AIDS even if they have no infections typical of AIDS, as long as they have a significantly low number of TÂhelper cells and antibody to HIV.
This latest proposed definition change has little, if any, scientific merit. Indeed, the CDC itself has been fighting against the definition change, and Dr. James O. Mason, assistant secretary for health in the Department of Health and Human Services, says forthrightly that changing the definition "messes up the baseline for comparison from past to future" and that it "will make interpretation of trends in incidence and characteristics of cases more difficult." (13) Then why alter the definition?
The reason for this latest definitional alteration is social and economic, not scientific. AIDS activists are now dictating how AIDS is to be diagnosed and who is to be included in the count. (14) For them, the issue is not one of correct diagnosis or elucidating the cause of AIDS; it is the understandable desire to increase access to health care. As Erik Eckholm has written in the New York Times, "The definition [of AIDS] has become a political as well as a medical question as people infected with the human immune deficiency virus, HIV, compete for treatment. For years, people weren't considered to have AIDS until they showed symptoms of certain infections and cancers that invade the body once the immune system breaks down. But after complaints that many ailing people were being excluded from the count, the Federal Centers for Disease Control has begun revising its definition. . . . It has been estimated that the broader definition . . . will add 160,000 people to the current caseload of 200,000 classified as having AIDS." (15) In other words, the number of AIDS cases may double with one fell swoop, not because AIDS has suddenly spread to new risk groups or even because it has spread within acknowledged risk groups but by definitional fiat.
It is worth putting these developments in historical perspective. Mirko Grmek, a French physician and historian of medicine, notes in his History of AIDS that AIDS "is not a disease in the old sense of the word, inasmuch as the virus is immunopathogenic, that it affects the immune system and produces symptoms only through the expedient of opportunistic infection or malignancy... Its pathological manifestations could not even have been understood as a disease before the advent of new concepts resulting from recent developments in the life sciences. In the past, a disease was defined either by clinical symptoms or by pathological lesions, which are morphological changes in organs, tissues, or cells. Nothing of the sort, neither clinical symptoms nor lesions, observable by the old means, characterizes AIDS. It is not a disease in the sense given to the term before the midÂtwentieth century. Persons affected by HIV virus suffer and die with the signs and lesions that are typical of other diseases. As recently as twenty years ago, these opportunistic disorders were the only reality that physicians could observe and conceptualize." (16) In other words, AIDS is new not only in the sense that it was only recently recognized; AIDS is also new in the way that biomedical researchers have defined it. These are important points to remember when we try to determine what AIDS is, what causes it, and whether its causes are in fact new. After all, if the biomedical tools and concepts did not, as Grmek asserts, exist twenty years ago for recognizing AIDS, how could it have been observed even if it had existed?
The schizophrenic and metamorphic nature of the definition of AIDS are of considerable importance in evaluating the possible cause or causes of the syndrome. Consider an analogy. A man drowns. The pathologist finds that he has much too much carbon dioxide in his blood. From a purely factual standpoint, we know that too great a percentage of carbon dioxide in the air one breathes can be fatal. This is the point of the rebreathers that divers sometimes use; they absorb the carbon dioxide from the air supply, allowing prolonged reuse of the air. We also know that when people drown, the level of carbon dioxide in their blood increases dramatically since their cells continue to respire even when their lungs cease to exhale. Yet it does gross injustice to logic to maintain that the level of carbon dioxide in a drowned man's blood is his cause of death. One must take a step back and ask why the man's carbon dioxide level became so high; that reason, quite clearly, is that he could not breath; he could neither exhale nor inhale. Thus, the high level of carbon dioxide in his blood is what is known to pathologists and philosophers of science alike as an epiphenomenon-a secondary or additional symptom or complication arising during the course of a malady, treatment, or experiment. Clearly the drowned man had many problems besides this buildup of carbon dioxide. For instance, he also ran out of available oxygen, a problem at least as severe as the increase in carbon dioxide levels that he experienced. Yet neither the buildup of carbon dioxide nor the lack of oxygen is, in a purely logical sense, the primary "cause" of death. Indeed, there is no single cause of drowning, no matter how similar the outcome. At the most fundamental level, the man drowned because he could not swim, because he got a cramp that incapacitated him, because he had a heart attack, because he struck his head on something and passed out, because someone held his head under the water until he was unconscious, or any number of other reasons. In short, the existence of high levels of carbon dioxide in the man's blood is factually correct, it is a finding invariably present in drowning victims extremely rare in other people, but it is most definitely not the primary cause of death.
The drownedÂman analogy is highly relevant to understanding AIDS. We must be absolutely certain that HIV is not an epiphenomenon of AIDS before we assert that it is the primary cause. The fact that it is an extremely frequent finding in AIDS patients is not logically compelling. It is only suggestive. Other active infections, such as cytomegalovirus, are also nearly universal among AIDS patients. If both are correlated with AIDS, which is the cause? Or are both viruses reactivated by previous and perhaps more diverse causes of immune suppression? How do we know what is cause and what is effect?
The existence of the full range of AIDS symptoms and opportunistic infections in both HIVÂfree and HIVÂinfected transplant and cancer patients warns us that this logical caveat is one that must be acknowledged in AIDS. HIV infection may be an epiphenomenon of immune suppression rather than a necessary cause. Immune suppression may predispose people to HIV infection (just as it predisposes them to other opportunistic infections) rather than resulting from such an infection. I argue in my book Rethinking AIDS, in fact, that HIV may be just such an epiphenomenon. Every AIDS patient has multiple causes of immune suppression other than HIV, many of which precede HIV infection and some of which occur in the total absence of HIV. The existence of these largely unrecognized immunosuppressive agents in AIDS not only requires a rethinking of the definition of the syndrome as occurring mainly in people without previously identified causes of immune suppression but also necessitates a critical look at the role of HIV as a causative agent in AIDS.
Before turning to the adequacy of the arguments supporting HIV as the sole, necessary cause of AIDS, two final comments are necessary concerning the definition of AIDS. The effects of the definition changes go far beyond mere questions of who has AIDS or how it is to be diagnosed. Much of our public health policy rests upon calculations of how fast AIDS is growing and into what groups it seems to be spreading. Each time the definition of AIDS changes, all of these calculations change as well. Previously exe eluded people suddenly qualify as AIDS patients. Diagnoses skyrocket. The 1985 definition change resulted in about a 4 percent increase in the number of diagnoses, a small enough fraction that translates into 2,000 additional cases a year in the U.S. The 1987 revision resulted in about a 30 percent increase in diagnoses, or some 10,000 cases in 1988 and some 15,000 additional cases during 1991. The proposed 1992 definition may double the the number of diagnoses overnight. In consequence, a significant proportion of the continued explosive growth of AIDS throughout the past decade has been fueled not by the transmission of AIDS to new groups of people but rather by the inclusion of previously excluded groups of people into the category of AIDS. People fitting these revised definitions of AIDS had always existed, but they were not counted as AIDS cases. Indeed, prior to 1981, they were not even recognized. Thus, despite claims that AIDS is the worst plague since the Black Death of the Middle Ages, despite the fact that AIDS is now the tenth most common cause of death in the United States, and despite the fact that there are no new miracle cures for the most common causes of death-heart disease, cancers, diabetes, stroke, and accidents-life expectancy for people in the U.S. has increased every year since 1980 at an almost constant rate. (17) One could justifiably argue that the AIDS epidemic is due at least partially to the grouping of two dozen causes of death under one rubric rather than to a new disease.
Finally, it is imperative that one gaping lacuna in the AIDS definition be pointed out: There are no criteria listed in any definition of AIDS that allow for a person to fight off AIDS or to be cured of it. Once a person is diagnosed, he or she will have AIDS forever after, regardless of any improvement in state of health and regardless of whether death results from a nonÂAIDS associated disease (for example, heart disease or diabetes). This is another way in which the definition of AIDS is a medical novelty. A person has pneumonia as long as he or she is symptomatic and the germ causing the disease is present. Destroy the germ and eradicate the clinical symptoms, and the person is cured, regardless of the fact that both antibody to the germ and scarring of the lungs may persist for their lifetime. Even in slowly progressing diseases such as cancer or heart disease, fiveÂyear survival is often taken as tantamount to a cure if disease symptoms are essentially absent. No such criteria exist for AIDS, despite the fact that some AIDS patients are still alive a dozen years after diagnosis with Kaposi's sarcoma, Pneumocystis pneumonia, and other opportunistic diseases. As AIDS survivor Michael Callen writes in his inspirational book, Surviving AIDS, (18) longÂterm AIDS survival does occur, but no one, once diagnosed definitively with AIDS, has ever been taken off the lists kept by the CDC except at death. This makes AIDS the first disease that no one can survive, by definition. Not only is this description of AIDS logically bankrupt, it sends the demoralizing and inaccurate message to people with HIV or AIDS that they have a disease that is not worth fighting. A more legitimate, and more hopeful, definition must be devised. *
Robert S. Root-Bernstein, an associate professor of physiology at Michigan State University, East Lansing, is the author of Rethinking AIDS: The Tragic Cost of Premature Consensus (New York, Free Press, 1993) and Diversity (Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press, 1989). He is a former MacArthur Fellow (1981-1986).
References:
1. Centers for Disease Control. 1982. Update on acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS)-United States. MMWR 31 (37):507Â508 .
2. Associated Press. 1987. Patients infected with AIDS after kidney transplants. Lansing State J. 29 Sep. 3A; DummerJS, Erb S. Breinig MK, et al. 1989. Infection with human immunodeficiency virus in the Pittsburgh transplant population. A study of 583 donors and 1043 recipients, 1981Â1986. Transplantation 47:134Â140.
3. Kjellstrand CM, Hylander B. Collins AC. 1990. Mortality on dialysis-on the influence of early start, patient characteristic, and transplantation and acceptance rates. Am J Kidney Dis 15:483490; Held PJ, Brunner F. Odaka M, Garcia JR, Port FK, Gaylin DS. 1990. FiveÂyear survival for endÂstage renal disease patients in the United States, Europe, and Japan, 1982Â1987. Am J Kidney Dis 15:451Â457.
4. Salt A, Sutehall G. Sargaison M, et al. 1990. Viral and toxoplasma gondii infections in children after liver transplantation. J Clin Patholol 43:63Â67; Singh N. Dummer JS, Kusne S. et al. 1988. Infections with cytomegalovirus and other herpes viruses in 121 liver transplant recipients: Transmission by donated organ and the effeet of OKT3 antibodies. J Infect Dis 158:124Â131.
5. Centers for Disease Control. 1981. Pneumocystis pneumonia- Los Angeles. MMWR 30 (21):250Â252.
6. Selik RM, Haverkos HW, Curran JW. 1984. Acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) trends in the United States, 19781982. Am J Med76:493Â500.
7. Centers for Disease Control. 1985. Revision of the case definition of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome for national reporting- United States. MMWR 34 (25):373Â375.
8. Centers for Disease Control. 1985. MMWR 34(25):373Â375.
9.Selik et al. 1984. Am J Med 76:493Â500.
10. Centers for Disease Control. 1989. Update: Acquired immunodeficiency syndrome-United States, 1981Â1988. MMWR 38:229236.
11. Centers for Disease Control. 1987. Revision of the CDC surveillance case definition for acquired immunodeficiency syndrome. MMWR 36 (Suppl lS):3SÂlSS; Imrey HH. 1988. AIDS case clefinition. Science 240:1263.
12. Centers for Disease Control. 1991. Extension of public comment period for revision of HIV infection classification system and exe pension of AIDS surveillance case definition. MMWR 40:891.
13. Cimons M. 1991. Federal government to expand definition of AIDS. LA Times, 9 Aug. A37.
14. Cimons. 1991. LA Times, 9 Aug. A37; Associated Press. 1992. Center holds off on AIDS definition. Lansing State J. 5 Jan.
15. Eckholm E. 1991. Facts of life. More than inspiration is needed to fight AIDS. NY Times, 1 August, sec. 4, pl.
16. Grmek M. 1990. RC Maulitz, J Duffin, trans. History of AIDS. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 109.
17. Centers for Disease Control. 1992. Mortality patterns-United States, 1989. MMWR 41:121Â125.
18. Callen M. 1990. Surviving AIDS. New York: Harper Collins.
VIRUSMYTH HOMEPAGE
ARRAY(0x86f8270)
VIRUSMYTH HOMEPAGE
AIDS; WORDS FROM THE FRONT
By Bryan Ellison
Spin Dec. 1993
Since 1949, the Epidemic Intelligence Service has infiltrated hospitals, health departments, and newspaper offices around the world. Bryan Ellison exposes how this elite, semi-secret wing of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has managed to stifle debate about everything from swine flu to AIDS.
At 1600 Clifton Road in Atlanta, Georgia, the mammoth brick towers of the centers for Disease Control and Prevention sprawl across clean manicured lawns. This is the Pentagon of government health - a billion military prevention agency that monitors broken limbs and illness, and evangelizes on everything from malaria pills to gun control. Tucked into the midst of this labyrinth is the hub of a little known but extremely powerful network of health professionals. Think of its as the CIA of health care: the Epidemic Intelligence Service (EIS).
Although few people know of its existence, the resources of the EIS and its reach into public life are extensive. Nearly 2,000 EIS trainees occupy key positions in national and international health care. Former United States Surgeon General William H. Stewart is a member, as are two other assistant Surgeon Generals. Jonathan Mann and Michael Merson, past and present heads, respectively, of the World Health Organization's global AIDS Program, both trained with the EIS. Universities, health departments, private practices, dentist offices, veterinary hospitals, and insurance and pharmaceutical companies are all stocked with members. Others work within tax-exempt foundations, including the Ford, Rockefeller, and Joseph Kennedy Foundations and the Rand Corporation, helping direct the spending of trust funds on medical and other projects.
Even reporters who cover health-related organizations and medical breakthroughs have graduated from the EIS program. The New York Time's chief medical correspondent, Lawrence Altman, is a member, as is Bruce Dan, former ABC News medical editor and former senior editor of the prestigious Journal of the American Medical Association. Marvin Turck, the editor at the University of Washington'' Journal of Infectious Diseases, joined EIS in 1960.
All have undergone six weeks of intensive epidemiological training, and then served for two years, on CDC salary, in state and local health departments around the country. Many worked in the CDC itself. After completing their field experience, EIS alumni are free to pursue any career they desire. But all understand the implicit agreement that they function as a permanent reserve for the CDC, gathering information about potential epidemics and reporting it back to headquarters.
Taken at face value, the wide pool of EIS graduates would seem no more ominous than a clique of university alumni. But the EIS's mandate is broad and its potential powers daunting. In a declared emergency, this uniformed branch of the Armed Services has the authority to suspend many individual rights. In peacetime, the EIS can control what we know about illnesses and when we know it. So far, it has taken the public to the brink of hysteria over illnesses from swine flu to AIDS.
EIS was the brainchild of public health expert Alexander Langmuir. In 1949, the CDC was interested in expanding beyond its mandate for malaria control, but needed justification. It tapped Langmuir from his teaching position at the Johns Hopkins University School of Hygiene and Public Health. Langmuir's arrival was a coup for the CDC - he possessed a security clearance as one of the few scientific advisers to the Defence Department's biological and chemical warfare program. The Cold War was raging at that time, and civil defence ranked high in government priorities.
Langmuir proposed that the CDC build a comprehensive surveillance system of trained individuals in all sectors of public and private life to detect the earliest signs of a biological warfare attack. "In the event of war the [EIS members] could be returned to active duty with the Public Health Service and assigned to strategic areas to fulfil the functions for which they were trained," said Langmuir. Federal officials responded with millions of dollars, and the first class entered in July 1951. The symbol of the EIS reflected its focus on activism instead of scientific research - pair of shoes worn through with holes.
But biological warfare never struck, and the EIS has justified its existence over the years by adapting its mandate to include civil medical emergencies. Langmuir himself noted that the warfare infrastructure could be used to control any natural epidemic, using quarantine measures, mass immunizations, and other emergency techniques.
This country experiences more than 1,000 clustered outbreaks of disease each year - roughly one every eight hours - including colds, flu, hepatitis, and numerous noninfectious conditions, all running their course and disappearing, and often eluding scientific explanation. The EIS, it was reasoned, could detect most of those clusters as soon as they popped up, and in its military style treat selected outbreaks as emergencies on the assumption they were contagious. And today, the EIS's role is so broad as to include any "epidemic," including those of violence; for example, EIS officers were called to monitor the L.A. riots following the Rodney King verdict and to examine injuries after the World Trade Center bombing in 1993.
But it's the annual outbreak of influenza virus - the flu - that has fuelled the EIS's most engaging battles, ironically with dire consequences to public health on occasion. In the spring of 1957, news reached the U.S. that the flu was devastating nations of the Far East. The CDC rang the alarm of an imminent and devastating epidemic, and Congress responded by providing money to allow the agency to crash-produce a vaccine, which nevertheless arrived too late. In the end, the mild flu disappeared quite spontaneously, leaving behind none of the predicted destruction. Some public-health experts even questioned whether the hype-up scare may have only stimulated vaccine sales.
Langmuir dipped into the new funds from that heralded debacle and expanded the EIS. By 1976, the EIS network had become so widespread that it could detect even the tiniest outbreaks of illness. When five soldiers caught a flu that January, the alarm bells sounded again. This time the disease was nicknamed "swine flu," based on the speculation that pigs served as the reservoir for the virus. President Ford and Congress panicked, throwing vast new sums of money into another flu vaccine. Then came an unexpected wrinkle: The program stalled when insurers discovered that the vaccine itself could produce extraordinary side effects, ranging from severe fevers and malaise to paralysis and death.
Now the EIS network sprang into action. Except for the five soldiers, no flu epidemic could be found, and the EIS was placed on full alert to detect any outbreak. Unless Congress could be convinced the danger was real, the vaccine program would end. As described by Gordon Thomas and Max Morgan-Witts in their book Anatomy of an Epidemic, the large Auditorium A, located in CDC headquarters in Atlanta, became the command center - called the "war room." Set up especially for this occasion, it contained "banks of telephones, teleprinters, and computers, the hardware for an unprecedented monitoring system which, to work, also required a typing pool, photocopy machines, and doctors sitting at rows of desks in the center of the room." Experts worked around the clock, week after week, chasing down every rumour of flu outbreaks.
A cluster of pneumonia cases suddenly appeared in Philadelphia, days after American Legion members had returned home from their July convention. On Monday morning, August 2, after receiving word of this outbreak, personnel in the CDC's swine-flu war room established contact with Jim Beecham, a brand new EIS officer on assignment in the Philadelphia health department. The CDC could not directly intervene in the situation without an invitation, and Beecham helped arrange one immediately. Within hours three EIS officers flew down to Philadelphia. They were joined within days by dozens of CDC experts.
When the CDC personnel arrived, pre-positioned EIS members such as Beecham and top health adviser Robert Sharrar stopped obeying local authorities and began following orders from the incoming CDC team. The CDC began fomenting wild rumours that this "Legionnaire's disease" was the beginning of the swine flu epidemic. The media proved cooperative; the New York Times assigned none other than Lawrence Altman, an EIS alumnus, to cover the story.
With nationwide hysteria rapidly developing, Congress suddenly changed its mind and approved the swine flu vaccine. Some 50 million Americans were inoculated over the next several months, ultimately producing at least 1,000 cases of severe nerve damage and paralysis, dozens of deaths, and nearly million in liability claims. Meanwhile, within days of the legislative approval, the EIS team finally acknowledged the pneumonia was not related to swine flu, but the announcement came too late.
The swine flu never showed up, and the fiasco nearly destroyed the CDC's reputation. But the EIS executed damage control by blaming Legionnaire's disease on a newly isolated bacterium. In reality, the stricken Legionnaires had been elderly men, several with kidney transplants, who had become extraordinarily drunk at the convention - all classic risk factors for pneumonia. Such minor disease outbreaks are relatively common, though rarely fall into the public spotlight. But the CDC had succeeded in scaring the nation about a harmless bacterium, one found in plumbing of almost any building.
The CDC needed another crisis epidemic to revive its heroic image and expand its mandate. In 1981, the White House was considering cutting the CDC budget by 23 percent. AIDS appeared not a moment too soon, in the same year.
EIS officer Wayne Shandera, on active assignment in the Los Angeles health department, received a call from Michael Gottlieb, a young immunologist at the UCLA Medical Center. Four patients had pneumocystis carinii pneumonia and serious immune deficiencies. Shandera had already heard a report of a fifth such case. One or two cases usually meant nothing; five seemed more plausible as an outbreak. And all five men were young homosexuals, a coincidence which could possibly indicate a sexual link. These five cases were the official start of what later came to be known as the acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) epidemic.
Shandera forwarded the data to his unofficial bosses at the CDC. According to Randy Shilts in his book And the Band Played On, James Curran, the CDC official who saw the report, wrote "Hot stuff. Hot stuff" across the top and rushed it into publication. New reports were trickling in of dying male homosexuals, most of whom also suffered from a rare skin cancer known as Kaposi's Sarcoma and Opportunistic Infections (KSOI) Task Force to manage the investigation, loaded with such EIS members as Harold Jaffe and Mary Guinan.
Virtually all of the first 50 cases admitted to using poppers, the liquid nitrite drug widely popular among homosexual men for its aphrodisiac properties. Scientists had not studied the long-term effects of this inhaled drug, but its chemical structure was known for its severe toxicity and ability to cause cancer. Nevertheless, a cursory study comparing popper use in disease-free gays with those with AIDS led the EIS to rule out poppers as the culprit.
The Task Force then mobilized the EIS network to define sexually linked clusters of cases and to prove the syndrome had "spread" beyond homosexual men. Clusters were not hard to find, since the AIDS cases were extremely promiscuous men with hundreds or thousands of sexual encounters, and at least one instance of sexual contact with another AIDS case. EIS officers such as David Auerbach, assigned to the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health, interviewed these men and confirmed the prediction. Meanwhile, following the model of hepatitis-B transmission, EIS agents hunted down every heroin addict and blood transfusion recipient, including hemophiliacs, with conditions vaguely resembling the immune deficiencies in homosexuals. EIS personnel scoured hospitals and monitored local health departments for patients, and within months found a small handful of heroin users with opportunistic infections. EIS member Bruce Evatt and Dale Lawrence tracked down a hemophiliac in Colorado, dying primarily of internal bleeding, who also happened to have pneumonia. EIS agent Harry Haverkos travelled to Florida and Haiti to find impoverished Haitians with opportunistic tuberculosis. Instantly the heroin addicts, the hemophiliac, and the Haitian were all relabeled as AIDS cases, and the CDC trumpeted the news that AIDS had "spread" outside the homosexual community.
The biomedical research establishment bought the line and scrambled to find a virus. Scientists first turned to their familiar microbes; Epstein-Barr virus and cytomegalovirus, both known for many years through herpes virus research, were each blamed by different factions.
But the fate of AIDS research was sealed almost from the beginning. Donald Francis, an EIS member since 1971 who had gained notoriety for implementing heavy-handed public health tactics when working for the World Health Organization in the third world, had by 1981 risen to a high position within the CDC's Hepatitis Laboratories Division. He had also earned a graduate degree studying feline retroviruses.
Within just 11 days after the first report of AIDS cases appeared in June 1981, Francis placed a telephone call to Myron Essex, his former research supervisor at Harvard University. With no evidence whatsoever to back up his claims, Francis insisted that the new syndrome must be caused by a retrovirus - with a long latency period between infection and disease. Only five AIDS patients officially existed, yet Francis had already mapped out the entire future of the disease.
Francis doggedly pushed his view whenever anyone would lend him an ear, and even when no one would. "This is the epidemic of the century, and every qualified person should want to have a piece of the action," he would later say in a speech at the CDC.
Within a year, KSOI Task Force head James Curran was echoing the Francis hypothesis, as were other key CDC staffers. Working with Essex, Francis lobbied their close colleague, Robert Gallo, a well-funded retrovirus scientist at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), to search for an AIDS virus. Robert Biggar, another EIS member at the NIH, helped mobilize the huge federal institute behind the retrovirus hunt.
In 1983, the French scientist, Luc Montagnier, discovered a new retrovirus, since named the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), and Gallo claimed "co-discovery" one year later. When Gallo held a press conference to announce the virus, the event set the HIV hypothesis in stone as official federal dogma. Donald Francis and his fellow EIS agents had triumphed, though remaining out of the spotlight.
With the EIS's help, the CDC and the federal government have managed to inflate fear of AIDS into a global paranoia, thereby feeding the machine that keeps scores of EIS graduates in business - writing, researching, analyzing, and otherwise cashing in on the AIDS "epidemic." Even when dissent scientists manage to create an opening for honest debate about AIDS, the EIS has masterfully exercised damage control, learning to squelch embarrassing new twists that threaten the prevailing dogma. In July of 1992, during the Eight International Conference on AIDS in Amsterdam, Newsweek suddenly published an article by reporter Geoffrey Cowley on several HIV-negative AIDS cases. Researchers at the AIDS conference interpreted the article as a political green light, and began pouring forth dozens of reports of previously unmentioned AIDS patients without HIV, from both the United States and Europe. The situation began reeling out of control, re-opening the question of whether HIV is the true cause of AIDS. Anthony Fauci, director of AIDS Research at the NIH, and James Curran of the CDC raced to Amsterdam on Air Force Two to take charge. The best they could do on the spot was to listen to the reports, promising to resolve the situation.
Three weeks later, the CDC sponsored a special meeting at its Atlanta headquarters. The scientists reporting HIV-free AIDS cases were invited, as was Cowley, the Newsweek reporter. The unexplained AIDS cases were relabeled idiopathic CD4+ lymphocytopenia, or ICL - so as to break any connection between these cases and AIDS. That was enough for Cowley. Since then, he has not reported on AIDS cases without HIV, or even ICL.
Information about these same HIV-free AIDS cases had been available to the media long before the public episode, but had continually been censored. Lawrence Altman, the EIS member who had become the head medical writer for the New York Times, admitted to Science magazine that he knew of cases for several months but did not break the story because he didn't think it was his paper's place to announce something the CDC was not confident enough of to publish. The Times, of course, has long cultivated an image of publishing "all the news that's fit to print."
