March
2001
What
do we Really Know About AIDS?
By Christine Maggiore
|
|
|
I am profoundly disappointed with progressive,
critical thinkers who stop thinking critically when it comes to AIDS.
The same people who are wary of mainstream media stories and government
reports accept without question all stories and reports on AIDS.
The
very activists who protest the agendas of multinational chemical corporations
assume their typical practices and toxic products are right-on when
it comes to AIDS. On public radio, in alternative journals, and among
the terribly concerned and compassionate, there’s only one side
to AIDS and little tolerance for anyone who thinks otherwise. It
seems
that AIDS is immune to healthy skepticism and has the unique ability
to turn fervent liberals ferociously conventional and make compliant
followers out of our most innovative leaders.
As a healthy “HIV positive” mother, I find that my decision
to decline toxic pharmaceuticals for myself and my son inspires mostly
criticism from people who otherwise support independent thinking, natural
living, and everyone else’s right to choose. As the director of
an alternative AIDS organization, I wish that intelligent, caring people
would step outside of the mainstream paradigm and consider another
side
of AIDS. To that end, I offer Satya readers the tip of an enormous
iceberg of information.
AIDS is not a new disease. AIDS is a new name for an ever-expanding
list of previously known and unrelated conditions that include yeast
infections, diarrhea, tuberculosis, salmonella, certain pneumonias and
cancers. These conditions are only called AIDS when a person tests HIV
positive, but all of these also happen to people who test HIV negative,
and all have well-known causes and treatments that are completely unrelated
to HIV.
AIDS varies from country to country and year to year. In January of
1993, government AIDS officials in America declared that people who
test HIV positive and have a low T cell count—but show no signs
of illness—have AIDS. This “non-illness” AIDS definition
caused the number of new AIDS cases to more than double overnight. Since
then, more than half of all Americans diagnosed with AIDS are not sick
with any disease. Despite this expanded definition and media cries to
the contrary, AIDS cases in the U.S. have been declining steadily since
the second quarter of 1993. Interestingly, Canada’s AIDS definition
does not include America’s “non-illness” criteria for
AIDS, which means that more than 200,000 Americans diagnosed with AIDS
based on T cell counts would not have AIDS if they moved to Toronto.
Also of interest is the fact that mainstream AIDS researchers acknowledge
that only three percent of human T cells actually reside in the blood
where they can be counted by tests.
In Africa, where AIDS is said to be most prevalent, HIV tests are not
required for an AIDS diagnosis and AIDS is determined by four clinical
symptoms—fever, cough, weight loss and diarrhea—that are indistinguishable
from symptoms of malnutrition, starvation, TB, malaria, and parasitic
infection, and which commonly result from poverty and unclean water.
In contrast to America, where eight out of ten AIDS diagnoses are given
to men and 88 percent of cases fall into the official categories of
“Injection Drug Users” and “Men Who Have Sex with Men,” in
Africa, women and children are said to be its primary victims.
Noting the dissimilarity between American and African AIDS and other
troubling anomalies within the “HIV = AIDS” hypothesis, South
African President Thabo Mbeki invited a group of international experts
to participate in an AIDS think tank last year. Seeking dynamic and
productive dialogue, Mbeki extended his invitation to doctors and scientists
who question conventional wisdom on AIDS. His attempt at open discussion
on AIDS provoked vicious and relentless media attacks accusing Mbeki
of everything from foolishness to murder.
Media reports on Africa favor harrowing estimates over hard numbers.
For example, four to five million South Africans are estimated to be
HIV positive, while according to the World Health Organization, the
20-year cumulative total of reported AIDS cases in that country hovers
under 15,000. Some AIDS activists argue that the actual numbers mean
nothing because due to the stigma of an AIDS diagnosis, “AIDS”
is often left off African death certificates. Yet despite these alleged
omissions, the numbers of reported deaths in other categories—i.e.
malaria or malnutrition—have not dramatically increased as would
be expected. In fact, overall death rates from all causes (including
AIDS) among both sexes in South Africa is less than one percent annually—a
laudably low rate for a developing nation and almost equal to that of
the U.S. While journalists trumpet estimates of death and devastation
from AIDS, South Africa’s population continues to grow at a healthy
three percent annually and infant mortality there has not increased
during the AIDS epidemic.
