Myths & Mysteries

By David Crowe
The Alberta Reappraising AIDS Society

Myth 1: AIDS is a Distinct Disease

There are several dramatically different definitions of AIDS, depending upon your location and age. In Third World countries AIDS can be diagnosed from fever, diarrhoea and a persistent cough lasting more than a month, with no HIV test required.[32] A laboratory measurement (abnormal CD4 immune cell counts), along with a positive HIV test result, but with no signs of illness, accounts for more than half the diagnoses in the US[15], but is not accepted as a diagnosis for children under 14, or for anyone in Canada[14]. AIDS may also be diagnosed in Western countries by one of about 30 different cancers and infections (usually, but not always, with a positive HIV test result required).

Myth 2: HIV Antibody Tests are Accurate

The tests used to determine whether someone is HIV positive are based upon the detection of antibodies. False positives may be recorded due to laboratory errors, vaccinations against other diseases or current or past diseases[10]. Even pregnancy makes a false positive test more likely. Unfortunately, the only way to check a positive test is with more tests[4],[7]. Indeterminate test results may be interpreted as positive in a person believed to be at high risk of AIDS, and negative in others[7].

Myth 3: Viral Load Tests Count Virus Particles in the Blood

A test used to monitor HIV infections is called "Viral Load".[24] It magnifies a portion of genetic material that is believed to be from HIV. However, since HIV has never been purified it is impossible to know what its genetic material is and, even if it was known, only a fragment of it is used as the probe, meaning that cross reactions with other viruses are likely. The virus "load" that is produced is just a mathematical calculation, not a particle count, and cannot determine what proportion, if any, of the genetic material detected reflects infectious virus particles. Viral load may be measured in people who are antibody negative and considered uninfected[27], or sometimes, under similar circumstances, considered infected[31].

Myth 4: Hit Hard, Hit Early is the Most Effective Treatment Strategy

Many AIDS doctors recommend starting HIV medications before symptoms arise. This philosophy continued even after the Concorde study of the benchmark AIDS drug AZT showed that early treatment was not beneficial, and that many more people died while taking the drug than on placebo[6]. HIV drugs interfere with normal workings of the human body, and it is not clear that people can survive on them for many years. AZT, for example, has been associated with an almost 50:50 chance of Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma (a normally fatal blood cancer) after 3 years[25]. On the other hand, it takes an average of 10 years between becoming HIV positive and starting to develop AIDS without therapy[21].

Myth 5: New AIDS Drugs are Saving Lives

A new generation of AIDS drugs, Protease Inhibitors, first became available late in 1995 and are credited with saving many lives. However, the AIDS death rate was already declining in 1994, the definition of AIDS in the US had been expanded to include people with no visible illness in 1993[15], and the annualized death rate of people diagnosed in 1997 was higher than in those diagnosed in 1995 and 1996. Protease inhibitors have been associated with serious health problems, including diarrhoea, nausea, dangerously high cholesterol levels, diabetes and heart disease[5].

Myth 6: Women are the Fastest Growing Group of AIDS Victims

This claim is based on the percentage of new AIDS cases among women rising (from 7% in 1993 in Canada to 14% in 1997, for example). Yet, the actual number of AIDS cases among women dropped from 126 in Canada in 1993 to only 75 in 1997[14]. Similarly in the US, the percentage of AIDS cases in women rose from 16% in 1993 to 19% in 1997, while the actual number of female cases dropped from 16,824 to 13,105[15]. The use of percentages creates the illusion of a growing epidemic among women.

Myth 7: AIDS is a Growing Risk for Children

The risk of AIDS among Canada's approximately 6 million children is minuscule. There were only 25 new cases in 1995, dropping to 10 in 1997[14]. Similarly, the number of AIDS cases among the almost 60 million children in the US was only 937 in 1992, dropping to 167 in 1997[15]. Compare this with a risk of dying at birth of about 6 for every 1,000 live births.

Myth 8: HIV+ Pregnant Women should take Drugs to Prevent Transmission to Babies

Women pass many different antibodies to their children through the placenta and, after birth, through breast-feeding[26]. These antibodies are protective, and partially account for the better health of breast-fed babies. Naturally, HIV antibodies may also be transmitted, and it is impossible to distinguish these antibodies from those due to HIV infection in the baby. Yet AZT, the drug prescribed to reduce the risk of infecting the baby (at most about 25%) can cross the placenta[11] and can cause anemia[8], bone marrow damage[22] cancer[23] and birth defects[18], as well as other serious health problems in both mothers and their babies[19]. These health problems will likely be blamed on HIV, and not the therapy.