The era of infectious diseases in the industrialized world, the age when most people died of tuberculosis, malaria, yellow fever, or polio, ended long ago. But the EIS, a relic of the past, has grown ever larger in its membership and influence. Its clandestine methods and near invisibility have allowed the CDC to virtually manufacture epidemics, and to make the whole process appear spontaneous. Now, as AIDS and the EIS moves into the '90s, some members are beginning to privately mourn the fat days of the mid- to late '80s, when AIDS research dollars flowed most freely from government coffers. Once again, the EIS may soon be forced to justify its existence to Congress in order to finance its ambitious program of centralized public health surveillance. Cloaked in science, the EIS's agenda threatens to expand public health controls over private beliefs and life-styles. Healthy suggestions are one thing; exploiting hysteria to impose emergency powers is quite another. *
VIRUSMYTH HOMEPAGE
AIDS; WORDS FROM THE FRONT
By Bryan Ellison
Spin Dec. 1993
Since 1949, the Epidemic Intelligence Service has infiltrated hospitals, health departments, and newspaper offices around the world. Bryan Ellison exposes how this elite, semi-secret wing of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has managed to stifle debate about everything from swine flu to AIDS.
At 1600 Clifton Road in Atlanta, Georgia, the mammoth brick towers of the centers for Disease Control and Prevention sprawl across clean manicured lawns. This is the Pentagon of government health - a billion military prevention agency that monitors broken limbs and illness, and evangelizes on everything from malaria pills to gun control. Tucked into the midst of this labyrinth is the hub of a little known but extremely powerful network of health professionals. Think of its as the CIA of health care: the Epidemic Intelligence Service (EIS).
Although few people know of its existence, the resources of the EIS and its reach into public life are extensive. Nearly 2,000 EIS trainees occupy key positions in national and international health care. Former United States Surgeon General William H. Stewart is a member, as are two other assistant Surgeon Generals. Jonathan Mann and Michael Merson, past and present heads, respectively, of the World Health Organization's global AIDS Program, both trained with the EIS. Universities, health departments, private practices, dentist offices, veterinary hospitals, and insurance and pharmaceutical companies are all stocked with members. Others work within tax-exempt foundations, including the Ford, Rockefeller, and Joseph Kennedy Foundations and the Rand Corporation, helping direct the spending of trust funds on medical and other projects.
Even reporters who cover health-related organizations and medical breakthroughs have graduated from the EIS program. The New York Time's chief medical correspondent, Lawrence Altman, is a member, as is Bruce Dan, former ABC News medical editor and former senior editor of the prestigious Journal of the American Medical Association. Marvin Turck, the editor at the University of Washington'' Journal of Infectious Diseases, joined EIS in 1960.
All have undergone six weeks of intensive epidemiological training, and then served for two years, on CDC salary, in state and local health departments around the country. Many worked in the CDC itself. After completing their field experience, EIS alumni are free to pursue any career they desire. But all understand the implicit agreement that they function as a permanent reserve for the CDC, gathering information about potential epidemics and reporting it back to headquarters.
Taken at face value, the wide pool of EIS graduates would seem no more ominous than a clique of university alumni. But the EIS's mandate is broad and its potential powers daunting. In a declared emergency, this uniformed branch of the Armed Services has the authority to suspend many individual rights. In peacetime, the EIS can control what we know about illnesses and when we know it. So far, it has taken the public to the brink of hysteria over illnesses from swine flu to AIDS.
EIS was the brainchild of public health expert Alexander Langmuir. In 1949, the CDC was interested in expanding beyond its mandate for malaria control, but needed justification. It tapped Langmuir from his teaching position at the Johns Hopkins University School of Hygiene and Public Health. Langmuir's arrival was a coup for the CDC - he possessed a security clearance as one of the few scientific advisers to the Defence Department's biological and chemical warfare program. The Cold War was raging at that time, and civil defence ranked high in government priorities.
Langmuir proposed that the CDC build a comprehensive surveillance system of trained individuals in all sectors of public and private life to detect the earliest signs of a biological warfare attack. "In the event of war the [EIS members] could be returned to active duty with the Public Health Service and assigned to strategic areas to fulfil the functions for which they were trained," said Langmuir. Federal officials responded with millions of dollars, and the first class entered in July 1951. The symbol of the EIS reflected its focus on activism instead of scientific research - pair of shoes worn through with holes.
But biological warfare never struck, and the EIS has justified its existence over the years by adapting its mandate to include civil medical emergencies. Langmuir himself noted that the warfare infrastructure could be used to control any natural epidemic, using quarantine measures, mass immunizations, and other emergency techniques.
This country experiences more than 1,000 clustered outbreaks of disease each year - roughly one every eight hours - including colds, flu, hepatitis, and numerous noninfectious conditions, all running their course and disappearing, and often eluding scientific explanation. The EIS, it was reasoned, could detect most of those clusters as soon as they popped up, and in its military style treat selected outbreaks as emergencies on the assumption they were contagious. And today, the EIS's role is so broad as to include any "epidemic," including those of violence; for example, EIS officers were called to monitor the L.A. riots following the Rodney King verdict and to examine injuries after the World Trade Center bombing in 1993.
But it's the annual outbreak of influenza virus - the flu - that has fuelled the EIS's most engaging battles, ironically with dire consequences to public health on occasion. In the spring of 1957, news reached the U.S. that the flu was devastating nations of the Far East. The CDC rang the alarm of an imminent and devastating epidemic, and Congress responded by providing money to allow the agency to crash-produce a vaccine, which nevertheless arrived too late. In the end, the mild flu disappeared quite spontaneously, leaving behind none of the predicted destruction. Some public-health experts even questioned whether the hype-up scare may have only stimulated vaccine sales.
Langmuir dipped into the new funds from that heralded debacle and expanded the EIS. By 1976, the EIS network had become so widespread that it could detect even the tiniest outbreaks of illness. When five soldiers caught a flu that January, the alarm bells sounded again. This time the disease was nicknamed "swine flu," based on the speculation that pigs served as the reservoir for the virus. President Ford and Congress panicked, throwing vast new sums of money into another flu vaccine. Then came an unexpected wrinkle: The program stalled when insurers discovered that the vaccine itself could produce extraordinary side effects, ranging from severe fevers and malaise to paralysis and death.
Now the EIS network sprang into action. Except for the five soldiers, no flu epidemic could be found, and the EIS was placed on full alert to detect any outbreak. Unless Congress could be convinced the danger was real, the vaccine program would end. As described by Gordon Thomas and Max Morgan-Witts in their book Anatomy of an Epidemic, the large Auditorium A, located in CDC headquarters in Atlanta, became the command center - called the "war room." Set up especially for this occasion, it contained "banks of telephones, teleprinters, and computers, the hardware for an unprecedented monitoring system which, to work, also required a typing pool, photocopy machines, and doctors sitting at rows of desks in the center of the room." Experts worked around the clock, week after week, chasing down every rumour of flu outbreaks.
A cluster of pneumonia cases suddenly appeared in Philadelphia, days after American Legion members had returned home from their July convention. On Monday morning, August 2, after receiving word of this outbreak, personnel in the CDC's swine-flu war room established contact with Jim Beecham, a brand new EIS officer on assignment in the Philadelphia health department. The CDC could not directly intervene in the situation without an invitation, and Beecham helped arrange one immediately. Within hours three EIS officers flew down to Philadelphia. They were joined within days by dozens of CDC experts.
When the CDC personnel arrived, pre-positioned EIS members such as Beecham and top health adviser Robert Sharrar stopped obeying local authorities and began following orders from the incoming CDC team. The CDC began fomenting wild rumours that this "Legionnaire's disease" was the beginning of the swine flu epidemic. The media proved cooperative; the New York Times assigned none other than Lawrence Altman, an EIS alumnus, to cover the story.
With nationwide hysteria rapidly developing, Congress suddenly changed its mind and approved the swine flu vaccine. Some 50 million Americans were inoculated over the next several months, ultimately producing at least 1,000 cases of severe nerve damage and paralysis, dozens of deaths, and nearly million in liability claims. Meanwhile, within days of the legislative approval, the EIS team finally acknowledged the pneumonia was not related to swine flu, but the announcement came too late.
The swine flu never showed up, and the fiasco nearly destroyed the CDC's reputation. But the EIS executed damage control by blaming Legionnaire's disease on a newly isolated bacterium. In reality, the stricken Legionnaires had been elderly men, several with kidney transplants, who had become extraordinarily drunk at the convention - all classic risk factors for pneumonia. Such minor disease outbreaks are relatively common, though rarely fall into the public spotlight. But the CDC had succeeded in scaring the nation about a harmless bacterium, one found in plumbing of almost any building.
The CDC needed another crisis epidemic to revive its heroic image and expand its mandate. In 1981, the White House was considering cutting the CDC budget by 23 percent. AIDS appeared not a moment too soon, in the same year.
EIS officer Wayne Shandera, on active assignment in the Los Angeles health department, received a call from Michael Gottlieb, a young immunologist at the UCLA Medical Center. Four patients had pneumocystis carinii pneumonia and serious immune deficiencies. Shandera had already heard a report of a fifth such case. One or two cases usually meant nothing; five seemed more plausible as an outbreak. And all five men were young homosexuals, a coincidence which could possibly indicate a sexual link. These five cases were the official start of what later came to be known as the acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) epidemic.
Shandera forwarded the data to his unofficial bosses at the CDC. According to Randy Shilts in his book And the Band Played On, James Curran, the CDC official who saw the report, wrote "Hot stuff. Hot stuff" across the top and rushed it into publication. New reports were trickling in of dying male homosexuals, most of whom also suffered from a rare skin cancer known as Kaposi's Sarcoma and Opportunistic Infections (KSOI) Task Force to manage the investigation, loaded with such EIS members as Harold Jaffe and Mary Guinan.
Virtually all of the first 50 cases admitted to using poppers, the liquid nitrite drug widely popular among homosexual men for its aphrodisiac properties. Scientists had not studied the long-term effects of this inhaled drug, but its chemical structure was known for its severe toxicity and ability to cause cancer. Nevertheless, a cursory study comparing popper use in disease-free gays with those with AIDS led the EIS to rule out poppers as the culprit.
The Task Force then mobilized the EIS network to define sexually linked clusters of cases and to prove the syndrome had "spread" beyond homosexual men. Clusters were not hard to find, since the AIDS cases were extremely promiscuous men with hundreds or thousands of sexual encounters, and at least one instance of sexual contact with another AIDS case. EIS officers such as David Auerbach, assigned to the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health, interviewed these men and confirmed the prediction. Meanwhile, following the model of hepatitis-B transmission, EIS agents hunted down every heroin addict and blood transfusion recipient, including hemophiliacs, with conditions vaguely resembling the immune deficiencies in homosexuals. EIS personnel scoured hospitals and monitored local health departments for patients, and within months found a small handful of heroin users with opportunistic infections. EIS member Bruce Evatt and Dale Lawrence tracked down a hemophiliac in Colorado, dying primarily of internal bleeding, who also happened to have pneumonia. EIS agent Harry Haverkos travelled to Florida and Haiti to find impoverished Haitians with opportunistic tuberculosis. Instantly the heroin addicts, the hemophiliac, and the Haitian were all relabeled as AIDS cases, and the CDC trumpeted the news that AIDS had "spread" outside the homosexual community.
The biomedical research establishment bought the line and scrambled to find a virus. Scientists first turned to their familiar microbes; Epstein-Barr virus and cytomegalovirus, both known for many years through herpes virus research, were each blamed by different factions.
But the fate of AIDS research was sealed almost from the beginning. Donald Francis, an EIS member since 1971 who had gained notoriety for implementing heavy-handed public health tactics when working for the World Health Organization in the third world, had by 1981 risen to a high position within the CDC's Hepatitis Laboratories Division. He had also earned a graduate degree studying feline retroviruses.
Within just 11 days after the first report of AIDS cases appeared in June 1981, Francis placed a telephone call to Myron Essex, his former research supervisor at Harvard University. With no evidence whatsoever to back up his claims, Francis insisted that the new syndrome must be caused by a retrovirus - with a long latency period between infection and disease. Only five AIDS patients officially existed, yet Francis had already mapped out the entire future of the disease.
Francis doggedly pushed his view whenever anyone would lend him an ear, and even when no one would. "This is the epidemic of the century, and every qualified person should want to have a piece of the action," he would later say in a speech at the CDC.
Within a year, KSOI Task Force head James Curran was echoing the Francis hypothesis, as were other key CDC staffers. Working with Essex, Francis lobbied their close colleague, Robert Gallo, a well-funded retrovirus scientist at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), to search for an AIDS virus. Robert Biggar, another EIS member at the NIH, helped mobilize the huge federal institute behind the retrovirus hunt.
In 1983, the French scientist, Luc Montagnier, discovered a new retrovirus, since named the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), and Gallo claimed "co-discovery" one year later. When Gallo held a press conference to announce the virus, the event set the HIV hypothesis in stone as official federal dogma. Donald Francis and his fellow EIS agents had triumphed, though remaining out of the spotlight.
With the EIS's help, the CDC and the federal government have managed to inflate fear of AIDS into a global paranoia, thereby feeding the machine that keeps scores of EIS graduates in business - writing, researching, analyzing, and otherwise cashing in on the AIDS "epidemic." Even when dissent scientists manage to create an opening for honest debate about AIDS, the EIS has masterfully exercised damage control, learning to squelch embarrassing new twists that threaten the prevailing dogma. In July of 1992, during the Eight International Conference on AIDS in Amsterdam, Newsweek suddenly published an article by reporter Geoffrey Cowley on several HIV-negative AIDS cases. Researchers at the AIDS conference interpreted the article as a political green light, and began pouring forth dozens of reports of previously unmentioned AIDS patients without HIV, from both the United States and Europe. The situation began reeling out of control, re-opening the question of whether HIV is the true cause of AIDS. Anthony Fauci, director of AIDS Research at the NIH, and James Curran of the CDC raced to Amsterdam on Air Force Two to take charge. The best they could do on the spot was to listen to the reports, promising to resolve the situation.
Three weeks later, the CDC sponsored a special meeting at its Atlanta headquarters. The scientists reporting HIV-free AIDS cases were invited, as was Cowley, the Newsweek reporter. The unexplained AIDS cases were relabeled idiopathic CD4+ lymphocytopenia, or ICL - so as to break any connection between these cases and AIDS. That was enough for Cowley. Since then, he has not reported on AIDS cases without HIV, or even ICL.
Information about these same HIV-free AIDS cases had been available to the media long before the public episode, but had continually been censored. Lawrence Altman, the EIS member who had become the head medical writer for the New York Times, admitted to Science magazine that he knew of cases for several months but did not break the story because he didn't think it was his paper's place to announce something the CDC was not confident enough of to publish. The Times, of course, has long cultivated an image of publishing "all the news that's fit to print."
The era of infectious diseases in the industrialized world, the age when most people died of tuberculosis, malaria, yellow fever, or polio, ended long ago. But the EIS, a relic of the past, has grown ever larger in its membership and influence. Its clandestine methods and near invisibility have allowed the CDC to virtually manufacture epidemics, and to make the whole process appear spontaneous. Now, as AIDS and the EIS moves into the '90s, some members are beginning to privately mourn the fat days of the mid- to late '80s, when AIDS research dollars flowed most freely from government coffers. Once again, the EIS may soon be forced to justify its existence to Congress in order to finance its ambitious program of centralized public health surveillance. Cloaked in science, the EIS's agenda threatens to expand public health controls over private beliefs and life-styles. Healthy suggestions are one thing; exploiting hysteria to impose emergency powers is quite another. *
VIRUSMYTH HOMEPAGE
- Media and AIDS activists caught promoting false data (again)
- Mandatory AIDS drugs required for all pregnant women in Uganda
- Upcoming radio and TV programs featuring AIDS rethinkers
- HIV tests deconstructed at next A & W meeting‹be there or catch it on
video
===
Unfounded STD Numbers Used to Bolster HIV Scare
Thank goodness for the ever-vigilant Michael Petrelis of AIDS-Statistics.com
who keeps a sharp eye on the US Centers for Disease Control. With no
substantive data to support recent claims for rising HIV rates, health
officials, AIDS activists and the media are citing non-existent increases
in
sexually transmitted diseases like syphilis to suggest growing rates of
³unsafe sex² and to imply HIV must be increasing.
The following information from Michael (written in response to an opinion
piece in the Southern Voice newspaper "Real Activists Would Not Challenge
HIV Stats²) reveals how current alarms over rising STDs are false alarms.
Michael writes:
³According to the latest national STD statistics from the Centers for
Disease Control & Prevention as published in the Weekly Morbidity and
Mortality Report, STD rates in America are in fact going down.
³As of mid-September 2000, the CDC reported a total of 248,530 gonorrhea
cases. The total number for gonorrhea so far this year: 218,239. Similarly,
at this point last year, the CDC documented 4,273 syphilis diagnoses while
the number of syphilis cases thus far this year is 3,935. The same report
shows 9,208 cases of Hepatitis A as of September 2000. The number as of
this
September? 6,826. Hepatitis B is also down. There were 4,912 cases at this
time last year while this year we have 4,544.
³I¹m no rocket scientist, but these STD statistics from the CDC in no way
indicate a rise of any STD. With the CDC's declining STD numbers in mind,
we
should question how HIV infection could be rising. Maybe the Southern Voice
could locate a rocket scientist to explain how U.S. rates of syphilis,
gonorrhea, Hepatitis A and Hepatitis B decrease, while HIV allegedly
increases.²
===
Uganda To Require AIDS Drug Regardless of HIV Status
This report from The Advocate indicates that the interests of AIDS drug
manufacturers and the agendas of heavily funded AIDS service organizations
are taking precedence over basic human rights in Africa.
Viramune, the AIDS treatment to be required in Uganda, was the subject of
a
warning issued earlier this year by the US Centers for Disease Control after
the drug was noted to cause life-threatening side effects‹including liver
failure‹among healthcare professionals who took it ³fearing exposure to
HIV.² Viramune (also known as Nevirapine) was also implicated in the deaths
of six mothers and their unborn children in a recent drug trial in South
Africa, and according to documents obtained under Canada¹s Access to
Information Act, it provoked fatal side effects during drug trials in that
country.
Last summer, African media reported that Viramune¹s manufacturer
hired an
AIDS activist group to stage a demonstration at the 13th International AIDS
Conference in which they demanded lower prices for Viramune. Following the
phony demonstration, the company relented to the activists¹ ³demands.² Most
world media reported only the announcement of lower prices for Viramune
and
made no mention of the pretend protest/PR stunt.
Here¹s the news on the latest coup for Viramune¹s manufacturer. Please note
that AIDS drug given ³free of charge² are actually paid for by government
funds, international relief organizations, activist groups, and others.
Uganda to Give AIDS Drugs to All Pregnant Women
The Advocate, October 2, 2001
The Ugandan Health Ministry plans to soon implement a nationwide mandate
requiring all pregnant women, regardless of their HIV status, to be given
the HIV nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor Viramune (also known
as Nevirapine) to reduce mother-to-child transmission of the AIDS virus,
the
Kampala [Uganda] Monitor reports.
Francis Omaswa, director-general of the Health Ministry, on Thursday told
the nation's parliamentary committee on social services that the new program
is needed because many pregnant women are reluctant to test for HIV
antibodies and ultimately infect their children by not learning their HIV
status and taking antiretroviral medications.
Giving Viramune to all pregnant women in the country could slash the
nation's mother-to-child HIV infection rates by half, Omaswa said. The
medication will be provided free of charge in all of the country's district
hospitals.
===
Christine on KPFK Radio Wednesday Evening‹Listen on the Web
Christine Maggiore is the in-studio guest tomorrow evening Wednesday October
10th on the Nita Vallen show on KPFK radio. The program airs from11:00 pm
to
12:00 am pacific time. Local folks can tune in to the station at 90.7 FM
and
friends from afar can listen to a real time broadcast on the worldwide web
at http://www.kpfk.org
Thanks to list member Rick Stevens for introducing Nita to the subject!
===
HIV Positive Moms Valerie Emerson and Christine Tape National Talk Show
HIV positive mothers who decline AIDS drugs for themselves and their
children will be featured on a new nationally syndicated show, ³Talk or
Walk.²
Show producer Lori Read contacted me after reading the Mothering
magazine
cover story ³HIV Positive Moms Say No to AIDS Drugs² and we spent close
to a
month trying to get someone‹an AIDS activist, journalist, doctor, or
researcher, or an HIV positive or AIDS diagnosed person or a person caring
for one‹who was willing to challenge my views.
We finally found a friend of my family who has concerns about my health
choices to represent the opposing points. I got Valerie Emerson (read her
story in A & W¹s 8/12/01 emailer) and breastfeeding advocate Marian Tompson
(co-founder of La Leche League International and founder of the Another
Look
at HIV and Breastfeeding web site and study) flown in to be my advocates.
The program tapes this Thursday morning‹just a few hours after I finish
the
radio show!‹and I will announce the air-date as soon as we know it.
Wish us luck as we see if talk shows handle the issues any better than news
programsÃ…Â
===
Find Out Why HIV Tests Don¹t Prove HIV Infection
Wednesday October 17th at Alive & Well
Colorado scientist Rodney Richards, PhD will share surprising facts about
HIV tests at next week¹s free Alive & Well meeting. Dr. Richards shatters
many popular myths and explains exactly what¹s wrong with HIV antibody,
antigen, and viral load tests. You¹ll learn why none of the HIV tests are
licensed or marketed as diagnostic tests and how results of early blood
donor screenings using the ELISA and Western Blot tests showed that at
least 50% of positive results were among healthy blood donors with no risk
factors. Dr. Richard¹s presentation will also be available on video.
Rodney Richards speaks at 7:30 pm Wednesday October 17th at Alive & Well¹s
monthly community meeting in West Hollywood. New guests and those interested
in a review of the basics are invited to come at 6:30 pm for ³Relax, It¹s
Just Information,² a 45 minute presentation of facts challenging common
assumptions about HIV and AIDS, and to stay on for our special speaker.
Alive & Well meets in West Hollywood Park¹s Wirle Building, 626 N.
Robertson Blvd between Melrose and Santa Monica. Park free and legally
around the block at 647 N San Vicente by the tennis courts, and walk west
on
the El Tovar service road at the southwest end of the parking lot to
Robertson. Turn right and enter under the green canopy. As usual, we¹ll
have
free books and info packs for first time guests and snacks and refreshments
for people who like more than just food for thought.
By christine M
Director ALIVE ORG
- Mandatory AIDS drugs required for all pregnant women in Uganda
- Upcoming radio and TV programs featuring AIDS rethinkers
- HIV tests deconstructed at next A & W meeting‹be there or catch it on
video
===
Unfounded STD Numbers Used to Bolster HIV Scare
Thank goodness for the ever-vigilant Michael Petrelis of AIDS-Statistics.com
who keeps a sharp eye on the US Centers for Disease Control. With no
substantive data to support recent claims for rising HIV rates, health
officials, AIDS activists and the media are citing non-existent increases
in
sexually transmitted diseases like syphilis to suggest growing rates of
³unsafe sex² and to imply HIV must be increasing.
The following information from Michael (written in response to an opinion
piece in the Southern Voice newspaper "Real Activists Would Not Challenge
HIV Stats²) reveals how current alarms over rising STDs are false alarms.
Michael writes:
³According to the latest national STD statistics from the Centers for
Disease Control & Prevention as published in the Weekly Morbidity and
Mortality Report, STD rates in America are in fact going down.
³As of mid-September 2000, the CDC reported a total of 248,530 gonorrhea
cases. The total number for gonorrhea so far this year: 218,239. Similarly,
at this point last year, the CDC documented 4,273 syphilis diagnoses while
the number of syphilis cases thus far this year is 3,935. The same report
shows 9,208 cases of Hepatitis A as of September 2000. The number as of
this
September? 6,826. Hepatitis B is also down. There were 4,912 cases at this
time last year while this year we have 4,544.
³I¹m no rocket scientist, but these STD statistics from the CDC in no way
indicate a rise of any STD. With the CDC's declining STD numbers in mind,
we
should question how HIV infection could be rising. Maybe the Southern Voice
could locate a rocket scientist to explain how U.S. rates of syphilis,
gonorrhea, Hepatitis A and Hepatitis B decrease, while HIV allegedly
increases.²
===
Uganda To Require AIDS Drug Regardless of HIV Status
This report from The Advocate indicates that the interests of AIDS drug
manufacturers and the agendas of heavily funded AIDS service organizations
are taking precedence over basic human rights in Africa.
Viramune, the AIDS treatment to be required in Uganda, was the subject of
a
warning issued earlier this year by the US Centers for Disease Control after
the drug was noted to cause life-threatening side effects‹including liver
failure‹among healthcare professionals who took it ³fearing exposure to
HIV.² Viramune (also known as Nevirapine) was also implicated in the deaths
of six mothers and their unborn children in a recent drug trial in South
Africa, and according to documents obtained under Canada¹s Access to
Information Act, it provoked fatal side effects during drug trials in that
country.
Last summer, African media reported that Viramune¹s manufacturer
hired an
AIDS activist group to stage a demonstration at the 13th International AIDS
Conference in which they demanded lower prices for Viramune. Following the
phony demonstration, the company relented to the activists¹ ³demands.² Most
world media reported only the announcement of lower prices for Viramune
and
made no mention of the pretend protest/PR stunt.
Here¹s the news on the latest coup for Viramune¹s manufacturer. Please note
that AIDS drug given ³free of charge² are actually paid for by government
funds, international relief organizations, activist groups, and others.
Uganda to Give AIDS Drugs to All Pregnant Women
The Advocate, October 2, 2001
The Ugandan Health Ministry plans to soon implement a nationwide mandate
requiring all pregnant women, regardless of their HIV status, to be given
the HIV nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor Viramune (also known
as Nevirapine) to reduce mother-to-child transmission of the AIDS virus,
the
Kampala [Uganda] Monitor reports.
Francis Omaswa, director-general of the Health Ministry, on Thursday told
the nation's parliamentary committee on social services that the new program
is needed because many pregnant women are reluctant to test for HIV
antibodies and ultimately infect their children by not learning their HIV
status and taking antiretroviral medications.
Giving Viramune to all pregnant women in the country could slash the
nation's mother-to-child HIV infection rates by half, Omaswa said. The
medication will be provided free of charge in all of the country's district
hospitals.