The new media claims about “African levels” of HIV infections
in San Francisco are also based on estimates. These numbers were adopted
at private meetings of public officials and are derived from such untenable
data as telephone surveys and street corner questionnaires. While HIV
estimates soar, according to the San Francisco Department of Public
Health’s own epidemiology, AIDS cases in that city have been decreasing
steadily since 1993, and actual HIV rates there peaked more than ten
years ago.
Despite alarming predictions, 94 percent of American AIDS cases are
still found among the original risk groups. Cancer, car accidents,
flu,
and suicides each take more lives every year than does AIDS. Although
the media warns us that AIDS is increasing among America’s ethnic
minorities, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, AIDS
cases among all people of color have been decreasing every year since
1996.
Although there is no such thing as an actual AIDS test, and testing
HIV positive is not the equivalent of having AIDS, the erroneous term “AIDS test” has become part of our modern vocabulary. As mentioned
previously, illness is not required for an AIDS diagnosis in the U.S.,
and HIV tests do not actually test for the virus or for HIV antibodies.
The antibody tests detect certain proteins that are not unique or specific
to HIV antibodies and that may correspond to antibodies produced in
response to over 60 conditions including colds, flu, immunizations,
herpes, hepatitis, blood transfusions, parasites, TB, malaria and even
pregnancy. Newer “viral load” tests purported to measure actual
HIV do not detect or quantify infectious virus. In fact, the FDA requires
test manufacturers to state that viral load is “not intended to
be used as a diagnostic to confirm the presence of HIV infection.”
Moreover, the drugs used to treat HIV can
cause most of the symptoms related with AIDS. AZT and other chemicals
used in the various “AIDS cocktails” can provoke five of
the official AIDS illnesses (diarrhea, dementia, muscle wasting, T
cell
depletion and lymphoma) in addition to anemia, diabetes, physical deformities,
kidney stones, liver failure, heart attacks, strokes, paralysis, bone
necrosis, and sudden death. While the idea that new drug cocktails
are
responsible for lowered AIDS cases and deaths remains popular, both
categories were declining before the drugs were released for use.
I could go on and on, but even if I had the space, I don’t have
the time. An HIV positive mother in New York just called for help. Her
two children were taken by police this morning after she admitted to
her doctor that she quit giving them toxic AIDS drugs a year ago. Never
mind that the kids are now in perfect health and that the medicines
gave them relentless diarrhea, anemia, excruciating leg cramps, and
caused them to stop growing. What’s important with AIDS is compliance.
Despite my anger and frustration, I empathize with people who hold passionate
views based on mainstream portrayals of AIDS. Before I started thinking
independently, I was an AIDS awareness educator for several prominent
AIDS organizations and a founding board member of Women at Risk. I know
well how emotionally and socially challenging it is to question AIDS.
Since beginning my new AIDS work, I’ve met hundreds of HIV positives
from Los Angeles to Zimbabwe who, despite dire predictions and pressures
to conform, remain defiantly alive and naturally well. Contrary to popular
belief, what we have in common is not some unique genetic quality or
a special strain of the virus, but a well-founded decision to liberate
ourselves from fear through education and embrace our ability to live
in health. It’s time to open your minds—and your hearts—and
give our views and experiences a chance.
Christine Maggiore is the founder and director
of Alive & Well AIDS Alternatives, a non-profit education, support,
and research network headquartered in Studio City, California. She
is
the author of the book What If Everything You Thought You Knew About
AIDS Was Wrong? which has been translated into five languages. She
is also a healthy, unmedicated HIV positive mother. For information,
visit www.aliveandwell.org.