Myth 9: HIV is Sexually Transmitted

Sexual transmission of HIV seems to be highly inefficient - official estimates claim it requires an average of 1000-10,000 heterosexual contacts and 32-10,000(!?) homosexual contacts[36, 37]. The reason may be that there is little, if any infectious virus in semen. In a group of 25 antibody-positive men, only one single HIV provirus was found in over a million semen cells of just one man - virtually none[34]. Another study showed that 19 out of 21 wives of HIV positive hemophiliacs were HIV negative, and none had signs of sickness[17].

Myth 10: Clean Needles Stop HIV Transmission in Drug Users

A study of IV drug users in Montreal showed that consistent users of needle exchange programs were more than 10 times as likely to be HIV positive than non-users[3]. A study of female prostitutes showed that those taking drugs only intravenously were less likely to be HIV positive (46%) than those exclusively taking cocaine in non-intravenous ways (84%)[29]. The infectious theory of AIDS cannot explain these anomalies.

Mystery 1: Paramedics and Surgeons are Immune to HIV Infection

Not one paramedic, emergency medical technician or surgeon in the US has contracted AIDS from on-the-job exposure[15]. Out of 633,000 total US AIDS cases through 1997 only 25 are thought to be occupationally acquired[15]. In Canada, out of 16,235 AIDS cases through 1998, only 3 are reported as occupationally acquired[14], based on circumstantial evidence[1]. Pretty strange for a supposedly blood-borne virus!

Mystery 2: HIV-Positive Animals Don't Get AIDS

After years of trying it has proved virtually impossible to get Chimpanzees transfused with HIV-positive human blood to become sick with any AIDS diseases. Yet their genes are about 98% the same as humans. In other studies, dogs[30] and inbred mice[16] were positive for one or more HIV antibodies, yet had never been infected!

Mystery 3: HIV Destroys While Dormant

The average latency period for HIV is estimated at 8-16 years[21]. During this time HIV is supposedly dormant (in that no symptoms of the disease exist), yet somehow destroying the immune system of the infected person. Supposedly the virus emerges after years of dormancy and the person quickly gets sick and dies. This theory only became possible with the recent viral load "counts". Suddenly frightening figures like "400,000 copies per milliliter" appeared. Even the exponents of viral load tests admit that these "counts" are an average 60,000 times higher than the actual amount of virus[35]. Besides, the clinical significance of HIV viral load counts has not been established.

Mystery 4: Some HIV-Positive People Never Get AIDS Diseases

A number of people, known as Long Term Non-Progressors, have been HIV positive for over a decade, have not taken HIV therapy, yet have still not got sick with AIDS[20]. These people, along with the long latency period in others, are living evidence that something apart from HIV is needed to make people get sick with AIDS.

Mystery 5: Some People with AIDS Diseases are HIV Negative

Some people with AIDS are not HIV positive. Thousands of cases of HIV negative people with diseases that would qualify as AIDS if they had a positive HIV test have been documented[9]. Because the definition of AIDS requires a positive HIV test, these cases have been given the name Idiopathic CD4 Lymphocytopenia, and are excluded from AIDS tracking and research.

Mystery 6: AIDS rates are falling, even where STD rates are rising

In Western countries the annual rate of new AIDS cases dropped dramatically between 1993 (78,164 cases) and 1997 (30,986 cases)[15] and from 1,735 to 498 in Canada[14]. Over the same time period, in San Francisco, one of the cities hardest hit with AIDS, a sharp rise in cases of Gonorrhea, Chlamydia and Syphilis occurred[28]. If HIV/AIDS is also sexually transmitted, why is it not following the same pattern?

Mystery 7: Kaposi's Sarcoma Prefers Homosexual Men

One of two diseases that triggered the AIDS era was Kaposi's Sarcoma, a form of skin cancer that had formerly been found only on the lower extremities of older men. Why was it suddenly found in the face, chest and lungs of young homosexual men? Why so rarely in IV drug users, hemophiliacs and other AIDS victims? If it is caused by HIV, it should be found in all risk groups. One study showed that 97% of homosexual men with Kaposi's Sarcoma were also users of carcinogenic and immunosuppressive nitrite inhalants[13].

Mystery 8: AIDS Affects Rich Countries More than the Poor

Why does AIDS attack people in the United States (1 out of 9,000 in 1997[15]) over five times more than in Canada (1 out of 50,000[14]) and over one hundred times more than in poverty stricken India (1 out of every million[2])?

Mystery 9: Billions in Research Dollar$, but still no Photographs

The first microscope photographs of purified HIV would make any scientist famous. Yet, although billions of dollars have been spent on HIV and AIDS research, nobody has ever photographed purified HIV. Why? Is it possible that nobody has ever really purified it? The first electron micrographs of what had previously been considered to be purified HIV, showed that they consisted mostly of cellular debris[12].

References