===
Christine on KPFK Radio Wednesday Evening‹Listen on the Web
Christine Maggiore is the in-studio guest tomorrow evening Wednesday October
10th on the Nita Vallen show on KPFK radio. The program airs from11:00 pm
to
12:00 am pacific time. Local folks can tune in to the station at 90.7 FM
and
friends from afar can listen to a real time broadcast on the worldwide web
at http://www.kpfk.org
Thanks to list member Rick Stevens for introducing Nita to the subject!
===
HIV Positive Moms Valerie Emerson and Christine Tape National Talk Show
HIV positive mothers who decline AIDS drugs for themselves and their
children will be featured on a new nationally syndicated show, ³Talk or
Walk.²
Show producer Lori Read contacted me after reading the Mothering
magazine
cover story ³HIV Positive Moms Say No to AIDS Drugs² and we spent close
to a
month trying to get someone‹an AIDS activist, journalist, doctor, or
researcher, or an HIV positive or AIDS diagnosed person or a person caring
for one‹who was willing to challenge my views.
We finally found a friend of my family who has concerns about my health
choices to represent the opposing points. I got Valerie Emerson (read her
story in A & W¹s 8/12/01 emailer) and breastfeeding advocate Marian Tompson
(co-founder of La Leche League International and founder of the Another
Look
at HIV and Breastfeeding web site and study) flown in to be my advocates.
The program tapes this Thursday morning‹just a few hours after I finish
the
radio show!‹and I will announce the air-date as soon as we know it.
Wish us luck as we see if talk shows handle the issues any better than news
programsÃ…Â
===
Find Out Why HIV Tests Don¹t Prove HIV Infection
Wednesday October 17th at Alive & Well
Colorado scientist Rodney Richards, PhD will share surprising facts about
HIV tests at next week¹s free Alive & Well meeting. Dr. Richards shatters
many popular myths and explains exactly what¹s wrong with HIV antibody,
antigen, and viral load tests. You¹ll learn why none of the HIV tests are
licensed or marketed as diagnostic tests and how results of early blood
donor screenings using the ELISA and Western Blot tests showed that at
least 50% of positive results were among healthy blood donors with no risk
factors. Dr. Richard¹s presentation will also be available on video.
Rodney Richards speaks at 7:30 pm Wednesday October 17th at Alive & Well¹s
monthly community meeting in West Hollywood. New guests and those interested
in a review of the basics are invited to come at 6:30 pm for ³Relax, It¹s
Just Information,² a 45 minute presentation of facts challenging common
assumptions about HIV and AIDS, and to stay on for our special speaker.
Alive & Well meets in West Hollywood Park¹s Wirle Building, 626 N.
Robertson Blvd between Melrose and Santa Monica. Park free and legally
around the block at 647 N San Vicente by the tennis courts, and walk west
on
the El Tovar service road at the southwest end of the parking lot to
Robertson. Turn right and enter under the green canopy. As usual, we¹ll
have
free books and info packs for first time guests and snacks and refreshments
for people who like more than just food for thought.
By christine M
Director ALIVE ORG
AIDS: THE UNTOLD STORY
By Dr. Stanley Monteith
It has been said that "men become accomplices to those tragedies which they fail to oppose". Nowhere is that truth more clearly demonstrated than in the apocalypse currently unfolding across the world as the HIV epidemic continues its silent spread from land to land.
As of January 1, 1997 over 350,000 Americans will be dead, another 200,000 will be in the terminal stages of their illness, and an additional six hundred thousand to a million more will be HIV infected. Barring the possibility that protease inhibitors can permanently block HIV-induced immunosuppression, almost all those currently infected will progress to terminal-stage illness and death.
The enormity of the tragedy facing America today, however, is dwarfed by the tragedy sweeping Asia and Africa. As of mid-1994, in the small landlocked nation of Malawi in Southern Africa, 30% of high school students and 68% of college students tested were found to be HIV infected. (1) Recent testing of soldiers throughout Africa revealed a 50% HIV infection rate, while testing of military units in Zimbabwe revealed a 90% infection rate. It is estimated that in Zimbabwe between one-quarter and one-third of President Mugabe's Cabinet have already perished from AIDS. (2)
In the May, 1996 issue of Special Warfare, a magazine distributed primarily to members of Special Operations (Military Intelligence) units, Dr. Brian Sullivan writes: "The immediate future may present other daunting challenges...Because of complicated social and cultural reasons, AIDS already infects a high proportion of the military and civilian officials of Zaire, Uganda, Kenya, Zambia and other central African countries. In some or all of these countries government establishments may collapse in the next 10-15 years...civil rule may also erode or break down in parts of North Africa, the Middle East, India and Southeast Asia." (3)
In Uganda, the average life span of men has fallen to 30 years, while the average life span of women has fallen to 27 years. (4) A missionary friend living in Africa reports that there are over nine million children in sub- Saharan Africa who have lost their mothers to AIDS, and that one in every four miners working in South Africa are HIV positive. These statistics were communicated to me by E-mail from Vern Tisdalle, a missionary stationed in Johannesburg, South Africa. It is estimated that by the turn of the century the epicenter of the epidemic will have shifted from Africa to Asia. Indian health authorities currently estimate that "as many as 20 million or even 50 million Indians will be infected by the year 2000, and that there will be more AIDS patients than hospital beds". (5) On June 1, 1996 Reuter's News Service reported that Dr. William Blattner of the Institute of Human Virology at the University of Maryland estimated that 100 million people will be HIV infected by the year 2000. (6) In both Asia and Africa, HIV infection (AIDS) is primarily a heterosexual disease, while in Western nations the illness is found almost exclusively among homosexuals, IV drug users, and more recently among heterosexual blacks. Why is there such variance between the continents? There are several possible explanations. Dr. Max Essex, Director of the Harvard AIDS Institute, has reported that the predominant subtype of the virus found in Western nations is HIV-I: subtype B, whereas in both Asia and Africa the predominant subtypes are C and E. Dr. Essex believes that the Langerhans cells which line the vagina and oral cavities are the primary sites for HIV infection. In laboratory experiments using Langerhans cell cultures, investigators have discovered that HIV I: subtype B is only minimally infectious to LH cells, whereas subtypes C and E are highly infectious. This study may explain why we find heterosexual spread of HIV infection in Asia and Africa where subtypes HIV I: C and E predominate, but only rarely in Western nations where subtype B is found. It is presumed that homosexuals and IV drug users contract HIV I: subtype B readily because of their lifestyles involving needle sharing and rectal sex. (7) Dr. Essex's work, however, does not explain the heterosexual epidemic developing within black America today. This aberration may be explained by studies which have found that certain genetic factors predispose blacks to HIV infection. Researchers have recently identified two mutated genes in some whites that are not found in blacks; these altered genes protect their hosts from HIV infection. There may well be other yet unrecognized genetic factors which confer complete or partial immunity to whites, but these factors have yet to be identified. (8,9)
Shortly after the year 2000 blacks will make up the majority of new HIV infections occurring here in the United States. (10) That supposition is reflected in statistics released by the Department of Health in Virginia in 1996. Because of the 10-year latency period between HIV infection and immunodeficiency, AIDS statistics reflect the status of the epidemic 10 years ago rather than what is happening today. Virginia's current AIDS statistics suggest equal numbers of blacks and whites infected while HIV statistics reveal that 64% of recent infections are among blacks while only 31.8% are among whites. These figures become even more frightening when one reflects that blacks make up only 22.6% of Virginia's population. (11)
What most people do not realize is that all efforts to utilize public health measures to slow spread of the HIV epidemic have been thwarted. Why?
(A) Because most people don't understand what is happening,
(B) Because many who do recognize the unfolding tragedy have been threatened and are afraid to speak out, and,
(C) Because both public health officers and physicians have been effectively blocked from introducing the public health measures needed to stop further spread of this modern-day plague. (12)
(A) Randy Shilts, author of "And The Band Played On" recognized this fact when he wrote: "The bitter truth was that AIDS did not just happen to America - It was allowed to happen by an array of institutions, all of which failed to perform their appropriate tasks to safeguard the public health ... There was no excuse, in this country and in this time, for the spread of a deadly new epidemic." (13)
Why is this happening? Tragically, most Americans do not understand the magnitude of the epidemic because our print and TV media have been selective in reporting matters dealing with the epidemic. I know that from first-hand experience because I and many of my cohorts have been thwarted in our efforts to disseminate the truth about the magnitude of the epidemic. I have recorded that story in my book "AIDS:The Unnecessary Epidemic", published in 1991 by Covenant House. An interesting study in thought control in America today is to try to acquire my book via regular distribution channels.
In recent years several other books have been published which have, in my opinion, presented misleading information about the epidemic. Tragically, that misinformation has discouraged introduction of the public health measures needed to save human lives. In 1990 Regnery Gateway published Michael Fumento's "The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS". In that book, Fumento assured his readers that there was no possibility of heterosexual spread of AIDS here in the United States. Noting that the epidemic had not exploded within the white, heterosexual community as feared, Fumento crafted a convincing tale belittling those of us who wanted to introduce public health measures to block further spread of the disease. In his book, Fumento accused me of "iceberg-theory terrorism" because during the early stages of the epidemic I expressed fear that HIV disease would spread into the general heterosexual population. (14) As time has gone by I have publicly modified my view, but to the best of my knowledge Michael Fumento has never recanted his message that no public health measures were needed. During the early stages of the epidemic, we were both wrong. I erred on the side of caution; Michael Fumento erred on the side that insists that preventive health measures were not needed to stop the epidemic. The tragedy unfolding in both Asia and Africa today reflects the apathy engendered by the misinformation disseminated during the early 1990s. I sincerely believe that the lives of hundreds of thousands of homosexuals, IV drug users, black heterosexuals and black children could have been saved had public health measures been introduced at that time. Had measures been introduced in Asia and Africa, hundreds of millions of lives could have been saved. That, however, was not to be. (15). In 1994 Inside Story Publications released "Why We Will Never Win the War on AIDS" written by Brian Ellison and Dr. Peter Duesberg. Dr. Duesberg insists that there is no AIDS epidemic, and that most of those who are assumed to have died from AIDS have actually succumbed to the complications of drug usage, sexual stimulants, and AZT. (16) An updated version of Dr. Duesberg's book was republished by Regnery Publishing Inc. in 1996 under the title "Inventing the AIDS Virus". Both books contended that:
[1] "in most individuals suffering from AIDS, no virus particles can be found anywhere in the body" (17)
[2] "retroviruses do not kill cells" (18)
[3] There are no scientific studies to document any relationship between HIV infection and immunodeficiency (19)
[4] Kimberly Bergalis was perfectly healthy before she was given AZT (20)
[5] HIV-infected hemophiliacs and transfusion recipients do not die from immunodeficiency but rather from their hemophilia and other diseases. (21)
A number of other questionable arguments were presented in a clever and convincing manner in Dr. Duesberg's book, and they swayed many people. After all, why would Dr. Duesberg, a world-famous retrovirologist, make such statements if they weren't true? Let me respond:
[1] Clinicians presently chart the course of HIV disease by measuring the numbers of viral particles present in peripheral blood.
[2] Because the HIV retrovirus routinely kills normal T cells in the laboratory, special resistant lines of T cells must be used to culture the retrovirus: This information was confirmed by telephone conversation with Dr. Donald Francis in August 1996, and with the chief of the CDC virology lab in Atlanta, Georgia, in February 1996.
[3] There have been a number of published studies documenting the relationship between HIV infection and terminal-stage immuno- suppression: (22,23)
[4] Kimberly Bergalis was severely immuno- compromised, contracted pneumocystis carinii pneumonia and had a CD4 count as low as 41 before she was started on AZT. This information was obtained from Kimberly's college medical records which were graciously provided to me by her father, George.
[5] Both Ellison and Dr. Duesberg ignore the fact that hemophiliacs and transfusion recipients who have died have virtually all manifested the classic, clinical picture of terminal- stage immunodeficiency. (24)
A detailed analysis of Dr.Duesberg's arguments and his agenda is beyond the scope of this article. That subject is covered in my HIV-Watch newsletter, and in my monograph, "The Population Control Agenda". Unfortunately, Dr. Duesberg's books have convinced many otherwise sincere people that there is no reason to institute standard public health measures to control further spread of the epidemic. (25)
(B) Why have people been afraid to speak out? I personally know of physicians, medical personnel and politicians who have had their professions ruined simply because they dared to comment publicly on the mishandling of the epidemic. On one occasion two public health officers approached me stating: "We want you to know that we support you and what you're doing, but we can't come out publicly because we've been threatened." That pattern of intimidation has been commonplace since the inception of the epidemic. The story of the threats and intimidation utilized to silence concerned professionals is also covered in "AIDS:The Unnecessary Epidemic". (26)
(C) For centuries epidemics have been stopped by identifying the infected, and preventing them from transmitting their illness to others. In the case of HIV disease it would have been relatively simple to have blocked further spread of the epidemic in the mid-1980s when the HIV blood test became available. That, however, was not to be. Even before the blood test was released in May of 1985 there were forces organizing to block the introduction of standard public health measures to control further spread of the epidemic. Virtually all necessary public health measures have been precluded because of those efforts. (27,28)
The precedent for public health management of a sexually transmitted disease epidemic was established by Surgeon General Thomas Parren during the syphylis epidemic of the 1930s. Had physicians been allowed to introduce the public health measures needed in the mid-1980s we could have stopped further spread of the plague. What should have been done?
[1] Physicians should have been instructed to carry out routine, non-mandatory, confidential HIV testing on all office and hospital patients.
[2] Mandatory reportability of the names of the infected to public health officials should have been instituted to facilitate contact tracing, compilation of accurate statistics, and identification of those who were intentionally spreading their illness.
[3] Mandatory premarital, prenatal, and neonatal HIV testing should have been introduced to save the lives of sexual partners, unborn and newborn children.
[4] Infected prostitutes should have been identified and removed from our streets.
[5] Houses of prostitution, gay sex clubs and bathhouses should have been closed.
[6] Nationwide treatment programs for drug addicts should have been introduced.
[7] Education should have stressed chastity and morality rather than instructing our youth how to put on condoms and lecturing them on aberrant sexual activity.
Tragically, almost all efforts by concerned public health officers and physicians to address the HIV epidemic have been thwarted. I know from personal experience because for over a decade I led the battle within the House of Delegates of the California Medical Association to introduce the public health measures needed to stop the epidemic. Year after year the physicians voted to introduce effective public health measures, and year after year those within the hierarchy and the bureaucracy of organized medicine worked to block implementation of those policies. That tragic story is also chronicled in my book "AIDS:The Unnecessary Epidemic".
Men and women of conscience are not relieved of their moral responsibility to speak out concerning the manner in which this epidemic has been handled simply because it has failed to involve the white heterosexual population of America. In my opinion, almost everyone who acquires this disease today does so because of our nation's failure to implement the public health measures necessary to block further spread of the illness. I sincerely believe that men do become accomplices to those tragedies which they fail to oppose. Failure to speak out in times of moral crises makes cowards of men, and these days we live in are surely times of great moral crisis.
(1) Radio Interview. John Harris. 9/13/95. Radio Liberty, P.O. Box 13, Santa Cruz, CA 95063. Copies available.
(2) Radio Interview. Peter Hammond of Front Lines Ministry: 9/20/96. Radio Liberty. Copies available.
(3) Sullivan Brian R. Special Operations and LIC in the 21st Century: The Joint Strategic Perspective: Special Warfare. The John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School May 1996; 9(2):4. Contact Superintendent of Documents, US Publishing Office, Washington D.C. 20402
(4) Life Expectancy Shortened in Uganda. Xinhua News Agency 8/18/96. (See also CDC AIDS Daily Summary 8/19/96).
(5) Burns JF. Denial and Taboo Blind India to the Horror of the AIDS Scourge. New York Times 9/22/96: 1. (See also CDC Daily Summary 9/23/96: 2.)
(6) Blattner W. More than 100 Million Worldwide Predicted to be HIV-Positive by Year 2000. Reuters News Service 6/17/96. (See also CDC AIDS Daily Summary 6/19/96: 2.)
(7) Soto KE et al. HIV-1 Langerhans' Cell Tropism Associated with Heterosexual Transmission of HIV. Science 3/1/96; 271: 1291
(8) Kolata Gina. New AIDS Study Reveals Startling Immunity Data. New York Times 9/27/96: A13:
(9) Dean Michael. Genetic Restrictions of HIV-1 Infection and Progression of AIDS. Science 9/27/96; 273: 1856.
(10) The Changing Face of AIDS. New York Times 11/04/96: A26
(11) Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of Health: Division of STD/AIDS Surveillance Quarterly; 4(2,3):1. Available from P.O. Box 2448,Room 112, Richmond, VA 23218
(12) Monteith SK. AIDS:The Unnecessary Epidemic. Covenant House 1991. (See also HIV-Watch; I-V.) P.O. Box 1835, Soquel, CA 95073.
(13) Shilts Randy. And the Band Played On. St. Martin's Press 1987: xxii.
(14) Fumento Michael. The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS. Regnery Gateway 1990: 303.
(15) Ibid: 178-184
(16) Ellison Brian., Duesberg Peter H. Why We Will Never Win the War on AIDS. Inside Story Communications. El Cerrito CA 1994 : v-viii.
(17) Duesberg Peter H. Inventing the AIDS Virus. Regnery Publishing Inc 1996: 175
(18) Ibid: 158
(19) Why We Will Never Win The War On AIDS. op cited: 250
(20) Inventing the AIDS Virus: op cited: 348-252
(21) Ibid: 4, 183-185, 286-288
(22) Asher MS. et al. Does Drug Use Cause AIDS. Nature 3/11/93; 362:103
(23) Schecter Martin T. et al. HIV-1 and the Aetiology of AIDS. Lancet 3/13/93; 341: 658-659
(24) Minimal Data Set for Risk Reduction,National Totals 1/1/93 - 12/31/93. 125 Hemophilia Treatment Centers Reporting to the CDC.
(25) Why We Will Never Win the War On AIDS; op cited: 122
(26) AIDS:The Unnecessary Epidemic; op cited.
(27) And the Band Played On; op cited: 539-560.
(28) AIDS:The Unnecessary Epidemic: op cited: 136, 161-66, 193, 342-43.
IP: Logged
Robodoon
Moderator posted October 29, 2001 06:39 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PS AIDS was created for Genocide...see Africa
IP: Logged
PaulKing
Junior Member posted October 29, 2001 07:03 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE HARD FACTS
AIDS IS NOT AN EPIDEMIC. PERIOD!
Forget the heterosexual AIDS epidemic. The category of those who so much as claim to have comprises over 90 percent of the population but only 11 percent of AIDS cases. In 1993, 9,570 such cases were reported. By 1999 it was down to 7,139 and last year it fell further, to 6,530.
Forget the teenage epidemic. Teen cases comprised less than one percent of the total 588 cases in 1993. True, former CDC chief and current Surgeon General David Satcher did tell a credulous Juan Williams at NPR in early July that “the median age for women getting AIDS today is about 16.†Actually, the median according to the CDC annual report is the 30-34 year-old range. Could he have meant HIV infections, the earliest stage of the disease? No, the median for those is also the 30-34 year-old range.
Forget the “rural AIDS explosion.†Rural cases comprised 14 percent of the total for last year, or 3,061 in number. This is down from 5,809 cases in 1993.
Forget all that “leading cause of death†stuff. AIDS fell off the CDC top 15 list back in 1998. AIDS deaths have declined
from a high of over 50,000 in 1995 to about 12,000 per year now. Fewer people died of AIDS last year than any year since 1985.
Childhood AIDS is disappearing. The total of pediatric AIDS cases last year was less than 200, compared to 959 in 1993.
In South Africa AIDS is presented as a mass epidemic but the mortality rate remains the same for all diseases as it was twenty years ago (2.2%). Either all other diseases have declined in direct inverse proportion to AIDS or AIDS is simply the old diseases renamed.
In India the total death according to the Department of Health since the beginning of the 'epidemic' is 17,000.
Spare a thought for India's AIDS mothers. Despite debilitating illness they are furiously bearing children at a rate of 70
pregnancies each --according to statistics that inform the United Nations AIDS Summit.
Spare a thought for India's poor bewildered journalists too. A local Aids Rethinker group tipped them off that the official statistics to be presented to the UN meant India had 560,000 Aids orphans --but only 17,000 Aids deaths.
Assuming 7,000 of those dead had been women of
childbearing age --they must have had over 70 children each to make the figures add up. No wonder the press conference turned into a debacle.
From your link: -
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/releases/01news/declindea.htm
"HIV mortality declined 26 percent in 1996, 48 percent in 1997, and 21 percent in 1998."
"While the five leading causes of death in 1999: Heart disease, cancer, stroke, chronic lower respiratory disease (formally classified as "Chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases and allied conditions"), and accidents (unintentional injuries) remained unchanged from the previous year, some significant changes did occur in the ranking of leading causes.
"The disease (AIDS) was the eighth leading cause of death in 1996, dropped out of the top 10 leading causes of death last year, and no longer ranks among the top 15 leading causes of death today."
"The number of reported cases of gonorrhea increased steadily from 1964 to 1977, fluctuated through the early 1980s, increased until 1987, and since 1987 has decreased annually"
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dastlr/gcdir/gono.html
Of the nine states with the highest 1999 syphilis rates (2-5 times higher than the national rate of 2.5 cases per 100,000),
http://www.cdc.gov/nchstp/dstd/Fact_Sheets/Syphilis_Facts.htm
IP: Logged
PaulKing
Junior Member posted October 29, 2001 07:08 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is insulting to put this string in 'Conspiracies'. Many of the Worlds leading scientists now say HIV is not the cause of immune suppression.
AIDS DISSIDENTS include two Nobel Prize winners, one nominee for the Nobel Prize, one member of The National Academy of Sciences to
name a few.
Charles A. Thomas, Jr. Ph.D. (Mol. Biologist, Pres. Helicon Fnd., San Diego, CA)
Harvey Bialy, Ph.D. (Editor Bio/Technology, New York, NY)
Harry Rubin, D.V.M. (Prof. Cell Biology, Univ. Cal. Berkeley, CA)
Richard C. Strohman, Ph.D. (Prof. Cell Biology, Univ. Cal. Berkeley, CA)
Phillip E. Johnson (Prof. Law, Univ. Cal. Berkeley, CA)
Gordon J. Edlin, Ph.D. (Prof. Biochem. &q Physics, Univ. Hawaii, HI)
Beverly E. Griffin, Ph.D. (Dir. Dept. Virology, Royal Postgrad. Med. School, London, UK)
Robert S. Root-Bernstein (Prof. Physiology, Michigan State Univ., East Lansing, MI)
Gordon Stewart, M.D. (Emeritus Prof. Public Health, Epidemiologist, Isle of Wight, UK)
Carlos Sonnenschein, M.D. (Tufts Univ., Medicine, Boston, MA)
Richard L. Pitter, Ph.D. (Dessert Research Inst., Univ. Nevada System, Reno NV)
Nathaniel S. Lehrman, M.D. (Psychiatrist, Roslyn, NY)
John Lauritsen (Author 'Poison by Prescription', New York, NY)
William Holub, Ph.D. (Biochemist, Live Sciences Inst. New York, NY)
Claudia Holub, Ph.D. (Biochemist, Live Sciences Inst. New York, NY)
Frank R. Buianouckas Ph.D. (Prof. Mathematics, Cuny, Bronx, NY)
Philip Rosen, Ph.D. (Prof. Physics, Univ. Mass. Amherst, MA)
Steven Jonas, M.D. (Prof. Preventive Medicine, Suny Stony Brook, NY)
Bernard K. Forscher, Ph.D (Ret. Editor Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci., Santa Fe, NM)
Kary B. Mullis, Ph.D. (Biochemist, PCR inventor, Consultant, La Jolla, CA.)
Jeffrey A. Fisher, M.D. (Pathologist, Mendham, NJ)
Hansueli Albonico, M.D. (General Practitioner, Langnau, Switzerland)
Robert Hoffman, Ph.D. (Prof. Dept. Pediatrics Univ. Cal. Med. School, San Diego, CA)
Timothy H. Hand, Ph.D. (Dept. Psychology, Oglethorpe Univ. Atlanta, GA)
Eleni Eleopulos, M.D. (Royal Perth Hospital, Perth, West Australia)
Robert W. Maver, F.S.A., M.A.A. (Dir. Research, Mutual Benefit Life, Kansas City, MO)
Ken N. Matsumura, M.D. (Chairman Alin Foundation &q Research Inst., Berkeley, CA.)
David T. Berner, M.D. (Condon, MT)
Theodor Wieland, Ph.D. (Max Planck Institut, Heidelberg, Germany)
Joan Shenton, M.A. (Meditel, London, UK)
John Anthony Morris, Ph.D. (Biochemist, Bell of Atari College Park, MD)
Sungchul Ji, Ph.D. (Prof. Pharmacology &q Toxicology, Rutgers Univ., Piscataway, NJ)
In addition there were 14 others who have added their signatures in July 1991.
By March 1993 the following persons had added their signatories:
Vahagn Agbabian, D.O. (Pontiac, MI)
Barry R. Alexavich (Cell Biologist, Bristol, CT)
David T. Berner, M.D. (Condon, MT)
Shelly B. Blam, Ph.D. (Alameda, CA)
Lawrence Bradford, Ph.D. (Benedictine College, Atchison, KS)
Carl Bradford, J.D. (San Diego, CA)
Michael Callen (Author 'Surviving AIDS', Hollywood, CA)
Melinda Calleira (Pres. Amer. Ass. Science &q Public Policy, Los Angeles, CA)
Hiram Caton, Ph.D. (Prof. App. Ethics, Griffith Univ., Brisbane, Australia)
Dennis Chaney, Ph.D. (Chaney Scientific Inc. Burlingame, CA)
Michelle Cochrane (Emeryville, CA)
Hywel Davies, M.D. (Cardiologist, Pueblo West, CO)
Marlowe Dittlebrandt, M.D. (Portland, OR)
Peter H. Duesberg, Ph.D. (Prof. Mol. Biology, Univ. Cal. Berkeley, CA)
Bryan J. Ellison (Author, Berkeley, CA)
Michael Ellner (HEAL, New York, NY)
Fabio Franchi, M.D. (Trieste, Italy)
Trish Fahey (New York, NY)
Celia Farber (Writer, New York, NY)
Lawrence A. Falk, Jr., Ph.D. (Virologist Abott Labs, Consultant NCI, Chicago, IL)
James A. Fimea, Ph.D. (Laguna Beach, CA)
Harry Flynn, (Author, Hollywood, CA)
William L. Gardner, Ph.D. (Wellesley, MA)
Arnold W. Giddens (Shingle Springs, CA)
Robert Grabowski (Birminghan, MI)
Martin Haas, Ph.D. (Dept. Biology Cancer Center, Univ. Cal., San Diego, CA)
Alfred Haessig, M.D. (Emeritus Prof. Immunolgy Univ. Bern, Switzerland)
Urs Haldimann (Editor, Swiss Ass. Science Writers, Arisdorf, Switzerland)
Neville Hodgkinson (Science Correspondent The Sunday Times, London, UK)
John Holmdahl, Ph.D. (Los Angeles, CA)
Ross Horne (Montville, Queensland, Austalia)
Heinrich Kremer, M.D. (Mueckenburg, Germany)
Hans J. Kugler, Ph.D. (Editor Prev. Med. Update, Redondo Beach, CA)
Robert Laarhoven (S.A.A.O., Hilversum, The Netherlands)
Paul Lineback, M.S. (Eastern Oregon State College)
Henk Loman, Ph.D. (Prof. Biophysics, Free Univ. Amsterdam, The Netherlands)
Judith Lopez (San Francisco, CA)
Maurizio Luca-Moretti, Ph.D. (InterAmerican Medical Health Ass., Boca Raton, FL)
William H. McIlhany, I.R.F. (Beverly Hills, CA)
Peter McKeever, L.L.B. (London, UK)
Michael D. Mellgard (Los Angeles, CA)
David Mertz (Dept. Philosophy, Univ. Massachusetts, Amherst)
Richard Mitchell, Ph.D. (Assoc. Prof. Sociology, Oregon State Univ, Corvalus, OR)
Joseph E. Morrow, Ph.D. (Cal. State Univ. Sacramento, CA)
Cindy Orser (Ast. Prof. Bacteriology, Univ. Idaho, Moscow, ID)
Hannes G. Pauli, M.D. (Former Director Bern Univ. Med. Faculty, Bern, Switzerland)
Paul Rabinow, Ph.D. (Prof. Dept. Anthropology Univ. Cal., Berkeley, CA)
Jon Rappoport (Author 'AIDS Inc.')
Dennis D. Rathman (Staff Member Lincoln Labs, Lexington, MA)
Rodney M. Richards, Ph.D. (Amgen Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA)
Judith Riesman, Ph.D. (Author, Arlington, VA)
Michael Ristow, Ph.D. (Bochum, Germany)
Mel T. Roach (Avatar Research, Tuscon, AZ)
Gary Robertson (Broadbeach Waters, Queensland, Australia)
Frank Rothschild (Project Dir., Berkeley Project on Bioscience &q Society, CA)
David F. Salehi, Ph.D. (Lake Dallas, TX)
Caspar Schmidt, M.D. (Psychiatrist, New York)
Russell Schoch (Editor California Monthly, Berkeley, CA)
Frederic I. Scott, Jr. (Editor American Clinical Laboratory, Baltimore, MD)
Udo Schuklenk (Dept. Ethics, Monash Univ., Melbourne, Australia)
Jeremy F. Selvey (Los Angeles, CA)
David Shugar, Ph.D. (Prof. Biophysics, Univ. Warsaw, Editor Pharmacol. Therap., Poland)
Sonja Silva (Los Lunas, NM)
Ernest G. Silver, Ph.D. (Radiation Biologist, Oak Ridge, TN)
Lockie M. Swengel (Del Mar, CA)
Frederick Tobin, Ph.D. (Gorke, Australia)
Jack True (Clayton, GA)
La Trombetta (Burzynski Research Inst., Houston, TX)
Friedrich Ulmer, Ph.D. (Prof. Math. &q Stat., Bergische Univ., Wuppertal, Germany)
Michael Verney-Elliot (Meditel, London, UK)
Darrell G. Wells, Ph.D. (Emeritus Prof. Plant Sciences, Brookings, SD)
Wai Yeung, M.D. (Orinda, CA)
By September 1993 the following persons had added their signatories:
Jeanette S. Abel M.D. (Portland, OR)
Jad Adams, M.A. (Author 'AIDS; The HIV Myth,' London, UK)
Patricia Akeman, R.N. (Goleta, CA)
John B. Andelin, M.D. (Mercy Hospital, Williston, ND)
Mark Anderson, D.C. (Orlando, FL)
James C. Baker, Ph.D. (Santa Rosa, CA)
Andrew A. Benson, Ph.D. (La Jolla, CA)
Richard M.A. Berger, DDS (Berkeley, CA)
Robert W. Birge, Ph.D. (Berkeley, CA)
John S. Blankfort, DDS (San Francisco, CA)
Dorothy L. Bosworth, Ph.D. (Carlsbad, CA)
Tucker Brawner, DPM (Savannah, GA)
Brian E. Briggs, M.D. (Minot, ND)
Douglas W. Brown, M.D. (Portland, ME)
John B. Burgin, DDS (Crowley, LA)
Susan E. Caliri, DDS (Berkeley, CA)
Ivor Catt, M.A. (St. Albans, UK)
Asit K. Chakraborty, Ph.D. (Omaha, NE)
Jack G. Chamberlain, Ph.D. (Berkeley, CA)
Colleen Cook, R.N. (Wilmington, DE)
Daniel J. Corson, MFA (Seattle, WA)
J. Mark Cox, DDS (Midland, TX)
Etienne De Harven, M.D. (St. Cezaire sur Siagne, France)
Richard W. DeLisle D.C. (Leominster, MA)
James DeMeo Ph.D. (El Cerrito, CA)
Thomas A. Dorman, M.D. (San Luis Obispo, CA)
Mohammad Entezampour, Ph.D. (Dept. Biology Univ. North Texas, Denton, TX)
Rafael Escribano, Ph.D. (Dept. Span.&q Port. Univ. Cal. Riverside, TX)
Sami E. Fathalla, M.D., Ph.D. (Damman, Saudi Arabia)
Richard A. Fisher (Inter. Acad. Oral Med. &q Toxicol., Annandale, VA)
Scott D. Flamm, M.D. (San Francisco, CA)
Michael R. Fox Ph.D. (Richland, WA)
Donato Fumarola, M.D. (Inst. Microbiolia Medica, Bari, Italy)
Charles L. Geshekter, Ph.D. (Dept. History, Cal. State Univ, Chico, CA)
Todd Gestaldo, D.C. (Sunnyvale, CA)
Edward S. Golub, Ph.D. (Pacific Center for Ethics &q App. Biol., Solana Beach, CA)
John Hardie, BDS (Dept. Dentistry Vancouver General Hospital, British Columbia, Canada)
Robert J. Henderson, D.C. (Locust Valley, NY)
Charles A. Hill, M.D. (Houston, TX)
Charles Hoff, Ph.D. (Univ. South. Alabama, AL)
Mark E. Jarmel, D.C. (Santa Monica, CA)
Anne Marie Jeay, Ph.D. (Univ. Nancy II, France)
Jens Jerndal M.D. (Lanzarote, Spain)
Donald J. Johnson, DDS (Coeur d'Alene, ID)
William H. Jordan Jr, Ph.D. (Culver City, CA)
Dennis G. Kinnane, DOM (Torrence, CA)
Claus Kohnlein, M.D. (Kiel, Germany)
Stefan T.J. Lanka, Ph.D. (Radolfzell, Germany)
Barry A. Liebling, Ph.D. (New York, NY)
Michel Lobrot, Ph.D. (Univ. Paris VIII, Les Lilas, France)
Howard C. Mel, Ph.D. (Berkeley, CA)
Th. H.L. Michiels, M.D. (Vinkeveen, The Netherlands)
James W. Miller, M.D. (San Leandro, CA)
R. Munck, M.D. (Ceret, France)
Cindy Nelson, M.A. (San Francisco, CA)
Raymond W. Novaco, M.D. (Prof. Psychology &q Soc. Behavior, Univ. Cal., Irvine, CA)
Sam Okware, M.D. (Ministry of Health, Entebbe, Uganda)
David J. Orman, M.Sc. (San Diego, CA)
George N. Pasto, M.D. (Portland, OR)
M. Dennis Paul, MscM (Amherst, NH)
Jack Perrine, Ph.D. (Pasadena, CA)
John L. Philp, M.D., MPH (Stockton, CA)
Peter W. Plumley, FSA (Chicago, IL)
Ronald F. Price, Ph.D. (La Trobe Univ., Bundoora, Victoria, Australia)
David W. Rasnick, Ph.D. (Alameda, CA)
Richard A. Ratner, M.D. (Bethesda, MD)
Rogers Reddings, Ph.D. (Univ. North Texas, Denton, TX)
Stephen J. Repitor, DPM (Oak Park, MI)
Douglas Roise, M.D. (St. Joseph's Hospital, Dickenson, ND)
Steven Roman, Ph.D. (San Diego, CA)
Cristobal A.P. Sandoval, M.D. (Cuba)
Alex Santoro, M.A. (Kansas City, MO)
George Sarant, M.D. (Bronx, NY)
David R. Schryer, Ph.D. (Hampton, VA)
C. Grier Sellers, C.A. (Seattle, WA)
James T. Shepherd, M.D. (Port Arthur, TX)
John G. Shiber, Ph.D. (Univ. Kentucky, Prestonberg, KY)
Irving P. Silberman, O.D. (Hyde Park, NY)
Tony Smith, CAGS (New York, NY)
James P. Snyder, Ph.D. (Glenview, IL)
James K. Stack, LLD (San Francisco, CA)
Mark S. Stanley, Ph.D. (Dept. Biol. Sciences, Univ. North Texas, Denton, TX)
Ralph R. Stephens, LMT (Cedar Rapids, IA)
Joe Thomas, Ph.D. (ICMR-WHO Proj. on AIDS, Calcutta, India)
Richard A. Tuscher, D.O. (Portland, OR)
Jean van Camp, M.A. (New Martinsville, WV)
Raul Vergini, M.D. (Predappio, Italy)
James H. Warner, LLD (Rohersville, MD)
Edward J. Wawszkiewicz, Ph.D. (Chicago, IL)
Johathan C. Wells, Ph.D. (Fairfield, CA)
Adrian M. Wenner, Ph.D. (Dept. Biol. Sciences, Univ. Cal., Santa Barbara, CA)
Manfred Wetter, Ph.D. (Copperbelt Univ., Kitwe, Zambia)
Derek A. Wolfe, DBM (North Devon, UK)
L.B. Work, M.D. (Monterey, CA)
Hung-His Wu, Ph.D. (Dept. Math. Univ. Cal., Berkeley, CA)
James Wu, M.D. (Foster City, CA)
Stanley J. Zyskowski, Ph.D. (Farmington Hills, MI)
Chr. Anti-Com. Crusade (Long Beach, CA)
Mark Alampi (Project AIDS Inter., Los Angeles, CA)
W.H. Beauman (Chicago, IL)
This is not the full list
IP: Logged
GayAvenger
Senior Member posted October 29, 2001 07:37 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Constitutionalist:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moved to the Conspiracy & Boogie Man Forum
Good Call GA!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks. I try to be consistent. If I am going to take people to task for getting their "research" from political-action groups (such as the horribly misnamed "Family Research Council"), then I have to apply that critique evenly.
As for THIS site… as if the sensationalism wasn't enough… as if a quick check on the founder wasn't enough… as if the "condoms cause cancer" claim wasn't enough… the apparent encouragement of unsafe sex was MORE than enough to bump this into the "Chupacabra" realm.
I mean… "15 million" people are allegedly "latex intolerant." So, that means… don't wear condoms?
AH-Roooh?
(BTW…
("15 million" is EXACTLY what the Radical Right in Massachusetts has claimed a "domestic partnership" program would cost taxpayers in dollars. But THEY don't provide any compelling proof EITHER!
(Coincidence? I THINK NOT!!!)
IP: Logged
PaulKing
Junior Member posted October 29, 2001 11:53 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you bother to check your facts the figure of those allergic to latex which is now 18 million comes direct from the FDA. May I suggest that before you are so ready to dismiss something you do your homework first.
Latex Allergy Fact Sheet
Latex allergy is an acquired allergy.
Some powder changed from talc, which was heavy, to cornstarch, which is light, binds
with the latex proteins and carries them in the air where they can be breathed.
Powdered latex gloves create an aeroallergen that is inhaled and can be absorbed through evy mucosa.
The American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology believes that 20% of health
care workers are allergic to latex.
Latex reactions increase in severity with prolonged exposures-particularly with dipped
latex products such as latex gloves, latex balloons, and latex condoms.
Estimates are that 18 million Americans are allergic to latex.
28 deaths have been reported to the FDA--these include reports of patients given barium enemas, children, a physician, nurses and others.
The most prominent risk factors: a history of other allergies/asthma/eczema and latex
exposure (at work or as a patient).
Individuals who are at risk because of their work include: health care workers,
beauticians, food handlers, day care personne,, EMS personnel, toll collectors, police officers, crime lab personnel, firemen, housekeepers, and others who use latex gloves.
Individuals at risk because of exposure during medical treatment include: those who
have had operations early in life, those with repeated operations, those exposed to
latex urinary catheters and GI and rectal tubes.
Medic Alert tags/bracelets citing latex allergy rose from 20 in 1985 to over 7,447 to tal by the end of 1977.
Routes of exposure: inhaled, contact with mucosa, ingestion, intra-vascular, parenteral
injection, wound inoculation, breaks in skin.
Loosely bound latex protein is transferred to objects (furniture, clothing) by touch and
easily aerosolized.
Powdered latex gloves create an aeroallergen that is inhaled when gloves are snapped on and off, potentially causing sensitization/reactions.
Latex allergy symptoms vary -- from itchy hands or eyes, to asthma or anaphylaxiz,
and even death.
Symptoms of contact dermatitis have to do with the glove's chemicals (e.g., thiurams).
Symptoms of latex allergy are consistent with other allergies
Skin: urticaria (hives), rash, vesicles
ENT: watery, itchy reddened eyes and nose and throat; sneezing, sinus symptoms
GI: cramping, diarrhea
Respiratory: asthma, chest tightness, laryngeal edema, bronchospasm
Cardiovascular: hypotension, tachycardia, dysrhythmias, vascular collapse.
Latex proteins are loosely bound to gloves and readily transferred to charts and medical equipment.
Safe alternative products are available at competitive costs.
The FDA will require mandatory labeling of any medical device containing latex which
comes in contact with humans as of September, 1998.
This label will read: "Caution: This product contains latex which may cause allergic
reations".
Six states have proposed legislation to ban powdered latex gloves.
Many hospitals are changing to non-latex exam gloves.
Many hospitals have banned latex balloons (Mylar, silver foil balloons are safe).
Many health care professionals have been left totally unable to continue in their
profession.
The condition of many health care professionals has continued to worsen, even after leaving the hospital setting.
THERE IS NO CURE; THERE IS NO DESENSITIZATION currently available for latex allergy. We can only medicate to help decrease symptoms.
AVOIDANCE IS THE ONLY INTERVENTION for latex allergy.
Prevention, avoidance, and education about latex allergy are key.
This and many articles and directives from the
FDA can be found at: -
http://66.155.44.3/arc_pages/safe_sex_index.html
IP: Logged
GayAvenger
Senior Member posted October 31, 2001 08:39 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PaulKing:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you bother to check your facts the figure of those allergic to latex which is now 18 million comes direct from the FDA.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DAMN!
ANOTHER Conspiracy Theory shot all to Hell!!!
(Don't'cha just HATE when that happens?!)
IP: Logged
AidsRCorg
Junior Member posted October 31, 2001 11:25 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rod Knoll, Founder of AIDS Reality Check ( http://www.AidsRC.org ), replies:
Dr. Monteith's criticism, as posted by Robodoon, is the most "scientific" of the replies so far. However, Monteith's superficial critique of the effort to reappraise "HIV" and "AIDS" is a tactic typical of AIDS Industry apologists: dismiss Duesberg and IGNORE ALL other dissenting researchers.
Nevertheless, Duesberg and others have reappraised at least a couple of Monteith's references (see http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/pdaztsfstudy.htm and http://www.duesberg.com/pddrgenetica.pdf ).
Still other dissenting researchers have criticized Duesberg for not going FAR ENOUGH in his critique of the "HIV=AIDS" FRAUD (see http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/epreplypd.htm ). Throughout the AIDS era, this ever-expanding research team has published in the medical literature analyses of various aspects of "HIV/AIDS" mythology which are far more in-depth than anything Duesberg ever did on the subject.
See:
1. http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/epmedhypo.htm
2. http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/epwbtest.htm (This paper provides important insight into what is meant by a positive "HIV" test result.)
3. http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/ept4cells.htm
4. http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/ephemophilia.htm (This paper refutes the notion of hemophiliac "AIDS".)
5. http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/epafrica.htm (This study contains important data that refute the blatantly racist notion that "Africa is at greatest risk".)
6. http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/epcurmedres97.htm (More insight into the antibody tests is found here.)
7. http://www.librapharm.co.uk/cmro/vol_15/supplement/index.htm
What's that you say? Some of these articles are old? Ah, but they have withstood the test of time. In fact, many of the ideas espoused by this "Perth Group" of researchers in their papers have been confirmed by ORTHODOX AIDS researchers (see: http://www.continuummagazine.org/back_issues/volume5/vol5n5/eleni_oxistre1_55.html ). A look at the pivotal issue of CD4+ T-cells shows this to be the case.
The orthodox claim is that "HIV infection" leads to "immunedeficiency", specifically by
overwhelming-and subsequent depletion of-"CD4 T-cells", which in turn leaves
people open to "opportunistic infections". This sequence is crucial to defending the
orthodox views on "HIV infection" and any real harm that may be associated with it.
The most damning evidence against this sequence of events comes, as always, directly
from the "AIDS" orthodoxy itself. As far back as 1985, none other than the
"co-discoverer" of "HIV", Luc Montagnier, wrote: "this syndrome occurs in a minority of infected persons, who generally have in
common a past of antigenic stimulation and of immune suppression BEFORE (HIV)
INFECTION" (emphasis added) (1). Two subsequent studies on IV drug users (2,3)
confirmed the fact that an already "low number of T4 cells was the highest risk factor
for HIV infection" and NOT, as is claimed by most of the AIDS orthodoxy, vice
versa.
Actually, the "medically correct" term for these cells is "t-cells-that-bind-with-a-man-made-antibody-to-the-CD4-antigen" (see again: http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/ept4cells.htm ) As one can plainly see from this study, the technology for detecting these subsets of t-cells came into existence JUST before the first cases of what would be called "AIDS" were diagnosed, coincidentally
enough. (How's that for "conspiracy"?)
Today, though, in increasing numbers, orthodox AIDS researchers are continuing to question the so-called "depletion" of CD4 cells and its supposed "cause" -their apparent "destruction" due to "HIV infection". In fact, David Ho's "viral load" theory of HIV "overwhelming" these t-cells is now DEAD ON ARRIVAL in the medical literature, and it is Ho's fellow ORTHODOX "AIDS" researchers who put "the final nails in the coffin" for his theory(4)!
"We reiterate propositions made earlier that much of the apparent 'depletion' of CD4+
lymphocytes during the asymptomatic phase of HIV infection may be attributed to
redistribution between the tissues and the blood compartment (5)." This is seconded by other MAINSTREAM "AIDS" researchers(6-8).
It is also important to note that, as orthodox AIDS researcher Jay Levy writes, CD4 T-cell counts are done on circulating blood and
"represent only a small percentage (3%) of the total white blood cells in the body..."
[9].
In another study edited by, of all people, Anthony Fauci, still other mainstream "AIDS" researchers have stated that "along with other recent analyses and experimental developments these conditions also suggest a need to
re-evaluate current concepts about HIV pathogenesis, including the concept that a
systemic depletion of CD4 T-cells is the hallmark of the disease". They showed that
the so-called "depletion" of these CD4+ t-cells is due to a "down-regulation", or disappearance, of the CD4 antigens on the surface of the cells, which therefore reduces the chance that these cells will bind with the man-made "CD4" antibodies which researchers have to use in order to detect them
[ http://www. pnas.org/cgi/content/full/96/21/11958?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&searchid=QID_NOT_SET&stored_search=&FIRSTINDEX=&volume=96&firstpage=11958
or (10) in hard copy]. If the antibodies don't bind to the cells, the cells cannot
be detected. And if the cells cannot be detected, they won't be counted. This is a fact that Montagnier himself pointed out as far back as 1984 (11).
Orthodox researchers have also recently found that "the rate of removal of CD4+ T cells is indeed elevated and the half-life is indeed shortened" in so-called "AIDS" patients who are taking "anti-HIV" drugs(12) as compared to those who do not take the meds. This means the apparent "increase" in CD4 cells seen in these patients is meaningless.
It's funny that Monteith worries that we AIDS dissenters are convincing the public of our views. Ironically, the most convincing data that support our views consistently come from orthodox AIDS researchers themselves. Provided, of course, that one bothers to actually look at their data.
Rod Knoll
Founder
AIDS Reality Check http://www.AidsRC.org
"Victory for Truth!"
mailto:rod@aidsrealitycheck.org
REFERENCES (in addition to links provided):
1. Ann. Int. Med. 1985; 103:689-693.
2. Epidemiology 1990; 1:453-459.
3. J. Acquir. Imm. Defic. Syndr. 1993; 1:390- 395.
4. Nat. Med. 1998 V.4, No. 2, p. 145-46.
5. J. Acq. Imm. Def. Syn. Hum.Retrov. 1998; 17:450-457.
6. Nature Medicine 1998; 4: 208-214.
7. Immun. Today Jan. 1998; Vol. 19, No.1: p. 10-17.
8. AIDS 2000, Aug 18;14:1717-1720.
9. JAMA 1996, Vol. 276, no. 2, p. 161-62.
10. PNAS 1999 Vol. 96, Issue 21 p. 11958-963.
11. Science 1984; 225: p. 59-63.
12. Nature Medicine 1999, Vol. 5, No. 1, p. 83-89.
[This message has been edited by AidsRCorg (edited November 01, 2001).]
[This message has been edited by AidsRCorg (edited November 02, 2001).]
IP: Logged
All times are ET (US)
next newest topic | next oldest topic
Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Hop to: Select a Forum or ArchiveList of Forums:Operation Enduring FreedomNews/Current EventsPolitics/ElectionsGovernmentForeign AffairsConspiraciesCulture/SocietyEntertainmentOutdoor LifeComputers/InternetBusiness/EconomyMiscellaneousModerator/Administrator's Forum (Private)List of Archives:MiscellaneousComputers/InternetNews/Current EventsCulture/SocietyPolitics/ElectionsForeign AffairsBusiness/EconomyEntertainmentGovernment/ConstitutionConspiracyOutdoor LifeModerator/Administrator's Forum (Private)
Contact Us | NewsMax.com: America's News Page
© NewsMax.com All Rights Reserved
Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.47a
By Dr. Stanley Monteith
It has been said that "men become accomplices to those tragedies which they fail to oppose". Nowhere is that truth more clearly demonstrated than in the apocalypse currently unfolding across the world as the HIV epidemic continues its silent spread from land to land.
As of January 1, 1997 over 350,000 Americans will be dead, another 200,000 will be in the terminal stages of their illness, and an additional six hundred thousand to a million more will be HIV infected. Barring the possibility that protease inhibitors can permanently block HIV-induced immunosuppression, almost all those currently infected will progress to terminal-stage illness and death.
The enormity of the tragedy facing America today, however, is dwarfed by the tragedy sweeping Asia and Africa. As of mid-1994, in the small landlocked nation of Malawi in Southern Africa, 30% of high school students and 68% of college students tested were found to be HIV infected. (1) Recent testing of soldiers throughout Africa revealed a 50% HIV infection rate, while testing of military units in Zimbabwe revealed a 90% infection rate. It is estimated that in Zimbabwe between one-quarter and one-third of President Mugabe's Cabinet have already perished from AIDS. (2)
In the May, 1996 issue of Special Warfare, a magazine distributed primarily to members of Special Operations (Military Intelligence) units, Dr. Brian Sullivan writes: "The immediate future may present other daunting challenges...Because of complicated social and cultural reasons, AIDS already infects a high proportion of the military and civilian officials of Zaire, Uganda, Kenya, Zambia and other central African countries. In some or all of these countries government establishments may collapse in the next 10-15 years...civil rule may also erode or break down in parts of North Africa, the Middle East, India and Southeast Asia." (3)
In Uganda, the average life span of men has fallen to 30 years, while the average life span of women has fallen to 27 years. (4) A missionary friend living in Africa reports that there are over nine million children in sub- Saharan Africa who have lost their mothers to AIDS, and that one in every four miners working in South Africa are HIV positive. These statistics were communicated to me by E-mail from Vern Tisdalle, a missionary stationed in Johannesburg, South Africa. It is estimated that by the turn of the century the epicenter of the epidemic will have shifted from Africa to Asia. Indian health authorities currently estimate that "as many as 20 million or even 50 million Indians will be infected by the year 2000, and that there will be more AIDS patients than hospital beds". (5) On June 1, 1996 Reuter's News Service reported that Dr. William Blattner of the Institute of Human Virology at the University of Maryland estimated that 100 million people will be HIV infected by the year 2000. (6) In both Asia and Africa, HIV infection (AIDS) is primarily a heterosexual disease, while in Western nations the illness is found almost exclusively among homosexuals, IV drug users, and more recently among heterosexual blacks. Why is there such variance between the continents? There are several possible explanations. Dr. Max Essex, Director of the Harvard AIDS Institute, has reported that the predominant subtype of the virus found in Western nations is HIV-I: subtype B, whereas in both Asia and Africa the predominant subtypes are C and E. Dr. Essex believes that the Langerhans cells which line the vagina and oral cavities are the primary sites for HIV infection. In laboratory experiments using Langerhans cell cultures, investigators have discovered that HIV I: subtype B is only minimally infectious to LH cells, whereas subtypes C and E are highly infectious. This study may explain why we find heterosexual spread of HIV infection in Asia and Africa where subtypes HIV I: C and E predominate, but only rarely in Western nations where subtype B is found. It is presumed that homosexuals and IV drug users contract HIV I: subtype B readily because of their lifestyles involving needle sharing and rectal sex. (7) Dr. Essex's work, however, does not explain the heterosexual epidemic developing within black America today. This aberration may be explained by studies which have found that certain genetic factors predispose blacks to HIV infection. Researchers have recently identified two mutated genes in some whites that are not found in blacks; these altered genes protect their hosts from HIV infection. There may well be other yet unrecognized genetic factors which confer complete or partial immunity to whites, but these factors have yet to be identified. (8,9)
Shortly after the year 2000 blacks will make up the majority of new HIV infections occurring here in the United States. (10) That supposition is reflected in statistics released by the Department of Health in Virginia in 1996. Because of the 10-year latency period between HIV infection and immunodeficiency, AIDS statistics reflect the status of the epidemic 10 years ago rather than what is happening today. Virginia's current AIDS statistics suggest equal numbers of blacks and whites infected while HIV statistics reveal that 64% of recent infections are among blacks while only 31.8% are among whites. These figures become even more frightening when one reflects that blacks make up only 22.6% of Virginia's population. (11)
What most people do not realize is that all efforts to utilize public health measures to slow spread of the HIV epidemic have been thwarted. Why?
(A) Because most people don't understand what is happening,
(B) Because many who do recognize the unfolding tragedy have been threatened and are afraid to speak out, and,
(C) Because both public health officers and physicians have been effectively blocked from introducing the public health measures needed to stop further spread of this modern-day plague. (12)
(A) Randy Shilts, author of "And The Band Played On" recognized this fact when he wrote: "The bitter truth was that AIDS did not just happen to America - It was allowed to happen by an array of institutions, all of which failed to perform their appropriate tasks to safeguard the public health ... There was no excuse, in this country and in this time, for the spread of a deadly new epidemic." (13)
Why is this happening? Tragically, most Americans do not understand the magnitude of the epidemic because our print and TV media have been selective in reporting matters dealing with the epidemic. I know that from first-hand experience because I and many of my cohorts have been thwarted in our efforts to disseminate the truth about the magnitude of the epidemic. I have recorded that story in my book "AIDS:The Unnecessary Epidemic", published in 1991 by Covenant House. An interesting study in thought control in America today is to try to acquire my book via regular distribution channels.
In recent years several other books have been published which have, in my opinion, presented misleading information about the epidemic. Tragically, that misinformation has discouraged introduction of the public health measures needed to save human lives. In 1990 Regnery Gateway published Michael Fumento's "The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS". In that book, Fumento assured his readers that there was no possibility of heterosexual spread of AIDS here in the United States. Noting that the epidemic had not exploded within the white, heterosexual community as feared, Fumento crafted a convincing tale belittling those of us who wanted to introduce public health measures to block further spread of the disease. In his book, Fumento accused me of "iceberg-theory terrorism" because during the early stages of the epidemic I expressed fear that HIV disease would spread into the general heterosexual population. (14) As time has gone by I have publicly modified my view, but to the best of my knowledge Michael Fumento has never recanted his message that no public health measures were needed. During the early stages of the epidemic, we were both wrong. I erred on the side of caution; Michael Fumento erred on the side that insists that preventive health measures were not needed to stop the epidemic. The tragedy unfolding in both Asia and Africa today reflects the apathy engendered by the misinformation disseminated during the early 1990s. I sincerely believe that the lives of hundreds of thousands of homosexuals, IV drug users, black heterosexuals and black children could have been saved had public health measures been introduced at that time. Had measures been introduced in Asia and Africa, hundreds of millions of lives could have been saved. That, however, was not to be. (15). In 1994 Inside Story Publications released "Why We Will Never Win the War on AIDS" written by Brian Ellison and Dr. Peter Duesberg. Dr. Duesberg insists that there is no AIDS epidemic, and that most of those who are assumed to have died from AIDS have actually succumbed to the complications of drug usage, sexual stimulants, and AZT. (16) An updated version of Dr. Duesberg's book was republished by Regnery Publishing Inc. in 1996 under the title "Inventing the AIDS Virus". Both books contended that:
[1] "in most individuals suffering from AIDS, no virus particles can be found anywhere in the body" (17)
[2] "retroviruses do not kill cells" (18)
[3] There are no scientific studies to document any relationship between HIV infection and immunodeficiency (19)
[4] Kimberly Bergalis was perfectly healthy before she was given AZT (20)
[5] HIV-infected hemophiliacs and transfusion recipients do not die from immunodeficiency but rather from their hemophilia and other diseases. (21)
A number of other questionable arguments were presented in a clever and convincing manner in Dr. Duesberg's book, and they swayed many people. After all, why would Dr. Duesberg, a world-famous retrovirologist, make such statements if they weren't true? Let me respond:
[1] Clinicians presently chart the course of HIV disease by measuring the numbers of viral particles present in peripheral blood.
[2] Because the HIV retrovirus routinely kills normal T cells in the laboratory, special resistant lines of T cells must be used to culture the retrovirus: This information was confirmed by telephone conversation with Dr. Donald Francis in August 1996, and with the chief of the CDC virology lab in Atlanta, Georgia, in February 1996.
[3] There have been a number of published studies documenting the relationship between HIV infection and terminal-stage immuno- suppression: (22,23)
[4] Kimberly Bergalis was severely immuno- compromised, contracted pneumocystis carinii pneumonia and had a CD4 count as low as 41 before she was started on AZT. This information was obtained from Kimberly's college medical records which were graciously provided to me by her father, George.
[5] Both Ellison and Dr. Duesberg ignore the fact that hemophiliacs and transfusion recipients who have died have virtually all manifested the classic, clinical picture of terminal- stage immunodeficiency. (24)
A detailed analysis of Dr.Duesberg's arguments and his agenda is beyond the scope of this article. That subject is covered in my HIV-Watch newsletter, and in my monograph, "The Population Control Agenda". Unfortunately, Dr. Duesberg's books have convinced many otherwise sincere people that there is no reason to institute standard public health measures to control further spread of the epidemic. (25)
(B) Why have people been afraid to speak out? I personally know of physicians, medical personnel and politicians who have had their professions ruined simply because they dared to comment publicly on the mishandling of the epidemic. On one occasion two public health officers approached me stating: "We want you to know that we support you and what you're doing, but we can't come out publicly because we've been threatened." That pattern of intimidation has been commonplace since the inception of the epidemic. The story of the threats and intimidation utilized to silence concerned professionals is also covered in "AIDS:The Unnecessary Epidemic". (26)
(C) For centuries epidemics have been stopped by identifying the infected, and preventing them from transmitting their illness to others. In the case of HIV disease it would have been relatively simple to have blocked further spread of the epidemic in the mid-1980s when the HIV blood test became available. That, however, was not to be. Even before the blood test was released in May of 1985 there were forces organizing to block the introduction of standard public health measures to control further spread of the epidemic. Virtually all necessary public health measures have been precluded because of those efforts. (27,28)
The precedent for public health management of a sexually transmitted disease epidemic was established by Surgeon General Thomas Parren during the syphylis epidemic of the 1930s. Had physicians been allowed to introduce the public health measures needed in the mid-1980s we could have stopped further spread of the plague. What should have been done?
[1] Physicians should have been instructed to carry out routine, non-mandatory, confidential HIV testing on all office and hospital patients.
[2] Mandatory reportability of the names of the infected to public health officials should have been instituted to facilitate contact tracing, compilation of accurate statistics, and identification of those who were intentionally spreading their illness.
[3] Mandatory premarital, prenatal, and neonatal HIV testing should have been introduced to save the lives of sexual partners, unborn and newborn children.
[4] Infected prostitutes should have been identified and removed from our streets.
[5] Houses of prostitution, gay sex clubs and bathhouses should have been closed.
[6] Nationwide treatment programs for drug addicts should have been introduced.
[7] Education should have stressed chastity and morality rather than instructing our youth how to put on condoms and lecturing them on aberrant sexual activity.
Tragically, almost all efforts by concerned public health officers and physicians to address the HIV epidemic have been thwarted. I know from personal experience because for over a decade I led the battle within the House of Delegates of the California Medical Association to introduce the public health measures needed to stop the epidemic. Year after year the physicians voted to introduce effective public health measures, and year after year those within the hierarchy and the bureaucracy of organized medicine worked to block implementation of those policies. That tragic story is also chronicled in my book "AIDS:The Unnecessary Epidemic".
Men and women of conscience are not relieved of their moral responsibility to speak out concerning the manner in which this epidemic has been handled simply because it has failed to involve the white heterosexual population of America. In my opinion, almost everyone who acquires this disease today does so because of our nation's failure to implement the public health measures necessary to block further spread of the illness. I sincerely believe that men do become accomplices to those tragedies which they fail to oppose. Failure to speak out in times of moral crises makes cowards of men, and these days we live in are surely times of great moral crisis.
(1) Radio Interview. John Harris. 9/13/95. Radio Liberty, P.O. Box 13, Santa Cruz, CA 95063. Copies available.
(2) Radio Interview. Peter Hammond of Front Lines Ministry: 9/20/96. Radio Liberty. Copies available.
(3) Sullivan Brian R. Special Operations and LIC in the 21st Century: The Joint Strategic Perspective: Special Warfare. The John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School May 1996; 9(2):4. Contact Superintendent of Documents, US Publishing Office, Washington D.C. 20402
(4) Life Expectancy Shortened in Uganda. Xinhua News Agency 8/18/96. (See also CDC AIDS Daily Summary 8/19/96).
(5) Burns JF. Denial and Taboo Blind India to the Horror of the AIDS Scourge. New York Times 9/22/96: 1. (See also CDC Daily Summary 9/23/96: 2.)
(6) Blattner W. More than 100 Million Worldwide Predicted to be HIV-Positive by Year 2000. Reuters News Service 6/17/96. (See also CDC AIDS Daily Summary 6/19/96: 2.)
(7) Soto KE et al. HIV-1 Langerhans' Cell Tropism Associated with Heterosexual Transmission of HIV. Science 3/1/96; 271: 1291
(8) Kolata Gina. New AIDS Study Reveals Startling Immunity Data. New York Times 9/27/96: A13:
(9) Dean Michael. Genetic Restrictions of HIV-1 Infection and Progression of AIDS. Science 9/27/96; 273: 1856.
(10) The Changing Face of AIDS. New York Times 11/04/96: A26
(11) Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of Health: Division of STD/AIDS Surveillance Quarterly; 4(2,3):1. Available from P.O. Box 2448,Room 112, Richmond, VA 23218
(12) Monteith SK. AIDS:The Unnecessary Epidemic. Covenant House 1991. (See also HIV-Watch; I-V.) P.O. Box 1835, Soquel, CA 95073.
(13) Shilts Randy. And the Band Played On. St. Martin's Press 1987: xxii.
(14) Fumento Michael. The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS. Regnery Gateway 1990: 303.
(15) Ibid: 178-184
(16) Ellison Brian., Duesberg Peter H. Why We Will Never Win the War on AIDS. Inside Story Communications. El Cerrito CA 1994 : v-viii.
(17) Duesberg Peter H. Inventing the AIDS Virus. Regnery Publishing Inc 1996: 175
(18) Ibid: 158
(19) Why We Will Never Win The War On AIDS. op cited: 250
(20) Inventing the AIDS Virus: op cited: 348-252
(21) Ibid: 4, 183-185, 286-288
(22) Asher MS. et al. Does Drug Use Cause AIDS. Nature 3/11/93; 362:103
(23) Schecter Martin T. et al. HIV-1 and the Aetiology of AIDS. Lancet 3/13/93; 341: 658-659
(24) Minimal Data Set for Risk Reduction,National Totals 1/1/93 - 12/31/93. 125 Hemophilia Treatment Centers Reporting to the CDC.
(25) Why We Will Never Win the War On AIDS; op cited: 122
(26) AIDS:The Unnecessary Epidemic; op cited.
(27) And the Band Played On; op cited: 539-560.
(28) AIDS:The Unnecessary Epidemic: op cited: 136, 161-66, 193, 342-43.
IP: Logged
Robodoon
Moderator posted October 29, 2001 06:39 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PS AIDS was created for Genocide...see Africa
IP: Logged
PaulKing
Junior Member posted October 29, 2001 07:03 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE HARD FACTS
AIDS IS NOT AN EPIDEMIC. PERIOD!
Forget the heterosexual AIDS epidemic. The category of those who so much as claim to have comprises over 90 percent of the population but only 11 percent of AIDS cases. In 1993, 9,570 such cases were reported. By 1999 it was down to 7,139 and last year it fell further, to 6,530.
Forget the teenage epidemic. Teen cases comprised less than one percent of the total 588 cases in 1993. True, former CDC chief and current Surgeon General David Satcher did tell a credulous Juan Williams at NPR in early July that “the median age for women getting AIDS today is about 16.†Actually, the median according to the CDC annual report is the 30-34 year-old range. Could he have meant HIV infections, the earliest stage of the disease? No, the median for those is also the 30-34 year-old range.
Forget the “rural AIDS explosion.†Rural cases comprised 14 percent of the total for last year, or 3,061 in number. This is down from 5,809 cases in 1993.
Forget all that “leading cause of death†stuff. AIDS fell off the CDC top 15 list back in 1998. AIDS deaths have declined
from a high of over 50,000 in 1995 to about 12,000 per year now. Fewer people died of AIDS last year than any year since 1985.
Childhood AIDS is disappearing. The total of pediatric AIDS cases last year was less than 200, compared to 959 in 1993.
In South Africa AIDS is presented as a mass epidemic but the mortality rate remains the same for all diseases as it was twenty years ago (2.2%). Either all other diseases have declined in direct inverse proportion to AIDS or AIDS is simply the old diseases renamed.
In India the total death according to the Department of Health since the beginning of the 'epidemic' is 17,000.
Spare a thought for India's AIDS mothers. Despite debilitating illness they are furiously bearing children at a rate of 70
pregnancies each --according to statistics that inform the United Nations AIDS Summit.
Spare a thought for India's poor bewildered journalists too. A local Aids Rethinker group tipped them off that the official statistics to be presented to the UN meant India had 560,000 Aids orphans --but only 17,000 Aids deaths.
Assuming 7,000 of those dead had been women of
childbearing age --they must have had over 70 children each to make the figures add up. No wonder the press conference turned into a debacle.
From your link: -
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/releases/01news/declindea.htm
"HIV mortality declined 26 percent in 1996, 48 percent in 1997, and 21 percent in 1998."
"While the five leading causes of death in 1999: Heart disease, cancer, stroke, chronic lower respiratory disease (formally classified as "Chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases and allied conditions"), and accidents (unintentional injuries) remained unchanged from the previous year, some significant changes did occur in the ranking of leading causes.
"The disease (AIDS) was the eighth leading cause of death in 1996, dropped out of the top 10 leading causes of death last year, and no longer ranks among the top 15 leading causes of death today."
"The number of reported cases of gonorrhea increased steadily from 1964 to 1977, fluctuated through the early 1980s, increased until 1987, and since 1987 has decreased annually"
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dastlr/gcdir/gono.html
Of the nine states with the highest 1999 syphilis rates (2-5 times higher than the national rate of 2.5 cases per 100,000),
http://www.cdc.gov/nchstp/dstd/Fact_Sheets/Syphilis_Facts.htm
IP: Logged
PaulKing
Junior Member posted October 29, 2001 07:08 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is insulting to put this string in 'Conspiracies'. Many of the Worlds leading scientists now say HIV is not the cause of immune suppression.
AIDS DISSIDENTS include two Nobel Prize winners, one nominee for the Nobel Prize, one member of The National Academy of Sciences to
name a few.
Charles A. Thomas, Jr. Ph.D. (Mol. Biologist, Pres. Helicon Fnd., San Diego, CA)
Harvey Bialy, Ph.D. (Editor Bio/Technology, New York, NY)
Harry Rubin, D.V.M. (Prof. Cell Biology, Univ. Cal. Berkeley, CA)
Richard C. Strohman, Ph.D. (Prof. Cell Biology, Univ. Cal. Berkeley, CA)
Phillip E. Johnson (Prof. Law, Univ. Cal. Berkeley, CA)
Gordon J. Edlin, Ph.D. (Prof. Biochem. &q Physics, Univ. Hawaii, HI)
Beverly E. Griffin, Ph.D. (Dir. Dept. Virology, Royal Postgrad. Med. School, London, UK)
Robert S. Root-Bernstein (Prof. Physiology, Michigan State Univ., East Lansing, MI)
Gordon Stewart, M.D. (Emeritus Prof. Public Health, Epidemiologist, Isle of Wight, UK)
Carlos Sonnenschein, M.D. (Tufts Univ., Medicine, Boston, MA)
Richard L. Pitter, Ph.D. (Dessert Research Inst., Univ. Nevada System, Reno NV)
Nathaniel S. Lehrman, M.D. (Psychiatrist, Roslyn, NY)
John Lauritsen (Author 'Poison by Prescription', New York, NY)
William Holub, Ph.D. (Biochemist, Live Sciences Inst. New York, NY)
Claudia Holub, Ph.D. (Biochemist, Live Sciences Inst. New York, NY)
Frank R. Buianouckas Ph.D. (Prof. Mathematics, Cuny, Bronx, NY)
Philip Rosen, Ph.D. (Prof. Physics, Univ. Mass. Amherst, MA)
Steven Jonas, M.D. (Prof. Preventive Medicine, Suny Stony Brook, NY)
Bernard K. Forscher, Ph.D (Ret. Editor Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci., Santa Fe, NM)
Kary B. Mullis, Ph.D. (Biochemist, PCR inventor, Consultant, La Jolla, CA.)
Jeffrey A. Fisher, M.D. (Pathologist, Mendham, NJ)
Hansueli Albonico, M.D. (General Practitioner, Langnau, Switzerland)
Robert Hoffman, Ph.D. (Prof. Dept. Pediatrics Univ. Cal. Med. School, San Diego, CA)
Timothy H. Hand, Ph.D. (Dept. Psychology, Oglethorpe Univ. Atlanta, GA)
Eleni Eleopulos, M.D. (Royal Perth Hospital, Perth, West Australia)
Robert W. Maver, F.S.A., M.A.A. (Dir. Research, Mutual Benefit Life, Kansas City, MO)
Ken N. Matsumura, M.D. (Chairman Alin Foundation &q Research Inst., Berkeley, CA.)
David T. Berner, M.D. (Condon, MT)
Theodor Wieland, Ph.D. (Max Planck Institut, Heidelberg, Germany)
Joan Shenton, M.A. (Meditel, London, UK)
John Anthony Morris, Ph.D. (Biochemist, Bell of Atari College Park, MD)
Sungchul Ji, Ph.D. (Prof. Pharmacology &q Toxicology, Rutgers Univ., Piscataway, NJ)
In addition there were 14 others who have added their signatures in July 1991.
By March 1993 the following persons had added their signatories:
Vahagn Agbabian, D.O. (Pontiac, MI)
Barry R. Alexavich (Cell Biologist, Bristol, CT)
David T. Berner, M.D. (Condon, MT)
Shelly B. Blam, Ph.D. (Alameda, CA)
Lawrence Bradford, Ph.D. (Benedictine College, Atchison, KS)
Carl Bradford, J.D. (San Diego, CA)
Michael Callen (Author 'Surviving AIDS', Hollywood, CA)
Melinda Calleira (Pres. Amer. Ass. Science &q Public Policy, Los Angeles, CA)
Hiram Caton, Ph.D. (Prof. App. Ethics, Griffith Univ., Brisbane, Australia)
Dennis Chaney, Ph.D. (Chaney Scientific Inc. Burlingame, CA)
Michelle Cochrane (Emeryville, CA)
Hywel Davies, M.D. (Cardiologist, Pueblo West, CO)
Marlowe Dittlebrandt, M.D. (Portland, OR)
Peter H. Duesberg, Ph.D. (Prof. Mol. Biology, Univ. Cal. Berkeley, CA)
Bryan J. Ellison (Author, Berkeley, CA)
Michael Ellner (HEAL, New York, NY)
Fabio Franchi, M.D. (Trieste, Italy)
Trish Fahey (New York, NY)
Celia Farber (Writer, New York, NY)
Lawrence A. Falk, Jr., Ph.D. (Virologist Abott Labs, Consultant NCI, Chicago, IL)
James A. Fimea, Ph.D. (Laguna Beach, CA)
Harry Flynn, (Author, Hollywood, CA)
William L. Gardner, Ph.D. (Wellesley, MA)
Arnold W. Giddens (Shingle Springs, CA)
Robert Grabowski (Birminghan, MI)
Martin Haas, Ph.D. (Dept. Biology Cancer Center, Univ. Cal., San Diego, CA)
Alfred Haessig, M.D. (Emeritus Prof. Immunolgy Univ. Bern, Switzerland)
Urs Haldimann (Editor, Swiss Ass. Science Writers, Arisdorf, Switzerland)
Neville Hodgkinson (Science Correspondent The Sunday Times, London, UK)
John Holmdahl, Ph.D. (Los Angeles, CA)
Ross Horne (Montville, Queensland, Austalia)
Heinrich Kremer, M.D. (Mueckenburg, Germany)
Hans J. Kugler, Ph.D. (Editor Prev. Med. Update, Redondo Beach, CA)
Robert Laarhoven (S.A.A.O., Hilversum, The Netherlands)
Paul Lineback, M.S. (Eastern Oregon State College)
Henk Loman, Ph.D. (Prof. Biophysics, Free Univ. Amsterdam, The Netherlands)
Judith Lopez (San Francisco, CA)
Maurizio Luca-Moretti, Ph.D. (InterAmerican Medical Health Ass., Boca Raton, FL)
William H. McIlhany, I.R.F. (Beverly Hills, CA)
Peter McKeever, L.L.B. (London, UK)
Michael D. Mellgard (Los Angeles, CA)
David Mertz (Dept. Philosophy, Univ. Massachusetts, Amherst)
Richard Mitchell, Ph.D. (Assoc. Prof. Sociology, Oregon State Univ, Corvalus, OR)
Joseph E. Morrow, Ph.D. (Cal. State Univ. Sacramento, CA)
Cindy Orser (Ast. Prof. Bacteriology, Univ. Idaho, Moscow, ID)
Hannes G. Pauli, M.D. (Former Director Bern Univ. Med. Faculty, Bern, Switzerland)
Paul Rabinow, Ph.D. (Prof. Dept. Anthropology Univ. Cal., Berkeley, CA)
Jon Rappoport (Author 'AIDS Inc.')
Dennis D. Rathman (Staff Member Lincoln Labs, Lexington, MA)
Rodney M. Richards, Ph.D. (Amgen Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA)
Judith Riesman, Ph.D. (Author, Arlington, VA)
Michael Ristow, Ph.D. (Bochum, Germany)
Mel T. Roach (Avatar Research, Tuscon, AZ)
Gary Robertson (Broadbeach Waters, Queensland, Australia)
Frank Rothschild (Project Dir., Berkeley Project on Bioscience &q Society, CA)
David F. Salehi, Ph.D. (Lake Dallas, TX)
Caspar Schmidt, M.D. (Psychiatrist, New York)
Russell Schoch (Editor California Monthly, Berkeley, CA)
Frederic I. Scott, Jr. (Editor American Clinical Laboratory, Baltimore, MD)
Udo Schuklenk (Dept. Ethics, Monash Univ., Melbourne, Australia)
Jeremy F. Selvey (Los Angeles, CA)
David Shugar, Ph.D. (Prof. Biophysics, Univ. Warsaw, Editor Pharmacol. Therap., Poland)
Sonja Silva (Los Lunas, NM)
Ernest G. Silver, Ph.D. (Radiation Biologist, Oak Ridge, TN)
Lockie M. Swengel (Del Mar, CA)
Frederick Tobin, Ph.D. (Gorke, Australia)
Jack True (Clayton, GA)
La Trombetta (Burzynski Research Inst., Houston, TX)
Friedrich Ulmer, Ph.D. (Prof. Math. &q Stat., Bergische Univ., Wuppertal, Germany)
Michael Verney-Elliot (Meditel, London, UK)
Darrell G. Wells, Ph.D. (Emeritus Prof. Plant Sciences, Brookings, SD)
Wai Yeung, M.D. (Orinda, CA)
By September 1993 the following persons had added their signatories:
Jeanette S. Abel M.D. (Portland, OR)
Jad Adams, M.A. (Author 'AIDS; The HIV Myth,' London, UK)
Patricia Akeman, R.N. (Goleta, CA)
John B. Andelin, M.D. (Mercy Hospital, Williston, ND)
Mark Anderson, D.C. (Orlando, FL)
James C. Baker, Ph.D. (Santa Rosa, CA)
Andrew A. Benson, Ph.D. (La Jolla, CA)
Richard M.A. Berger, DDS (Berkeley, CA)
Robert W. Birge, Ph.D. (Berkeley, CA)
John S. Blankfort, DDS (San Francisco, CA)
Dorothy L. Bosworth, Ph.D. (Carlsbad, CA)
Tucker Brawner, DPM (Savannah, GA)
Brian E. Briggs, M.D. (Minot, ND)
Douglas W. Brown, M.D. (Portland, ME)
John B. Burgin, DDS (Crowley, LA)
Susan E. Caliri, DDS (Berkeley, CA)
Ivor Catt, M.A. (St. Albans, UK)
Asit K. Chakraborty, Ph.D. (Omaha, NE)
Jack G. Chamberlain, Ph.D. (Berkeley, CA)
Colleen Cook, R.N. (Wilmington, DE)
Daniel J. Corson, MFA (Seattle, WA)
J. Mark Cox, DDS (Midland, TX)
Etienne De Harven, M.D. (St. Cezaire sur Siagne, France)
Richard W. DeLisle D.C. (Leominster, MA)
James DeMeo Ph.D. (El Cerrito, CA)
Thomas A. Dorman, M.D. (San Luis Obispo, CA)
Mohammad Entezampour, Ph.D. (Dept. Biology Univ. North Texas, Denton, TX)
Rafael Escribano, Ph.D. (Dept. Span.&q Port. Univ. Cal. Riverside, TX)
Sami E. Fathalla, M.D., Ph.D. (Damman, Saudi Arabia)
Richard A. Fisher (Inter. Acad. Oral Med. &q Toxicol., Annandale, VA)
Scott D. Flamm, M.D. (San Francisco, CA)
Michael R. Fox Ph.D. (Richland, WA)
Donato Fumarola, M.D. (Inst. Microbiolia Medica, Bari, Italy)
Charles L. Geshekter, Ph.D. (Dept. History, Cal. State Univ, Chico, CA)
Todd Gestaldo, D.C. (Sunnyvale, CA)
Edward S. Golub, Ph.D. (Pacific Center for Ethics &q App. Biol., Solana Beach, CA)
John Hardie, BDS (Dept. Dentistry Vancouver General Hospital, British Columbia, Canada)
Robert J. Henderson, D.C. (Locust Valley, NY)
Charles A. Hill, M.D. (Houston, TX)
Charles Hoff, Ph.D. (Univ. South. Alabama, AL)
Mark E. Jarmel, D.C. (Santa Monica, CA)
Anne Marie Jeay, Ph.D. (Univ. Nancy II, France)
Jens Jerndal M.D. (Lanzarote, Spain)
Donald J. Johnson, DDS (Coeur d'Alene, ID)
William H. Jordan Jr, Ph.D. (Culver City, CA)
Dennis G. Kinnane, DOM (Torrence, CA)
Claus Kohnlein, M.D. (Kiel, Germany)
Stefan T.J. Lanka, Ph.D. (Radolfzell, Germany)
Barry A. Liebling, Ph.D. (New York, NY)
Michel Lobrot, Ph.D. (Univ. Paris VIII, Les Lilas, France)
Howard C. Mel, Ph.D. (Berkeley, CA)
Th. H.L. Michiels, M.D. (Vinkeveen, The Netherlands)
James W. Miller, M.D. (San Leandro, CA)
R. Munck, M.D. (Ceret, France)
Cindy Nelson, M.A. (San Francisco, CA)
Raymond W. Novaco, M.D. (Prof. Psychology &q Soc. Behavior, Univ. Cal., Irvine, CA)
Sam Okware, M.D. (Ministry of Health, Entebbe, Uganda)
David J. Orman, M.Sc. (San Diego, CA)
George N. Pasto, M.D. (Portland, OR)
M. Dennis Paul, MscM (Amherst, NH)
Jack Perrine, Ph.D. (Pasadena, CA)
John L. Philp, M.D., MPH (Stockton, CA)
Peter W. Plumley, FSA (Chicago, IL)
Ronald F. Price, Ph.D. (La Trobe Univ., Bundoora, Victoria, Australia)
David W. Rasnick, Ph.D. (Alameda, CA)
Richard A. Ratner, M.D. (Bethesda, MD)
Rogers Reddings, Ph.D. (Univ. North Texas, Denton, TX)
Stephen J. Repitor, DPM (Oak Park, MI)
Douglas Roise, M.D. (St. Joseph's Hospital, Dickenson, ND)
Steven Roman, Ph.D. (San Diego, CA)
Cristobal A.P. Sandoval, M.D. (Cuba)
Alex Santoro, M.A. (Kansas City, MO)
George Sarant, M.D. (Bronx, NY)
David R. Schryer, Ph.D. (Hampton, VA)
C. Grier Sellers, C.A. (Seattle, WA)
James T. Shepherd, M.D. (Port Arthur, TX)
John G. Shiber, Ph.D. (Univ. Kentucky, Prestonberg, KY)
Irving P. Silberman, O.D. (Hyde Park, NY)
Tony Smith, CAGS (New York, NY)
James P. Snyder, Ph.D. (Glenview, IL)
James K. Stack, LLD (San Francisco, CA)
Mark S. Stanley, Ph.D. (Dept. Biol. Sciences, Univ. North Texas, Denton, TX)
Ralph R. Stephens, LMT (Cedar Rapids, IA)
Joe Thomas, Ph.D. (ICMR-WHO Proj. on AIDS, Calcutta, India)
Richard A. Tuscher, D.O. (Portland, OR)
Jean van Camp, M.A. (New Martinsville, WV)
Raul Vergini, M.D. (Predappio, Italy)
James H. Warner, LLD (Rohersville, MD)
Edward J. Wawszkiewicz, Ph.D. (Chicago, IL)
Johathan C. Wells, Ph.D. (Fairfield, CA)
Adrian M. Wenner, Ph.D. (Dept. Biol. Sciences, Univ. Cal., Santa Barbara, CA)
Manfred Wetter, Ph.D. (Copperbelt Univ., Kitwe, Zambia)
Derek A. Wolfe, DBM (North Devon, UK)
L.B. Work, M.D. (Monterey, CA)
Hung-His Wu, Ph.D. (Dept. Math. Univ. Cal., Berkeley, CA)
James Wu, M.D. (Foster City, CA)
Stanley J. Zyskowski, Ph.D. (Farmington Hills, MI)
Chr. Anti-Com. Crusade (Long Beach, CA)
Mark Alampi (Project AIDS Inter., Los Angeles, CA)
W.H. Beauman (Chicago, IL)
This is not the full list
IP: Logged
GayAvenger
Senior Member posted October 29, 2001 07:37 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Constitutionalist:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moved to the Conspiracy & Boogie Man Forum
Good Call GA!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks. I try to be consistent. If I am going to take people to task for getting their "research" from political-action groups (such as the horribly misnamed "Family Research Council"), then I have to apply that critique evenly.
As for THIS site… as if the sensationalism wasn't enough… as if a quick check on the founder wasn't enough… as if the "condoms cause cancer" claim wasn't enough… the apparent encouragement of unsafe sex was MORE than enough to bump this into the "Chupacabra" realm.
I mean… "15 million" people are allegedly "latex intolerant." So, that means… don't wear condoms?
AH-Roooh?
(BTW…
("15 million" is EXACTLY what the Radical Right in Massachusetts has claimed a "domestic partnership" program would cost taxpayers in dollars. But THEY don't provide any compelling proof EITHER!
(Coincidence? I THINK NOT!!!)
IP: Logged
PaulKing
Junior Member posted October 29, 2001 11:53 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you bother to check your facts the figure of those allergic to latex which is now 18 million comes direct from the FDA. May I suggest that before you are so ready to dismiss something you do your homework first.
Latex Allergy Fact Sheet
Latex allergy is an acquired allergy.
Some powder changed from talc, which was heavy, to cornstarch, which is light, binds
with the latex proteins and carries them in the air where they can be breathed.
Powdered latex gloves create an aeroallergen that is inhaled and can be absorbed through evy mucosa.
The American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology believes that 20% of health
care workers are allergic to latex.
Latex reactions increase in severity with prolonged exposures-particularly with dipped
latex products such as latex gloves, latex balloons, and latex condoms.
Estimates are that 18 million Americans are allergic to latex.
28 deaths have been reported to the FDA--these include reports of patients given barium enemas, children, a physician, nurses and others.
The most prominent risk factors: a history of other allergies/asthma/eczema and latex
exposure (at work or as a patient).
Individuals who are at risk because of their work include: health care workers,
beauticians, food handlers, day care personne,, EMS personnel, toll collectors, police officers, crime lab personnel, firemen, housekeepers, and others who use latex gloves.
Individuals at risk because of exposure during medical treatment include: those who
have had operations early in life, those with repeated operations, those exposed to
latex urinary catheters and GI and rectal tubes.
Medic Alert tags/bracelets citing latex allergy rose from 20 in 1985 to over 7,447 to tal by the end of 1977.
Routes of exposure: inhaled, contact with mucosa, ingestion, intra-vascular, parenteral
injection, wound inoculation, breaks in skin.
Loosely bound latex protein is transferred to objects (furniture, clothing) by touch and
easily aerosolized.
Powdered latex gloves create an aeroallergen that is inhaled when gloves are snapped on and off, potentially causing sensitization/reactions.
Latex allergy symptoms vary -- from itchy hands or eyes, to asthma or anaphylaxiz,
and even death.
Symptoms of contact dermatitis have to do with the glove's chemicals (e.g., thiurams).
Symptoms of latex allergy are consistent with other allergies
Skin: urticaria (hives), rash, vesicles
ENT: watery, itchy reddened eyes and nose and throat; sneezing, sinus symptoms
GI: cramping, diarrhea
Respiratory: asthma, chest tightness, laryngeal edema, bronchospasm
Cardiovascular: hypotension, tachycardia, dysrhythmias, vascular collapse.
Latex proteins are loosely bound to gloves and readily transferred to charts and medical equipment.
Safe alternative products are available at competitive costs.
The FDA will require mandatory labeling of any medical device containing latex which
comes in contact with humans as of September, 1998.
This label will read: "Caution: This product contains latex which may cause allergic
reations".
Six states have proposed legislation to ban powdered latex gloves.
Many hospitals are changing to non-latex exam gloves.
Many hospitals have banned latex balloons (Mylar, silver foil balloons are safe).
Many health care professionals have been left totally unable to continue in their
profession.
The condition of many health care professionals has continued to worsen, even after leaving the hospital setting.
THERE IS NO CURE; THERE IS NO DESENSITIZATION currently available for latex allergy. We can only medicate to help decrease symptoms.
AVOIDANCE IS THE ONLY INTERVENTION for latex allergy.
Prevention, avoidance, and education about latex allergy are key.
This and many articles and directives from the
FDA can be found at: -
http://66.155.44.3/arc_pages/safe_sex_index.html
IP: Logged
GayAvenger
Senior Member posted October 31, 2001 08:39 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PaulKing:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you bother to check your facts the figure of those allergic to latex which is now 18 million comes direct from the FDA.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DAMN!
ANOTHER Conspiracy Theory shot all to Hell!!!
(Don't'cha just HATE when that happens?!)
IP: Logged
AidsRCorg
Junior Member posted October 31, 2001 11:25 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rod Knoll, Founder of AIDS Reality Check ( http://www.AidsRC.org ), replies:
Dr. Monteith's criticism, as posted by Robodoon, is the most "scientific" of the replies so far. However, Monteith's superficial critique of the effort to reappraise "HIV" and "AIDS" is a tactic typical of AIDS Industry apologists: dismiss Duesberg and IGNORE ALL other dissenting researchers.
Nevertheless, Duesberg and others have reappraised at least a couple of Monteith's references (see http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/pdaztsfstudy.htm and http://www.duesberg.com/pddrgenetica.pdf ).
Still other dissenting researchers have criticized Duesberg for not going FAR ENOUGH in his critique of the "HIV=AIDS" FRAUD (see http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/epreplypd.htm ). Throughout the AIDS era, this ever-expanding research team has published in the medical literature analyses of various aspects of "HIV/AIDS" mythology which are far more in-depth than anything Duesberg ever did on the subject.
See:
1. http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/epmedhypo.htm
2. http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/epwbtest.htm (This paper provides important insight into what is meant by a positive "HIV" test result.)
3. http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/ept4cells.htm
4. http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/ephemophilia.htm (This paper refutes the notion of hemophiliac "AIDS".)
5. http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/epafrica.htm (This study contains important data that refute the blatantly racist notion that "Africa is at greatest risk".)
6. http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/epcurmedres97.htm (More insight into the antibody tests is found here.)
7. http://www.librapharm.co.uk/cmro/vol_15/supplement/index.htm
What's that you say? Some of these articles are old? Ah, but they have withstood the test of time. In fact, many of the ideas espoused by this "Perth Group" of researchers in their papers have been confirmed by ORTHODOX AIDS researchers (see: http://www.continuummagazine.org/back_issues/volume5/vol5n5/eleni_oxistre1_55.html ). A look at the pivotal issue of CD4+ T-cells shows this to be the case.
The orthodox claim is that "HIV infection" leads to "immunedeficiency", specifically by
overwhelming-and subsequent depletion of-"CD4 T-cells", which in turn leaves
people open to "opportunistic infections". This sequence is crucial to defending the
orthodox views on "HIV infection" and any real harm that may be associated with it.
The most damning evidence against this sequence of events comes, as always, directly
from the "AIDS" orthodoxy itself. As far back as 1985, none other than the
"co-discoverer" of "HIV", Luc Montagnier, wrote: "this syndrome occurs in a minority of infected persons, who generally have in
common a past of antigenic stimulation and of immune suppression BEFORE (HIV)
INFECTION" (emphasis added) (1). Two subsequent studies on IV drug users (2,3)
confirmed the fact that an already "low number of T4 cells was the highest risk factor
for HIV infection" and NOT, as is claimed by most of the AIDS orthodoxy, vice
versa.
Actually, the "medically correct" term for these cells is "t-cells-that-bind-with-a-man-made-antibody-to-the-CD4-antigen" (see again: http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/ept4cells.htm ) As one can plainly see from this study, the technology for detecting these subsets of t-cells came into existence JUST before the first cases of what would be called "AIDS" were diagnosed, coincidentally
enough. (How's that for "conspiracy"?)
Today, though, in increasing numbers, orthodox AIDS researchers are continuing to question the so-called "depletion" of CD4 cells and its supposed "cause" -their apparent "destruction" due to "HIV infection". In fact, David Ho's "viral load" theory of HIV "overwhelming" these t-cells is now DEAD ON ARRIVAL in the medical literature, and it is Ho's fellow ORTHODOX "AIDS" researchers who put "the final nails in the coffin" for his theory(4)!
"We reiterate propositions made earlier that much of the apparent 'depletion' of CD4+
lymphocytes during the asymptomatic phase of HIV infection may be attributed to
redistribution between the tissues and the blood compartment (5)." This is seconded by other MAINSTREAM "AIDS" researchers(6-8).
It is also important to note that, as orthodox AIDS researcher Jay Levy writes, CD4 T-cell counts are done on circulating blood and
"represent only a small percentage (3%) of the total white blood cells in the body..."
[9].
In another study edited by, of all people, Anthony Fauci, still other mainstream "AIDS" researchers have stated that "along with other recent analyses and experimental developments these conditions also suggest a need to
re-evaluate current concepts about HIV pathogenesis, including the concept that a
systemic depletion of CD4 T-cells is the hallmark of the disease". They showed that
the so-called "depletion" of these CD4+ t-cells is due to a "down-regulation", or disappearance, of the CD4 antigens on the surface of the cells, which therefore reduces the chance that these cells will bind with the man-made "CD4" antibodies which researchers have to use in order to detect them
[ http://www. pnas.org/cgi/content/full/96/21/11958?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&searchid=QID_NOT_SET&stored_search=&FIRSTINDEX=&volume=96&firstpage=11958
or (10) in hard copy]. If the antibodies don't bind to the cells, the cells cannot
be detected. And if the cells cannot be detected, they won't be counted. This is a fact that Montagnier himself pointed out as far back as 1984 (11).
Orthodox researchers have also recently found that "the rate of removal of CD4+ T cells is indeed elevated and the half-life is indeed shortened" in so-called "AIDS" patients who are taking "anti-HIV" drugs(12) as compared to those who do not take the meds. This means the apparent "increase" in CD4 cells seen in these patients is meaningless.
It's funny that Monteith worries that we AIDS dissenters are convincing the public of our views. Ironically, the most convincing data that support our views consistently come from orthodox AIDS researchers themselves. Provided, of course, that one bothers to actually look at their data.
Rod Knoll
Founder
AIDS Reality Check http://www.AidsRC.org
"Victory for Truth!"
mailto:rod@aidsrealitycheck.org
REFERENCES (in addition to links provided):
1. Ann. Int. Med. 1985; 103:689-693.
2. Epidemiology 1990; 1:453-459.
3. J. Acquir. Imm. Defic. Syndr. 1993; 1:390- 395.
4. Nat. Med. 1998 V.4, No. 2, p. 145-46.
5. J. Acq. Imm. Def. Syn. Hum.Retrov. 1998; 17:450-457.
6. Nature Medicine 1998; 4: 208-214.
7. Immun. Today Jan. 1998; Vol. 19, No.1: p. 10-17.
8. AIDS 2000, Aug 18;14:1717-1720.
9. JAMA 1996, Vol. 276, no. 2, p. 161-62.
10. PNAS 1999 Vol. 96, Issue 21 p. 11958-963.
11. Science 1984; 225: p. 59-63.
12. Nature Medicine 1999, Vol. 5, No. 1, p. 83-89.
[This message has been edited by AidsRCorg (edited November 01, 2001).]
[This message has been edited by AidsRCorg (edited November 02, 2001).]
IP: Logged
All times are ET (US)
next newest topic | next oldest topic
Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Hop to: Select a Forum or ArchiveList of Forums:Operation Enduring FreedomNews/Current EventsPolitics/ElectionsGovernmentForeign AffairsConspiraciesCulture/SocietyEntertainmentOutdoor LifeComputers/InternetBusiness/EconomyMiscellaneousModerator/Administrator's Forum (Private)List of Archives:MiscellaneousComputers/InternetNews/Current EventsCulture/SocietyPolitics/ElectionsForeign AffairsBusiness/EconomyEntertainmentGovernment/ConstitutionConspiracyOutdoor LifeModerator/Administrator's Forum (Private)
Contact Us | NewsMax.com: America's News Page
© NewsMax.com All Rights Reserved
Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.47a
PART ONE:
- More on the non-rise of HIV rates in San Francisco
- Questioning claims of African American AIDS epidemic
- New friend in Africa shares AIDS realities from ground zero
- One woman¹s incredible journey from near death back to life
Coming in Part Two:
- Greetings from new AIDS rethinking allies in Korea
- Lawsuit alleges death from AZT and opens ³potential floodgate for claims
against drug industry²
- Canadian AIDS ads caught using questionable strategies and statistics
- Media alert: Surprisingly unbiased AP story on HIV positive mother Valerie
Emerson and her son Nikolas to appear in Sunday newspapers
===
Startling Admission from San Francisco Dept of Public Health:
HIV Rates in the ³Epicenter of AIDS² Peaked in 1982
In the May 31, 2001 Bay Area Reporter (BAR) article "AIDS at 20," Dr.
Mitchell Katz, current director of San Francisco's Department of Public
Health and former director of the AIDS Office, states:
"1992 was the peak of AIDS deaths because it was the peak of HIV
seroconversion 10 years earlierÃ…Â Even if no protease inhibitors had ever
been
developed, San Francisco would have experienced the peak and fall around
1992, because infection rates went from around 8,000 in the early 1980s
to
about 1,000 a year. That's both gay and straight, though in the early years
it was almost all gay."
===
Rebutting the New ³Black Plague²
AIDS is Not Leading Cause of Death Among Black Women;
Cases Continue to Drop Among Black Men
This illuminating letter to the editor reveals some of the false alarms
sounded by the media with regard to AIDS.
Letters to the Editor, Bay Area Reporter
August 3, 2001
Dear Sir:
The recent article by David Wallace, "Time to Help Blacks With AIDS"
(B.A.R., August 2nd) is long on rhetoric but short on facts.
Wallace claims that AIDS is "still the leading cause of death for black
women in the US." This is absolutely false.
The total black female population in the U.S. is 18.6 million. In 1998,
the
latest year for which official numbers exist from the National Center for
Health Statistics, 135,023 black women died in the United States from all
causes. This represents a death rate of 6/10 of 1%, below the national
average of 8/10 of 1%.
What is termed "HIV infection" ranked ninth with 2,186 deaths reported among
this extremely healthy cohort.
The leading causes of death among black women remained heart disease,
stroke, cancers and diabetes.
Statistics from San Francisco confirm the steep decline of AIDS among black
men too.
In 1991, a total of 2,575 cases of AIDS were reported, of which
308 were
African-American. In 2000, a total of 554 cases of AIDS were reported, a
decline of nearly 80%. And of those 554 cases, 109 were black men, a drop
of
nearly 66% in nine years.
AIDS is rapidly becoming a medical non-issue in the U.S. But in the face
of
these numbers, it will require scare-tales and bogus claims to sustain
public fears and federal funds for AIDS.
National AIDS funding for 2002 is projected to top .2 billion! With
so
much money at stake, alarmists like David Wallace can be expected to use
any
statistical sleight of hand to keep the money coming. Let the reader beware.
Sincerely,
Charles Geshekter, PhD
Chico, California
===
Question and Answers from South Africa
Several moths ago, I received an email message full of tough questions from
a very skeptical but polite woman in South Africa. She expressed concern
about the validity of our views, and asked what other than HIV would explain
the death and suffering that surrounds her. In this recent letter, she
shares some observations confirming her new-found suspicions that AIDS may
not be all that she has been toldÃ…Â
Dear Christine,
I have been communicating with you for some time, and following all your
arguments closely. I would like to share my experiences and suspicions with
everybody on your email list.
When my husband died of AIDS last year, I got very scared and went for an
HIV test. It came out positive. The months that followed my diagnosis were
real hell to me. My blood pressure was constantly high, I developed panic
attacks, and I suffered from migraines. There was not a single moment that
I
didn't think of death, I could even feel like I was failing to breathe,
especially when I was alone.
After taking my viral load and CD4 cell count, my doctor told me that I
would start falling seriously sick at the beginning of 2001, but I refused
to take the drugs he suggested. My health was getting really bad, and I
was
surely on my way out. Then I came across your writings and I started
communicating with you.
With the encouraging news I was getting, I became less frightened; the
stress reduced and the panic attacks and migraines disappeared. I got
absorbed in reading about AIDS and I started observing AIDS cases of people
who were close to me and noticed they seemed to follow a certain pattern.
The following are some of the cases I observed closely.
1. My husband and I were separated. After I left him, he lost his job, and
started selling our property to earn a living. He reached a point where
he
had no job, no property, no family, and no food and started falling sick.
He
had no money for medical care, and his girl friend left him. I can imagine
the kind of stress he went through. After contracting TB, he was diagnosed
with AIDS, and he eventually died. His death was called ³AIDS.²
2. My brother decided to take an early retirement. He had five children
and
a wife. Due to complications, he failed to get his retirement money. Without
a source of income, he could not support his family or even buy food. He
was
reduced to a beggar. He fell sick and he was diagnosed with AIDS.
Eventually, he died of "AIDS."
3. A close friend in the UK who tested positive lost her first husband to
AIDS. She re-married and came to live in South Africa. She was healthy
without any medication or illness for eight years, until the second husband
divorced her. She was left with no work, no source of income, and two
children from the first marriage who depended on her. Her second husband
held a PhD, and after their divorce, she moved from a first class life to
that of a beggar. She had nowhere to stay, no food, she had nothing. She
too
developed TB, was diagnosed with ³AIDS² and died.
Now I wonder, does HIV get activated by stress and/or poverty or it is
actually the stress/poverty which killed these people regardless of whether
there was HIV? To me it seems as if the stress played a major role and
HIV
played an insignificant role, if any. God knows better, but I think that
if
I had continued with my initial stress following my diagnosis, I too would
be dead by now.
I realize that in our age, humanity as a whole is under
a lot of stress. We
are stressed by family and occupational problems, political issues, poverty,
etc. challenging our immunity. Secondly, I realize that our bodies are full
of toxins which may lead to suppression of our immunity. Take for instance
the so called normal life 'straight' people live‹we depend on pharmaceutical
drugs for every health problem; every headache, flu, stress, chronic
diseases, high blood pressure, diabetes, for contraceptives, etc. We are
forever pumping drugs into our bodies. The foods that we eat are treated
with all kinds of drugs like ones that make chickens mature within a few
weeks. Our vegetables that are sprayed with chemicals, our water is treated
with chemicals and full of pollutants. Are we absolutely sure that this
mass
intake of drugs has no effect on our immune systems?
What about the immunization compulsory to every new born? At a very early
fragile age, when the immune system is developing, the baby's body is
bombarded with all sorts of microbes in the hope of stimulating the immune
response, yet we are told that too many infections can depress the immune
system.
I am not a scientist, but simple logic tells me that there is much more
to
AIDS than HIV. I would be happy if somebody‹especially the AIDS
experts‹could clarify these issues.
Thanks Christine for opening up the dialogue on AIDS. You have no idea how
many lives you are saving every day.
May God bless you,
Triple M
South Africa
===
Survival Against All the Odds
Alive & Well has four 3² thick binders full of thank you notes from around
the world. Reading through them is a uniquely moving experience and affirms
our commitment to make the many sacrifices required to continue our work.
Before I added this to our growing collection, I asked the sender if I could
share her incredibly harrowing and ultimately inspiring saga with all of
you...
Dear Christine,
I was diagnosed HIV positive in 1990. At that time, my T cell count was
a
whopping 760 and I had no symptoms of illness. Without any medicines, my
T
cell count rose higher over the course of a couple years to an even more
impressive 1,100. But the HIV positive result was life-threatening in and
of
itself. I became severely depressed, alcoholic and had suicidal tendencies.
My T cells eventually decreased to what at the time was the dreaded
benchmark number‹below 500. This meant it was time to begin medications.
Despite my counts and depression, in 1994 when I started taking the drugs,
I
was a robust, healthy 160 pound woman.
I started with AZT and several other drugs‹I've taken so many I can't even
remember which ones or in what order‹but my T cell count continued to drop.
When new viral load testing began, my load indicated I needed to begin the
protease inhibitor cocktails. I was given a protocol of five drugs‹30
something pills a day‹plus hydroxiurea.
In just six weeks, weeks my viral load was undetectable. However, within
six
months of starting the therapies, I began to develop serious side affects:
chronic diarrhea, severe wasting, abdominal pain, muscle atrophy, peripheral
neuropathy, dangerously high cholesterol, debilitating muscle pain all over
my body (especially in my legs, hips and feet), diabetes, loss of appetite,
decreased saliva, constant thirst, insomnia, mental confusion, loss of
memory and loss of vision. And all the time my T cell count continued to
drop. Within one three month period, my count went from 640 to below 200
and
no one could explain why my viral load was undetectable the entire time.
We stopped the hydroxiurea thinking that might make a difference, but my
T
cell count continued to drop and my health continued to fail. Many times
during these events I considered stopping the medications, but when I
discussed this with my doctors, none of them supported me. Every single
doctor I saw remained firm that I should continue the drugs, even after
witnessing my decline and seeing me reduced to a skeleton. They insisted
my
T cell count was too low and that quitting might not reverse the side
effects.
Believing that science had given me all it could offer, and believing that
HIV eventually lead to death, I concluded that it was the "beginning of
the
end.²
About a week later, I decided to listen to my instincts, stop taking
all
medications and start juicing. Since I looked like and believed I was dying
of AIDS, I figured: what have I got to lose? By the next day, my body pain
was gone. I also noticed that my eyes stopped looking sunken in. Within
a
couple days, my diabetes was gone. It has now been six weeks. I am rapidly
gaining weight, am stronger everyday, and my mind is clear and alert again.
Almost every complication has disappeared.
This development alone has led me to question everything I have learned
about AIDS as well as the medical community at large. At what point was
my
doctor going to tell me to stop taking these poisonous drugs? How is it
possible that an educated, intelligent physician could consider this
medicine life saving?
I'm writing this to you because I was one of those people who totally bought
into the AIDS hype. I really believed that my life was in the grip of some
virus called HIV and that my future was in the hands of western medicine.
Thankfully, my common sense has begun to lead me in a different direction.
Now I believe that what ever causes AIDS‹and frankly any disease‹is related
to malnutrition, prolonged exposure to toxicities, and lifestyle including
spiritual, emotional and mental health. I am convinced that we create our
realities and that if we believe a virus called HIV will cause death, we
will die. I also feel the entire medical community is as blinded by these
beliefs as the general population. Everyone's funding and research is
dependent on the pharmaceutical companies and the status quo, and the
pharmaceutical companies have a vested interest in toxins, not natural or
nutritional remedies that cannot be patented.
The good news is that my health belongs to me again, and my life and my
future are in my own hands. I see that the most important factor in healing
is our belief system. I refuse to believe that HIV leads to AIDS or to
death, unless we want it to.
Thank you for your bravery in being here for me and for all the people who
need to be surrounded by a hopeful and positive vision.
Sincerely grateful for every day of my life,
Sarah C.
=========
PART TWO:
- The AP wire story on healthy, unmedicated HIV positive mother Valerie
Emerson and the healthy son she almost lost to the AIDS establishment
===
LOS ANGELES TIMES, AUGUST 12, 2001
THE NATION
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-000065332aug12.story
Mother of HIV-Infected Boy Still Favors Ruling
In 1998, a Maine court said the boy, now an active 6, did not have to be
treated with powerful AIDS drugs.
By REBECCA MAHONEY, ASSOCIATED PRESS
BANGOR, Maine -- Valerie Emerson had been ready to disappear for days by
the
time the judge reached his decision.The car had a full tank of gas. The
trunk was crammed with clothes. A road map was marked with safe houses
throughout the country where she and her three boys could seek refuge. She
had already said goodbye to friends.
That's how certain Emerson was that she would lose custody of her son
Nikolas--because of her refusal to treat the boy with powerful AIDS drugs.
She never wavered. The single mother had watched her AIDS-infected daughter
succumb to an agonizing death while on AZT, and she vowed to let nature
take
its course with Nikolas, even if it meant fleeing her home.
So when Judge Douglas Clapp ruled in Emerson's favor, she slumped to the
floor in disbelief, gasping and mumbling incoherently.
She could keep her son.
Two years later, Nikolas Emerson is a happy-go-lucky 6-year-old. He's doing
well in the first grade and likes Nintendo, riding his bike, and playing
with his brothers. He likes to be active, preferring rough-and-tumble play
to quiet activities.
With the exception of a chronic ear infection that his doctor attributes
to
a suppressed immune system, Nik is as rambunctious as any kid his age. He
does not undergo regular blood tests, as many AIDS patients do to monitor
the disease. His mother says she sees no reason to conduct the tests since
he has had no major illness in three years, but would reconsider if his
symptoms change.
About 2 1/2 years ago, he was at the center of a landmark legal battle:
Maine's Department of Human Services sued for custody of Nik because Emerson
wouldn't treat him with the AIDS medicine.The state fought Emerson all the
way to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, which sided with her on Nov. 19,
1998.Because the medicine's effectiveness is uncertain, Chief Justice Daniel
Wathen wrote in the opinion, "It can only reasonably be left up to the
parent to make an informed choice."
Emerson, a single convenience store clerk with a high school education,
still reminds herself that she won.
"I was totally prepared to hear that I had lost," the 28-year-old woman
said. "But I knew in my heart that I was right."
Emerson had discovered she was HIV-positive when she was pregnant with
Jakob, her fourth child. When doctors tested her three older children, two
tests came back positive: 3-year-old Tia's and 2-year-old Nik's. Jakob,
who
is now 5, and her firstborn, Zak, now 9, have tested negative for HIV.
Emerson and Tia began taking AZT, one of the most powerful AIDS medications
available at the time.
Tia, who had been sick with pneumonia on and off during her short life,
reacted badly. She died a painful death in her mother's arms shortly before
her 4th birthday, in January 1997.
Despite her misgivings, and despite Tia's death, Emerson began giving AZT
to
Nik and continued taking it herself.The effects were severe. Her legs ached.
Her head pounded. Her stomach churned. After she took a shower, handfuls
of
hair clogged the drain. When she began vomiting blood, she stopped taking
the medicine.
If the drugs made her feel this sick, she wondered what were they doing
to
Nik. He couldn't eat. He was pale and listless. He no longer played. He
no
longer laughed. His moans kept him awake.
Fearing she would lose another child, Emerson stopped giving Nik the
medicine. Nik's physician, Dr. Jean Benson of Bangor agreed. "Nik wasn't
growing. He was pale. He complained about belly pain. He was lethargic and
didn't play. He whined all the time," Benson said. "When we took him off
the
medication, he started running up and down the hall."
Within weeks, he became a happy, healthy boy again.
"The pain in his legs stopped immediately. The pain in his stomach went
away
within a week. His appetite returned," Emerson said.A child like Nik born
with HIV who follows a regular regime of AIDS treatment has a life
expectancy of at least 20 years, according to the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention in Atlanta.
A child born with HIV who does not take AIDS medicine--like Nik--is only
expected to reach 9, the CDC said. Emerson doesn't have much faith in the
statistics. "When Nik was born, doctors told me he wouldn't live past 3.
They told me he'd never write his own name, he'd never sing the alphabet
and
he'd never read," Emerson said."He's done all those things," she added.
"The
only thing left for him to do is graduate high school and live to 50."
She and her boys take things day by day, living a quiet life in a small
town
outside Bangor. Her sons are energetic, outgoing boys with broad smiles,
pink cheeks and bubbling laughter.
"Parents with kids who have HIV have rights too," Emerson said. "They can
make choices. All any parent can do is follow their heart."
The case ended up in the courts after Nik's doctor suggested that they see
a
specialist about a new drug regimen. Emerson didn't agree with the
specialist's suggestion that she try one of the newly introduced three-drug
combinations that had become the mainstay of AIDS care. These so-called
drug
cocktails, which included powerful medicines called protease inhibitors,
had
revolutionized the treatment of HIV, changing it from a death sentence to
a
chronic, manageable infection for many.
She had briefly taken the protease inhibitors herself, shortly after Tia
died. But she believed the side effects were just as severe as AZT's and
didn't want Nik to try the cocktail. The specialist, Dr. John Milliken of
Bangor, was troubled by Emerson's decision and reported his concern to the
state's child protective agency. The state delivered an ultimatum to
Emerson: Give Nik the cocktail that scientists believed could reduce the
virus to undetectable levels, or face a custody battle.Emerson refused.
Having been shuffled around between 16 foster homes as a teenager, she was
loath to let her son enter what she claims is a failing child-protective
system.
"I knew she was a parent acting in good faith who had gone out of her way
to
make sure she was well-informed," said her lawyer, Hillary Billings. "I
knew
we had a fight on our hands."Among those testifying in support of Emerson's
decision at the 1998 custody hearing was David Rasnick, a research chemist
whose views on AIDS are sharply at odds with those of mainstream medicine.
He has denied that HIV causes AIDS or even that AIDS is an infectious
disease.
"Doctors said to put Nik on the drugs, and he got extremely ill very
quickly. It was clear the drugs were doing it," he said from UC Berkeley,
where he is a visiting scientist.
Mainstream researchers believe the cocktail is more effective than AZT
treatment. Dr. Katherine Luvuriaga of the University of Massachusetts
Medical School recommends treatment for children, as well as adults. "In
the
very early years [treatment] was primarily with AZT, but now we have a wider
variety of drugs to choose from and a little more latitude on drugs for
children," she said. "The strongest recommendation is that children be
treated as early as possible. It's one I strongly support."
In his decision granting custody to Emerson, Clapp, the Maine district
judge, said research hadn't provided definitive answers. "The mono therapy,
which the best doctors told Ms. Emerson was appropriate for her daughter
many months ago, failed fatally and is now not recommended by the same
experts," he wrote in his 14-page decision.
"Instead, they have recommended a more aggressive and powerful therapy.
They
may be right in this advice," the judge said. "Current statistics can be
interpreted that they may also just as likely be wrong. If so, they will
move on to a better and more informed attempt to cure this, but Ms. Emerson
will bury another child."
Emerson's ex-husband, Ryan Dubay of Bangor, wanted the state to take custody
of Nik so he would be given the drugs. Dubay, who is also HIV-positive,
could not be reached for comment.
Maine's Supreme Court upheld Clapp's decision but also gave the state
authority to step in if Nik's health should deteriorate.
These days, Emerson is more philosophical than fearful.
"I have faith that God will not give me more than I can handle, and I
believe in good things," she said. "I'm not scared. Nervous, yes, but not
scared."
"My grandmother always said that for everything in life, there is a
purpose," she added. "I thought, I have HIV. What purpose is in that? But
now I know--it's to help people. And that's OK."
For information about reprinting this article, go to
http://www.lats.com/rights/register.htm
- More on the non-rise of HIV rates in San Francisco
- Questioning claims of African American AIDS epidemic
- New friend in Africa shares AIDS realities from ground zero
- One woman¹s incredible journey from near death back to life
Coming in Part Two:
- Greetings from new AIDS rethinking allies in Korea
- Lawsuit alleges death from AZT and opens ³potential floodgate for claims
against drug industry²
- Canadian AIDS ads caught using questionable strategies and statistics
- Media alert: Surprisingly unbiased AP story on HIV positive mother Valerie
Emerson and her son Nikolas to appear in Sunday newspapers
===
Startling Admission from San Francisco Dept of Public Health:
HIV Rates in the ³Epicenter of AIDS² Peaked in 1982
In the May 31, 2001 Bay Area Reporter (BAR) article "AIDS at 20," Dr.
Mitchell Katz, current director of San Francisco's Department of Public
Health and former director of the AIDS Office, states:
"1992 was the peak of AIDS deaths because it was the peak of HIV
seroconversion 10 years earlierÃ…Â Even if no protease inhibitors had ever
been
developed, San Francisco would have experienced the peak and fall around
1992, because infection rates went from around 8,000 in the early 1980s
to
about 1,000 a year. That's both gay and straight, though in the early years
it was almost all gay."
===
Rebutting the New ³Black Plague²
AIDS is Not Leading Cause of Death Among Black Women;
Cases Continue to Drop Among Black Men
This illuminating letter to the editor reveals some of the false alarms
sounded by the media with regard to AIDS.
Letters to the Editor, Bay Area Reporter
August 3, 2001
Dear Sir:
The recent article by David Wallace, "Time to Help Blacks With AIDS"
(B.A.R., August 2nd) is long on rhetoric but short on facts.
Wallace claims that AIDS is "still the leading cause of death for black
women in the US." This is absolutely false.
The total black female population in the U.S. is 18.6 million. In 1998,
the
latest year for which official numbers exist from the National Center for
Health Statistics, 135,023 black women died in the United States from all
causes. This represents a death rate of 6/10 of 1%, below the national
average of 8/10 of 1%.
What is termed "HIV infection" ranked ninth with 2,186 deaths reported among
this extremely healthy cohort.
The leading causes of death among black women remained heart disease,
stroke, cancers and diabetes.
Statistics from San Francisco confirm the steep decline of AIDS among black
men too.
In 1991, a total of 2,575 cases of AIDS were reported, of which
308 were
African-American. In 2000, a total of 554 cases of AIDS were reported, a
decline of nearly 80%. And of those 554 cases, 109 were black men, a drop
of
nearly 66% in nine years.
AIDS is rapidly becoming a medical non-issue in the U.S. But in the face
of
these numbers, it will require scare-tales and bogus claims to sustain
public fears and federal funds for AIDS.
National AIDS funding for 2002 is projected to top .2 billion! With
so
much money at stake, alarmists like David Wallace can be expected to use
any
statistical sleight of hand to keep the money coming. Let the reader beware.
Sincerely,
Charles Geshekter, PhD
Chico, California
===
Question and Answers from South Africa
Several moths ago, I received an email message full of tough questions from
a very skeptical but polite woman in South Africa. She expressed concern
about the validity of our views, and asked what other than HIV would explain
the death and suffering that surrounds her. In this recent letter, she
shares some observations confirming her new-found suspicions that AIDS may
not be all that she has been toldÃ…Â
Dear Christine,
I have been communicating with you for some time, and following all your
arguments closely. I would like to share my experiences and suspicions with
everybody on your email list.
When my husband died of AIDS last year, I got very scared and went for an
HIV test. It came out positive. The months that followed my diagnosis were
real hell to me. My blood pressure was constantly high, I developed panic
attacks, and I suffered from migraines. There was not a single moment that
I
didn't think of death, I could even feel like I was failing to breathe,
especially when I was alone.
After taking my viral load and CD4 cell count, my doctor told me that I
would start falling seriously sick at the beginning of 2001, but I refused
to take the drugs he suggested. My health was getting really bad, and I
was
surely on my way out. Then I came across your writings and I started
communicating with you.
With the encouraging news I was getting, I became less frightened; the
stress reduced and the panic attacks and migraines disappeared. I got
absorbed in reading about AIDS and I started observing AIDS cases of people
who were close to me and noticed they seemed to follow a certain pattern.
The following are some of the cases I observed closely.
1. My husband and I were separated. After I left him, he lost his job, and
started selling our property to earn a living. He reached a point where
he
had no job, no property, no family, and no food and started falling sick.
He
had no money for medical care, and his girl friend left him. I can imagine
the kind of stress he went through. After contracting TB, he was diagnosed
with AIDS, and he eventually died. His death was called ³AIDS.²
2. My brother decided to take an early retirement. He had five children
and
a wife. Due to complications, he failed to get his retirement money. Without
a source of income, he could not support his family or even buy food. He
was
reduced to a beggar. He fell sick and he was diagnosed with AIDS.
Eventually, he died of "AIDS."
3. A close friend in the UK who tested positive lost her first husband to
AIDS. She re-married and came to live in South Africa. She was healthy
without any medication or illness for eight years, until the second husband
divorced her. She was left with no work, no source of income, and two
children from the first marriage who depended on her. Her second husband
held a PhD, and after their divorce, she moved from a first class life to
that of a beggar. She had nowhere to stay, no food, she had nothing. She
too
developed TB, was diagnosed with ³AIDS² and died.
Now I wonder, does HIV get activated by stress and/or poverty or it is
actually the stress/poverty which killed these people regardless of whether
there was HIV? To me it seems as if the stress played a major role and
HIV
played an insignificant role, if any. God knows better, but I think that
if
I had continued with my initial stress following my diagnosis, I too would
be dead by now.
I realize that in our age, humanity as a whole is under
a lot of stress. We
are stressed by family and occupational problems, political issues, poverty,
etc. challenging our immunity. Secondly, I realize that our bodies are full
of toxins which may lead to suppression of our immunity. Take for instance
the so called normal life 'straight' people live‹we depend on pharmaceutical
drugs for every health problem; every headache, flu, stress, chronic
diseases, high blood pressure, diabetes, for contraceptives, etc. We are
forever pumping drugs into our bodies. The foods that we eat are treated
with all kinds of drugs like ones that make chickens mature within a few
weeks. Our vegetables that are sprayed with chemicals, our water is treated
with chemicals and full of pollutants. Are we absolutely sure that this
mass
intake of drugs has no effect on our immune systems?
What about the immunization compulsory to every new born? At a very early
fragile age, when the immune system is developing, the baby's body is
bombarded with all sorts of microbes in the hope of stimulating the immune
response, yet we are told that too many infections can depress the immune
system.
I am not a scientist, but simple logic tells me that there is much more
to
AIDS than HIV. I would be happy if somebody‹especially the AIDS
experts‹could clarify these issues.
Thanks Christine for opening up the dialogue on AIDS. You have no idea how
many lives you are saving every day.
May God bless you,
Triple M
South Africa
===
Survival Against All the Odds
Alive & Well has four 3² thick binders full of thank you notes from around
the world. Reading through them is a uniquely moving experience and affirms
our commitment to make the many sacrifices required to continue our work.
Before I added this to our growing collection, I asked the sender if I could
share her incredibly harrowing and ultimately inspiring saga with all of
you...
Dear Christine,
I was diagnosed HIV positive in 1990. At that time, my T cell count was
a
whopping 760 and I had no symptoms of illness. Without any medicines, my
T
cell count rose higher over the course of a couple years to an even more
impressive 1,100. But the HIV positive result was life-threatening in and
of
itself. I became severely depressed, alcoholic and had suicidal tendencies.
My T cells eventually decreased to what at the time was the dreaded
benchmark number‹below 500. This meant it was time to begin medications.
Despite my counts and depression, in 1994 when I started taking the drugs,
I
was a robust, healthy 160 pound woman.
I started with AZT and several other drugs‹I've taken so many I can't even
remember which ones or in what order‹but my T cell count continued to drop.
When new viral load testing began, my load indicated I needed to begin the
protease inhibitor cocktails. I was given a protocol of five drugs‹30
something pills a day‹plus hydroxiurea.
In just six weeks, weeks my viral load was undetectable. However, within
six
months of starting the therapies, I began to develop serious side affects:
chronic diarrhea, severe wasting, abdominal pain, muscle atrophy, peripheral
neuropathy, dangerously high cholesterol, debilitating muscle pain all over
my body (especially in my legs, hips and feet), diabetes, loss of appetite,
decreased saliva, constant thirst, insomnia, mental confusion, loss of
memory and loss of vision. And all the time my T cell count continued to
drop. Within one three month period, my count went from 640 to below 200
and
no one could explain why my viral load was undetectable the entire time.
We stopped the hydroxiurea thinking that might make a difference, but my
T
cell count continued to drop and my health continued to fail. Many times
during these events I considered stopping the medications, but when I
discussed this with my doctors, none of them supported me. Every single
doctor I saw remained firm that I should continue the drugs, even after
witnessing my decline and seeing me reduced to a skeleton. They insisted
my
T cell count was too low and that quitting might not reverse the side
effects.
Believing that science had given me all it could offer, and believing that
HIV eventually lead to death, I concluded that it was the "beginning of
the
end.²
About a week later, I decided to listen to my instincts, stop taking
all
medications and start juicing. Since I looked like and believed I was dying
of AIDS, I figured: what have I got to lose? By the next day, my body pain
was gone. I also noticed that my eyes stopped looking sunken in. Within
a
couple days, my diabetes was gone. It has now been six weeks. I am rapidly
gaining weight, am stronger everyday, and my mind is clear and alert again.
Almost every complication has disappeared.
This development alone has led me to question everything I have learned
about AIDS as well as the medical community at large. At what point was
my
doctor going to tell me to stop taking these poisonous drugs? How is it
possible that an educated, intelligent physician could consider this
medicine life saving?
I'm writing this to you because I was one of those people who totally bought
into the AIDS hype. I really believed that my life was in the grip of some
virus called HIV and that my future was in the hands of western medicine.
Thankfully, my common sense has begun to lead me in a different direction.
Now I believe that what ever causes AIDS‹and frankly any disease‹is related
to malnutrition, prolonged exposure to toxicities, and lifestyle including
spiritual, emotional and mental health. I am convinced that we create our
realities and that if we believe a virus called HIV will cause death, we
will die. I also feel the entire medical community is as blinded by these
beliefs as the general population. Everyone's funding and research is
dependent on the pharmaceutical companies and the status quo, and the
pharmaceutical companies have a vested interest in toxins, not natural or
nutritional remedies that cannot be patented.
The good news is that my health belongs to me again, and my life and my
future are in my own hands. I see that the most important factor in healing
is our belief system. I refuse to believe that HIV leads to AIDS or to
death, unless we want it to.
Thank you for your bravery in being here for me and for all the people who
need to be surrounded by a hopeful and positive vision.
Sincerely grateful for every day of my life,
Sarah C.
=========
PART TWO:
- The AP wire story on healthy, unmedicated HIV positive mother Valerie
Emerson and the healthy son she almost lost to the AIDS establishment
===
LOS ANGELES TIMES, AUGUST 12, 2001
THE NATION
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-000065332aug12.story
Mother of HIV-Infected Boy Still Favors Ruling
In 1998, a Maine court said the boy, now an active 6, did not have to be
treated with powerful AIDS drugs.
By REBECCA MAHONEY, ASSOCIATED PRESS
BANGOR, Maine -- Valerie Emerson had been ready to disappear for days by
the
time the judge reached his decision.The car had a full tank of gas. The
trunk was crammed with clothes. A road map was marked with safe houses
throughout the country where she and her three boys could seek refuge. She
had already said goodbye to friends.
That's how certain Emerson was that she would lose custody of her son
Nikolas--because of her refusal to treat the boy with powerful AIDS drugs.
She never wavered. The single mother had watched her AIDS-infected daughter
succumb to an agonizing death while on AZT, and she vowed to let nature
take
its course with Nikolas, even if it meant fleeing her home.
So when Judge Douglas Clapp ruled in Emerson's favor, she slumped to the
floor in disbelief, gasping and mumbling incoherently.
She could keep her son.
Two years later, Nikolas Emerson is a happy-go-lucky 6-year-old. He's doing
well in the first grade and likes Nintendo, riding his bike, and playing
with his brothers. He likes to be active, preferring rough-and-tumble play
to quiet activities.
With the exception of a chronic ear infection that his doctor attributes
to
a suppressed immune system, Nik is as rambunctious as any kid his age. He
does not undergo regular blood tests, as many AIDS patients do to monitor
the disease. His mother says she sees no reason to conduct the tests since
he has had no major illness in three years, but would reconsider if his
symptoms change.
About 2 1/2 years ago, he was at the center of a landmark legal battle:
Maine's Department of Human Services sued for custody of Nik because Emerson
wouldn't treat him with the AIDS medicine.The state fought Emerson all the
way to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, which sided with her on Nov. 19,
1998.Because the medicine's effectiveness is uncertain, Chief Justice Daniel
Wathen wrote in the opinion, "It can only reasonably be left up to the
parent to make an informed choice."
Emerson, a single convenience store clerk with a high school education,
still reminds herself that she won.
"I was totally prepared to hear that I had lost," the 28-year-old woman
said. "But I knew in my heart that I was right."
Emerson had discovered she was HIV-positive when she was pregnant with
Jakob, her fourth child. When doctors tested her three older children, two
tests came back positive: 3-year-old Tia's and 2-year-old Nik's. Jakob,
who
is now 5, and her firstborn, Zak, now 9, have tested negative for HIV.
Emerson and Tia began taking AZT, one of the most powerful AIDS medications
available at the time.
Tia, who had been sick with pneumonia on and off during her short life,
reacted badly. She died a painful death in her mother's arms shortly before
her 4th birthday, in January 1997.
Despite her misgivings, and despite Tia's death, Emerson began giving AZT
to
Nik and continued taking it herself.The effects were severe. Her legs ached.
Her head pounded. Her stomach churned. After she took a shower, handfuls
of
hair clogged the drain. When she began vomiting blood, she stopped taking
the medicine.
If the drugs made her feel this sick, she wondered what were they doing
to
Nik. He couldn't eat. He was pale and listless. He no longer played. He
no
longer laughed. His moans kept him awake.
Fearing she would lose another child, Emerson stopped giving Nik the
medicine. Nik's physician, Dr. Jean Benson of Bangor agreed. "Nik wasn't
growing. He was pale. He complained about belly pain. He was lethargic and
didn't play. He whined all the time," Benson said. "When we took him off
the
medication, he started running up and down the hall."
Within weeks, he became a happy, healthy boy again.
"The pain in his legs stopped immediately. The pain in his stomach went
away
within a week. His appetite returned," Emerson said.A child like Nik born
with HIV who follows a regular regime of AIDS treatment has a life
expectancy of at least 20 years, according to the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention in Atlanta.
A child born with HIV who does not take AIDS medicine--like Nik--is only
expected to reach 9, the CDC said. Emerson doesn't have much faith in the
statistics. "When Nik was born, doctors told me he wouldn't live past 3.
They told me he'd never write his own name, he'd never sing the alphabet
and
he'd never read," Emerson said."He's done all those things," she added.
"The
only thing left for him to do is graduate high school and live to 50."
She and her boys take things day by day, living a quiet life in a small
town
outside Bangor. Her sons are energetic, outgoing boys with broad smiles,
pink cheeks and bubbling laughter.
"Parents with kids who have HIV have rights too," Emerson said. "They can
make choices. All any parent can do is follow their heart."
The case ended up in the courts after Nik's doctor suggested that they see
a
specialist about a new drug regimen. Emerson didn't agree with the
specialist's suggestion that she try one of the newly introduced three-drug
combinations that had become the mainstay of AIDS care. These so-called
drug
cocktails, which included powerful medicines called protease inhibitors,
had
revolutionized the treatment of HIV, changing it from a death sentence to
a
chronic, manageable infection for many.
She had briefly taken the protease inhibitors herself, shortly after Tia
died. But she believed the side effects were just as severe as AZT's and
didn't want Nik to try the cocktail. The specialist, Dr. John Milliken of
Bangor, was troubled by Emerson's decision and reported his concern to the
state's child protective agency. The state delivered an ultimatum to
Emerson: Give Nik the cocktail that scientists believed could reduce the
virus to undetectable levels, or face a custody battle.Emerson refused.
Having been shuffled around between 16 foster homes as a teenager, she was
loath to let her son enter what she claims is a failing child-protective
system.
"I knew she was a parent acting in good faith who had gone out of her way
to
make sure she was well-informed," said her lawyer, Hillary Billings. "I
knew
we had a fight on our hands."Among those testifying in support of Emerson's
decision at the 1998 custody hearing was David Rasnick, a research chemist
whose views on AIDS are sharply at odds with those of mainstream medicine.
He has denied that HIV causes AIDS or even that AIDS is an infectious
disease.
"Doctors said to put Nik on the drugs, and he got extremely ill very
quickly. It was clear the drugs were doing it," he said from UC Berkeley,
where he is a visiting scientist.
Mainstream researchers believe the cocktail is more effective than AZT
treatment. Dr. Katherine Luvuriaga of the University of Massachusetts
Medical School recommends treatment for children, as well as adults. "In
the
very early years [treatment] was primarily with AZT, but now we have a wider
variety of drugs to choose from and a little more latitude on drugs for
children," she said. "The strongest recommendation is that children be
treated as early as possible. It's one I strongly support."
In his decision granting custody to Emerson, Clapp, the Maine district
judge, said research hadn't provided definitive answers. "The mono therapy,
which the best doctors told Ms. Emerson was appropriate for her daughter
many months ago, failed fatally and is now not recommended by the same
experts," he wrote in his 14-page decision.
"Instead, they have recommended a more aggressive and powerful therapy.
They
may be right in this advice," the judge said. "Current statistics can be
interpreted that they may also just as likely be wrong. If so, they will
move on to a better and more informed attempt to cure this, but Ms. Emerson
will bury another child."
Emerson's ex-husband, Ryan Dubay of Bangor, wanted the state to take custody
of Nik so he would be given the drugs. Dubay, who is also HIV-positive,
could not be reached for comment.
Maine's Supreme Court upheld Clapp's decision but also gave the state
authority to step in if Nik's health should deteriorate.
These days, Emerson is more philosophical than fearful.
"I have faith that God will not give me more than I can handle, and I
believe in good things," she said. "I'm not scared. Nervous, yes, but not
scared."
"My grandmother always said that for everything in life, there is a
purpose," she added. "I thought, I have HIV. What purpose is in that? But
now I know--it's to help people. And that's OK."
For information about reprinting this article, go to
http://www.lats.com/rights/register.htm
Part One:
- How decreasing numbers of heterosexual AIDS cases in Canada turn into
rising percentages
- South African President takes hard questions from BBC and holds firm on
questioning AIDS
- Surprising fact uncovered: US redefines HIV and AIDS
- ABC News 20/20 segment on Christine Maggiore back on schedule
- New free publication in Spanish challenges conventional AIDS views
Part Two:
- From Germany: Rock star Nina Hagen sends support and news
- From India: Another powerful article questions popular AIDS assumptions
- New study links depression to development of AIDS diseases
- Welcome new subscribers in Europe and Africa
===
How Shrinking AIDS Numbers Become Growing AIDS Percentages
AIDS realist Dr. Charles Geshekter of Cal State Chico sent this in follow
up
to our last emailer about questionable AIDS ads campaigns in Canada. Take
a
look at how diminishing numbers of heterosexual AIDS cases in that country
are turned into a growing AIDS problem through manipulation of statistics.
Dr Geshekter writes:
According to the most recent* HIV and AIDS in Canada Surveillance Report,
in
1995, Canada reported a cumulative total of 1,419 male AIDS cases.
Of these 1,419 cases, 123 (or 9.1%) chose ³heterosexual contact" as their
AIDS risk category.
In the year 2000, Canada reported a total of 231 new male AIDS cases, and
of
that number, 24 (or 11%) claimed heterosexual contact as their only risk.
Thus, the actual number of male AIDS cases said to be attributable to
heterosexual contact declined by 81% in five years. BUT since the percentage
of the total number of all ³heterosexual contact male AIDS cases² went from
9.1% to 11%, professional AIDS promoters in Canada were able to allege that
heterosexual male AIDS cases were on the rise!
By the way, the total population of Canada is 31.3 million. In the year
2000, a grand total of 26 female cases of AIDS were reported. Of that
number, 14 were said to be via "heterosexual contact." Many may wonder,
do
14 AIDS cases honestly add up to a heterosexual AIDS epidemic?
* Published April 2000, covering data through December 1999
===
Thabo Mbeki Hangs Tough with BBC
In this transcript of a recent British Broadcasting Company interview, South
African President Thabo Mbeki, the first world leader to openly question
official views on AIDS, sets the record straight on his alleged claims about
CIA plots and stands firm on AIDS rethinking.
Thanks to journalist Anita Allen of Johannesburg for sending this excerpt
our way.
Transcript BBC World¹s HARDTALK August 6, 2001
Tim Sebastion interviews Thabo Mbeki on HIV/AIDS questions (see the full
transcript at http://www.gov.za)
TS: Mr President, we were talking about plots earlier and you said that
you
had never spoken about plots. You were quoted last year in relation to AIDS
policy in South Africa as saying that the CIA was working covertly with
American drug companies to discredit you.
Mbeki: Never said any such thing.
TS: Never said it?
Mbeki: Never, ever said such a thing.
TS: It was wrongly reported?
Mbeki: I don't know where they got it from, it is completely wrong even
from
the point of view of inference. I hadn't said anything that relates to that
matter at all.
TS: And you were quoted at a meeting last Autumn of 200
ANC MPs and Cabinet
Ministers as saying that criticism of your AIDS policy was a foretaste of
foreign attempts to undermine your government to protect the existing
balance of economic power. Is this mischief making?
Mbeki: Absolutely.
TS: You never said this?
Mbeki: Absolutely, yes. That's part of what I was saying earlier about the
press here. I have absolutely no problem with the press criticising policies
and the things that we do, the things that we say, but you then find this
kind of thing happens--it's pure invention.
TS: But your stance on AIDS and the fact that you have apparently questioned
the link between HIV and AIDS has brought you a lot of criticism. Not just
outside the country, not just from the press, but from fairly powerful
interests in this country as well.
Mbeki: Well again, that's part of the problem, you see. What I've said is
this: When from everything that I've read - and I've tried to read quite
a
lot, because what we're told and what the statistics that are published
say
is that we have here a very, very severe problem that's likely to decimate
the South African population....
TS: ...up to seven million people may die according to your own figures.
Mbeki: According to these figures. So naturally I say therefore I need to
understand as carefully as I can this matter which is such an enormous
threat to our population. So I read about it and what I've said about it
is
this: From what I read which is what the scientists are saying, you have
here an acquired immune deficiency syndrome. Now a syndrome is a collection
of diseases whose causes are known. You can't say one virus causes a
syndrome.
TS: No, but you can say what is the common factor, what do they
all have?
Mbeki: You can say, which is what I have said, is that you have a virus
which causes immune deficiency. But immune deficiency is also caused by
other things.
TS: These comments have caused dismay Mr President.
Mbeki: But they are correct...
TS: Even among some of your own workers.
Mbeki: But they are correct...
TS: In your own health ministry people have questioned...
Mbeki: I know.
TS: AIDS workers in Soweto have said you have damaged the
campaign; you've
muddied the waters...
Mbeki: I think that's a load of nonsense.
TS: Even the head of your Trade Union movement says, you know, that this
can
undermine the message that all South Africans must take precautions to avoid
infection.
Mbeki: Nonsense, absolute nonsense...
TS: Why are they saying this then?
Mbeki: You see, it's the misunderstanding about the science of this
question. As I was saying, immune deficiency is a reality, which is part
of
AIDS. And I'm saying that that immune deficiency will be caused by many
things. The reason that becomes important is that as a government, we've
got
an obligation to respond to this, and we've got to respond in a manner that
is comprehensive. We¹ve got to respond to immune deficiency that is caused
by a virus, we've got to respond to immune deficiency that is caused by
other things...
TS: You're the only leader of a major country that is
questioning in this
way. Why do you think that is?
Mbeki: It's in the science. I'm saying you cannot say to me that of the
South African population, seven million people are going to die whenever
they're supposed to die, and then you don't expect that we look at this
matter most carefully, in the greatest detail, to make sure that our
responses are correct.
TS: There's a lot of misinformation, hesitation, seeming to question the
scientific basis of what respected scientists, Nobel prize winners, people
of the Durban Declaration, 5 000 AIDS workers, doctors have said... I wonder
whether you realise, whether you accept that your position has actually
damaged the fight against AIDS in this country.
Mbeki: I don't.
TS: You don't, so those of your people who are saying
that you reject that?
Mbeki: If you take for instance the UN AIDS Conference that took place in
the last few weeks, end of June...
TS: Which you didn't attend in New York.
Mbeki: It was a ministerial meeting, it was specifically decided by the
UN
General Assembly that this was a ministerial meeting.
TS: But Mr President, you are the leader of the country that is most
affected by this disease in the world.
Mbeki: This was a ministerial meeting and we sent a very competent minister
to attend...
TS: But what signals does it send when you aren't there yourself?
The excuse
given was that you had a meeting with George Bush.
Mbeki: I had a meeting with George Bush, it was not an excuse.
TS: He would have postponed it for you, I'm sure if you said I need to be
at
that conference in New York...
Mbeki: There's nothing that I could have said at that conference which the
ministers didn't say, and as I say, this was a ministerial meeting. The
matter was actually formally discussed because we had wanted it to be a
summit and the EU delegation at the United Nations said no, let's make this
a ministerial meeting. So it was a ministerial meeting and we sent a
ministerial delegation. But the point I'm saying about it is that you will
find that if you look at the declaration, the decisions of the summit are
saying the same things that we've been saying, that in your approach to
AIDS
you've got to go beyond the question, merely, of a virus.
TS: But people say that you now have men sitting around saying Thabo Mbeki
says we don't need condoms, we don't need to protect ourselves because
there's no link between HIV and AIDS.
Mbeki: No, that's not true...
TS: But that's the effect...
Mbeki: It isn't.
TS: People are saying that to us, your own workers are
saying...
Mbeki: They may say so...
TS: ...inside your own ministry of health are saying this...
Mbeki: If you spoke for instance to Baragwanath Hospital here in
Johannesburg, a big hospital dealing with these issues, what they will say
to you is that what they've seen is a drop in teenage pregnancies; what
they've seen is a reduction in the incidence of venereal disease because
people are responding to the campaign the government is conducting of public
awareness, which includes the use of condoms. I don't believe it's trueÃ…Â I
mean people might say what they want to say, but in reality...
TS: But these are powerful people...
Mbeki: They may well be very powerful people...
TS: ...powerful organisations threatening to take you to court to get
anti-retroviral drugs distributed.
Mbeki: But I'm saying that what's actually happening in South Africa would
not support these reports. I'm sure there's a misperception of what is
happening in South Africa.
TS: People wonder what your priorities are Mr President because we've seen
splashed across one of the newspapers the other day, Thabo Mbeki says
corruption is the number one problem. And we hear that racism is the number
one issue. AIDS must be the number one issue in this country, if seven
million people are potentially facing death...
Mbeki: Do you know what the largest single cause of death in South Africa
is? The largest single cause of death as we sit here is what in the medical
terms is called ³external causes² and that is violence in the society. For
instance I've seen figures that say that if you take the male age cohort
from16 to 45 years, 54% of the people who die in that age cohort die from
external causes.
TS: Violence isn't going to threaten the lives of seven
million South
Africans...
Mbeki: I'm saying that the majority of the people in the country
are dying
from that and you cannot say to me I must ignore that and not take into
account the fact that the majority of the people in that particular age
cohort--a working population--is dying from the violence that is so terrible
in this society. The government must respond to that.
(The interview then moves to a discussion about crime)
===
US Government Revises AIDS Definition Again
Rob Johnston of HEAL Toronto uncovered this disturbing re-revision of the
official definitions for ³HIV infection² and AIDS, which apparently as of
the end of1999, are the same thingÃ…Â sort ofÃ…Â
This melded definition allows many new--and decidedly not improved--ways
to
be counted as an AIDS case, reads a little like a menu from a Chinese
restaurant, and suggests that clinical symptoms in the absence of an HIV
test may be sufficient for a diagnosis of ³HIV infection/AIDS.²
Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report
December 10, 1999 / 48(RR13);29-31
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr4813a2.htm
Appendix: Revised Surveillance Case Definition for HIV Infection*
This revised definition of HIV infection, which applies to any HIV (e.g.,
HIV-1 or HIV-2), is intended for public health surveillance only.
It incorporates the reporting criteria for HIV infection and AIDS into a
single case definition.
The revised criteria for HIV infection update the definition of HIV
infection implemented in 1993. The revised HIV criteria apply to
AIDS-defining conditions for adults and children which require laboratory
evidence of HIV. This definition is not presented as a guide to clinical
diagnosis or for other uses.
In adults, adolescents, or children aged greater than or equal to 18
months**, a reportable case of HIV infection must meet at least one of the
following criteria:
Laboratory Criteria:
1) Positive result on a screening test for HIV antibody (e.g., repeatedly
reactive enzyme immunoassay), followed by a positive result on a
confirmatory (sensitive and more specific) test for HIV antibody
(e.g.,Western blot or immunofluorescence antibody test)
OR
2) Positive result or report of a detectable quantity on any of the
following HIV virologic (nonantibody) tests:
-HIV nucleic acid (DNA or RNA) detection (e.g., DNA polymerase chain
reaction [PCR] or plasma HIV-1 RNA)***
- HIV p24 antigen test, including neutralization assay
- HIV isolation (viral culture)
OR
3) Clinical or Other Criteria (if the above laboratory criteria are not
met)
Diagnosis of HIV infection, based on the laboratory criteria above, that
is
documented in a medical record by a physician
OR
4) Conditions that meet criteria included in the case definition for AIDS
===
ABC News 20/20 Slates Controversial Segment for Broadcast Next Friday
Connie Chung¹s interview with yours truly has been put back on the schedule
at ABC, this time for the evening of Friday August 24. Barring an alien
invasion, the cloning of President Bush or other catastrophic events, the
program should actually air. In the past few days, ABC has arranged to have
updated footage of me and my family and is setting up web links for a post
program online chat.
WE WILL CONFIRM THE BROADCAST DATE TO THIS LIST ON WEDNESDAY OR THURSDAY
OF
NEXT WEEK.
Keep your fingers crossed it stays on the books‹and that it gives a fair
and
accurate portrayal of the issues.
===
New Free Publication Challenging HIV/AIDS Paradigm Available in Spanish
Gerardo Sanchez of USAS (Union Latina por Soluciones Alternativas para el
SIDA) sent us the following encouraging message and generous offer:
Dear Alive & Well,
This month we published the first issue of our scientific magazine "Alma
y
Salud.² Anyone who would like to receive a copy should send us their postal
address. This first issue is in Spanish only, but the next edition will
be
bilingual. It is free.
Thank you for all the valuable information that you send to us. It
contributes to strengthen our cause.
I hug you.
Cordially,
Gerardo Sánchez
President and Executive Director
U.S.A.S. Miami, Florida
Email: ggsn1@att.net
- How decreasing numbers of heterosexual AIDS cases in Canada turn into
rising percentages
- South African President takes hard questions from BBC and holds firm on
questioning AIDS
- Surprising fact uncovered: US redefines HIV and AIDS
- ABC News 20/20 segment on Christine Maggiore back on schedule
- New free publication in Spanish challenges conventional AIDS views
Part Two:
- From Germany: Rock star Nina Hagen sends support and news
- From India: Another powerful article questions popular AIDS assumptions
- New study links depression to development of AIDS diseases
- Welcome new subscribers in Europe and Africa
===
How Shrinking AIDS Numbers Become Growing AIDS Percentages
AIDS realist Dr. Charles Geshekter of Cal State Chico sent this in follow
up
to our last emailer about questionable AIDS ads campaigns in Canada. Take
a
look at how diminishing numbers of heterosexual AIDS cases in that country
are turned into a growing AIDS problem through manipulation of statistics.
Dr Geshekter writes:
According to the most recent* HIV and AIDS in Canada Surveillance Report,
in
1995, Canada reported a cumulative total of 1,419 male AIDS cases.
Of these 1,419 cases, 123 (or 9.1%) chose ³heterosexual contact" as their
AIDS risk category.
In the year 2000, Canada reported a total of 231 new male AIDS cases, and
of
that number, 24 (or 11%) claimed heterosexual contact as their only risk.
Thus, the actual number of male AIDS cases said to be attributable to
heterosexual contact declined by 81% in five years. BUT since the percentage
of the total number of all ³heterosexual contact male AIDS cases² went from
9.1% to 11%, professional AIDS promoters in Canada were able to allege that
heterosexual male AIDS cases were on the rise!
By the way, the total population of Canada is 31.3 million. In the year
2000, a grand total of 26 female cases of AIDS were reported. Of that
number, 14 were said to be via "heterosexual contact." Many may wonder,
do
14 AIDS cases honestly add up to a heterosexual AIDS epidemic?
* Published April 2000, covering data through December 1999
===
Thabo Mbeki Hangs Tough with BBC
In this transcript of a recent British Broadcasting Company interview, South
African President Thabo Mbeki, the first world leader to openly question
official views on AIDS, sets the record straight on his alleged claims about
CIA plots and stands firm on AIDS rethinking.
Thanks to journalist Anita Allen of Johannesburg for sending this excerpt
our way.
Transcript BBC World¹s HARDTALK August 6, 2001
Tim Sebastion interviews Thabo Mbeki on HIV/AIDS questions (see the full
transcript at http://www.gov.za)
TS: Mr President, we were talking about plots earlier and you said that
you
had never spoken about plots. You were quoted last year in relation to AIDS
policy in South Africa as saying that the CIA was working covertly with
American drug companies to discredit you.
Mbeki: Never said any such thing.
TS: Never said it?
Mbeki: Never, ever said such a thing.
TS: It was wrongly reported?
Mbeki: I don't know where they got it from, it is completely wrong even
from
the point of view of inference. I hadn't said anything that relates to that
matter at all.
TS: And you were quoted at a meeting last Autumn of 200
ANC MPs and Cabinet
Ministers as saying that criticism of your AIDS policy was a foretaste of
foreign attempts to undermine your government to protect the existing
balance of economic power. Is this mischief making?
Mbeki: Absolutely.
TS: You never said this?
Mbeki: Absolutely, yes. That's part of what I was saying earlier about the
press here. I have absolutely no problem with the press criticising policies
and the things that we do, the things that we say, but you then find this
kind of thing happens--it's pure invention.
TS: But your stance on AIDS and the fact that you have apparently questioned
the link between HIV and AIDS has brought you a lot of criticism. Not just
outside the country, not just from the press, but from fairly powerful
interests in this country as well.
Mbeki: Well again, that's part of the problem, you see. What I've said is
this: When from everything that I've read - and I've tried to read quite
a
lot, because what we're told and what the statistics that are published
say
is that we have here a very, very severe problem that's likely to decimate
the South African population....
TS: ...up to seven million people may die according to your own figures.
Mbeki: According to these figures. So naturally I say therefore I need to
understand as carefully as I can this matter which is such an enormous
threat to our population. So I read about it and what I've said about it
is
this: From what I read which is what the scientists are saying, you have
here an acquired immune deficiency syndrome. Now a syndrome is a collection
of diseases whose causes are known. You can't say one virus causes a
syndrome.
TS: No, but you can say what is the common factor, what do they
all have?
Mbeki: You can say, which is what I have said, is that you have a virus
which causes immune deficiency. But immune deficiency is also caused by
other things.
TS: These comments have caused dismay Mr President.
Mbeki: But they are correct...
TS: Even among some of your own workers.
Mbeki: But they are correct...
TS: In your own health ministry people have questioned...
Mbeki: I know.
TS: AIDS workers in Soweto have said you have damaged the
campaign; you've
muddied the waters...
Mbeki: I think that's a load of nonsense.
TS: Even the head of your Trade Union movement says, you know, that this
can
undermine the message that all South Africans must take precautions to avoid
infection.
Mbeki: Nonsense, absolute nonsense...
TS: Why are they saying this then?
Mbeki: You see, it's the misunderstanding about the science of this
question. As I was saying, immune deficiency is a reality, which is part
of
AIDS. And I'm saying that that immune deficiency will be caused by many
things. The reason that becomes important is that as a government, we've
got
an obligation to respond to this, and we've got to respond in a manner that
is comprehensive. We¹ve got to respond to immune deficiency that is caused
by a virus, we've got to respond to immune deficiency that is caused by
other things...
TS: You're the only leader of a major country that is
questioning in this
way. Why do you think that is?
Mbeki: It's in the science. I'm saying you cannot say to me that of the
South African population, seven million people are going to die whenever
they're supposed to die, and then you don't expect that we look at this
matter most carefully, in the greatest detail, to make sure that our
responses are correct.
TS: There's a lot of misinformation, hesitation, seeming to question the
scientific basis of what respected scientists, Nobel prize winners, people
of the Durban Declaration, 5 000 AIDS workers, doctors have said... I wonder
whether you realise, whether you accept that your position has actually
damaged the fight against AIDS in this country.
Mbeki: I don't.
TS: You don't, so those of your people who are saying
that you reject that?
Mbeki: If you take for instance the UN AIDS Conference that took place in
the last few weeks, end of June...
TS: Which you didn't attend in New York.
Mbeki: It was a ministerial meeting, it was specifically decided by the
UN
General Assembly that this was a ministerial meeting.
TS: But Mr President, you are the leader of the country that is most
affected by this disease in the world.
Mbeki: This was a ministerial meeting and we sent a very competent minister
to attend...
TS: But what signals does it send when you aren't there yourself?
The excuse
given was that you had a meeting with George Bush.
Mbeki: I had a meeting with George Bush, it was not an excuse.
TS: He would have postponed it for you, I'm sure if you said I need to be
at
that conference in New York...
Mbeki: There's nothing that I could have said at that conference which the
ministers didn't say, and as I say, this was a ministerial meeting. The
matter was actually formally discussed because we had wanted it to be a
summit and the EU delegation at the United Nations said no, let's make this
a ministerial meeting. So it was a ministerial meeting and we sent a
ministerial delegation. But the point I'm saying about it is that you will
find that if you look at the declaration, the decisions of the summit are
saying the same things that we've been saying, that in your approach to
AIDS
you've got to go beyond the question, merely, of a virus.
TS: But people say that you now have men sitting around saying Thabo Mbeki
says we don't need condoms, we don't need to protect ourselves because
there's no link between HIV and AIDS.
Mbeki: No, that's not true...
TS: But that's the effect...
Mbeki: It isn't.
TS: People are saying that to us, your own workers are
saying...
Mbeki: They may say so...
TS: ...inside your own ministry of health are saying this...
Mbeki: If you spoke for instance to Baragwanath Hospital here in
Johannesburg, a big hospital dealing with these issues, what they will say
to you is that what they've seen is a drop in teenage pregnancies; what
they've seen is a reduction in the incidence of venereal disease because
people are responding to the campaign the government is conducting of public
awareness, which includes the use of condoms. I don't believe it's trueÃ…Â I
mean people might say what they want to say, but in reality...
TS: But these are powerful people...
Mbeki: They may well be very powerful people...
TS: ...powerful organisations threatening to take you to court to get
anti-retroviral drugs distributed.
Mbeki: But I'm saying that what's actually happening in South Africa would
not support these reports. I'm sure there's a misperception of what is
happening in South Africa.
TS: People wonder what your priorities are Mr President because we've seen
splashed across one of the newspapers the other day, Thabo Mbeki says
corruption is the number one problem. And we hear that racism is the number
one issue. AIDS must be the number one issue in this country, if seven
million people are potentially facing death...
Mbeki: Do you know what the largest single cause of death in South Africa
is? The largest single cause of death as we sit here is what in the medical
terms is called ³external causes² and that is violence in the society. For
instance I've seen figures that say that if you take the male age cohort
from16 to 45 years, 54% of the people who die in that age cohort die from
external causes.
TS: Violence isn't going to threaten the lives of seven
million South
Africans...
Mbeki: I'm saying that the majority of the people in the country
are dying
from that and you cannot say to me I must ignore that and not take into
account the fact that the majority of the people in that particular age
cohort--a working population--is dying from the violence that is so terrible
in this society. The government must respond to that.
(The interview then moves to a discussion about crime)
===
US Government Revises AIDS Definition Again
Rob Johnston of HEAL Toronto uncovered this disturbing re-revision of the
official definitions for ³HIV infection² and AIDS, which apparently as of
the end of1999, are the same thingÃ…Â sort ofÃ…Â
This melded definition allows many new--and decidedly not improved--ways
to
be counted as an AIDS case, reads a little like a menu from a Chinese
restaurant, and suggests that clinical symptoms in the absence of an HIV
test may be sufficient for a diagnosis of ³HIV infection/AIDS.²
Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report
December 10, 1999 / 48(RR13);29-31
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr4813a2.htm
Appendix: Revised Surveillance Case Definition for HIV Infection*
This revised definition of HIV infection, which applies to any HIV (e.g.,
HIV-1 or HIV-2), is intended for public health surveillance only.
It incorporates the reporting criteria for HIV infection and AIDS into a
single case definition.
The revised criteria for HIV infection update the definition of HIV
infection implemented in 1993. The revised HIV criteria apply to
AIDS-defining conditions for adults and children which require laboratory
evidence of HIV. This definition is not presented as a guide to clinical
diagnosis or for other uses.
In adults, adolescents, or children aged greater than or equal to 18
months**, a reportable case of HIV infection must meet at least one of the
following criteria:
Laboratory Criteria:
1) Positive result on a screening test for HIV antibody (e.g., repeatedly
reactive enzyme immunoassay), followed by a positive result on a
confirmatory (sensitive and more specific) test for HIV antibody
(e.g.,Western blot or immunofluorescence antibody test)
OR
2) Positive result or report of a detectable quantity on any of the
following HIV virologic (nonantibody) tests:
-HIV nucleic acid (DNA or RNA) detection (e.g., DNA polymerase chain
reaction [PCR] or plasma HIV-1 RNA)***
- HIV p24 antigen test, including neutralization assay
- HIV isolation (viral culture)
OR
3) Clinical or Other Criteria (if the above laboratory criteria are not
met)
Diagnosis of HIV infection, based on the laboratory criteria above, that
is
documented in a medical record by a physician
OR
4) Conditions that meet criteria included in the case definition for AIDS
===
ABC News 20/20 Slates Controversial Segment for Broadcast Next Friday
Connie Chung¹s interview with yours truly has been put back on the schedule
at ABC, this time for the evening of Friday August 24. Barring an alien
invasion, the cloning of President Bush or other catastrophic events, the
program should actually air. In the past few days, ABC has arranged to have
updated footage of me and my family and is setting up web links for a post
program online chat.
WE WILL CONFIRM THE BROADCAST DATE TO THIS LIST ON WEDNESDAY OR THURSDAY
OF
NEXT WEEK.
Keep your fingers crossed it stays on the books‹and that it gives a fair
and
accurate portrayal of the issues.
===
New Free Publication Challenging HIV/AIDS Paradigm Available in Spanish
Gerardo Sanchez of USAS (Union Latina por Soluciones Alternativas para el
SIDA) sent us the following encouraging message and generous offer:
Dear Alive & Well,
This month we published the first issue of our scientific magazine "Alma
y
Salud.² Anyone who would like to receive a copy should send us their postal
address. This first issue is in Spanish only, but the next edition will
be
bilingual. It is free.
Thank you for all the valuable information that you send to us. It
contributes to strengthen our cause.
I hug you.
Cordially,
Gerardo Sánchez
President and Executive Director
U.S.A.S. Miami, Florida
Email: ggsn1@att.net