HIV/AIDS: SCIENCE OR RELIGION ?

[Guest guest]

http://www.redflagsweekly.com/crowe/2003_mar03P.html

DAVID CROWE

March 3, 2003

HIV/AIDS: SCIENCE OR RELIGION ?

By Crowe

[This is the text of Crowe’s talk to an Alive and Well (

http://aliveandwell.org ) meeting in Los Angeles on February 19, 2003]

" When religion was strong and science weak, men mistook magic for medicine,

now when science is strong and religion weak, men mistake medicine for magic "

- Szasz

There appears to be little in common between the beliefs of medieval

Christianity and modern science. We learned in grade school how the open

exchange of ideas was suppressed back in the dark ages, and how learning

was discouraged in favor of dogmas handed down hierarchically from the

religious elite to the peasants through several rigid, filtering layers.

We also were taught that scientific thought is now advanced by egalitarian,

intellectual, public debates between people who rise to the top of the

scientific community through their intelligence, careful experimentation,

open exchange of ideas and information, use of the scientific method and

hard work. Everyone, we copied off the blackboard, is now exposed to

rapidly evolving scientific theories rather than rote learning of the

catechism of an immutable religious dogma.

How We Learn About Scientific Beliefs

Is there a problem in how we learn about the superiority of modern thought?

Are we actually guilty of rote learning ourselves, accepting what we were

told because it makes us feel superior to those ignorant peoples of

centuries ago? Do we believe, without questioning, because the conclusions

of science both support our hopes for the future as well as sending shivers

up our spine as our darkest fears of the unknowable are realized? Can we

claim that we hold a scientific belief when we just believe what we were told?

How do the majority of people, those outside the scientific elite of our

society, learn about new scientific theories and, perhaps more importantly,

decide whether to accept or reject them? Their beliefs about HIV and AIDS,

for example, cannot be based on a critical examination of the evidence

because so few have ever read even a single scientific paper. Is there

really much difference then, between a medieval peasant being told that

sinners will spend eternity burning in Hell, and an ordinary citizen of

this country being told that if he or she has sex without a condom they

risk contracting a fatal virus?

Ossification Of Beliefs

Early Christianity was an informal religion, with few written religious

texts of its own. Jesus, for example, often taught through parables, folksy

stories with a moral lesson, such as the Sower and the Seed or The Prodigal

Son, rather than through recitations of dusty texts. Yet, within a few

hundred years the Christian church had accreted layer of dogmas, many with

little grounding in the founding principles of the church.

Celibacy, for example, was not part of early church doctrine, and some

religious scholars believe that it was originally designed to stop the

practice of some priests, of handing down their position and church

property to their children. This leakage from the bottom of the hierarchy

threatened the whole hierarchical structure. Yet, from this beginning,

celibacy became a strongly defended Catholic dogma.

One of the dogmas of modern living is that HIV causes AIDS. It also did not

start this way. In the first papers by Gallo (not a man known for

bashfulness) he only stated that HTLV-III (what he called HIV then) " may be

the primary cause of AIDS " [Gallo, 1984]. Epstein, in his 1996 book

" Impure science " [Epstein, 1996] shows how this tentative hypothesis became

accepted fact through the emboldening of scientists who referenced it. Only

3% of papers published in 1984 used Gallo's papers to support an explicit,

unqualified assertion that HIV caused AIDS. By 1985, 25% of scientific

papers. And, by 1986, 62%. Epstein found this trend even when the Gallo

papers were the only ones referenced! Hypothesis became fact by repetition.

Kary Mullis, who won the Nobel Prize for his invention of the Polymerase

Chain Reaction (PCR) once echoed Gallo by starting a paper with the

sentence " HIV is the probable cause of AIDS " , and then went searching for a

reference to support it. He read the original Gallo and Montagnier papers,

found them lacking, so started asking his colleagues in his lab, and at

conferences. They either said he didn't need a reference for the statement,

got angry or, like Luc Montagnier, just looked uncomfortable and walked

away [Duesberg, 1996].

One would think that a debate over such a fundamental point of medical

science would be a big news item, but it only rarely surfaces in the news,

and then often as a `Man bites Dog' story. One of these times was early in

the days of Duesberg's dissidence. Another, more recently, was when South

Africa's President Mbeki started asking questions about the cause of AIDS,

and even established a Presidential Commission to investigate. Coverage of

dissenters is usually written from the perspective that any sane person

would disagree, just as a journalist might provide coverage of a flat earth

society conference. Journalists focus on individuals, giving the impression

that there are only a handful of renegades.

Those who believe and defend HIV/AIDS dogmas play on a weakness of

journalists - there is no news if nothing new is happening. If top

scientists claim that it is beneath their dignity to debate to such a

preposterous notion and refuse to comment further there simply is no story.

Journalists who get nosy can be told that it is irresponsible to dredge up

hypotheses that were disproven years ago (which already makes the

journalist feel inadequate, because they won't know of these debates,

because they never happened) and that, besides, such `reckless' reporting

will only make people give up safe sex, which will cause immeasurable loss

of life, all because of the reporter's selfish desire for a scoop.

Another popular assumption is that HIV rapidly results in AIDS, and AIDS

rapidly results in death. It is not clear exactly when and why this belief

arose, because AIDS is still a fairly young disease. Although there is a

high associated death rate, obviously not everyone diagnosed with AIDS dies

of the disease, some may die of traffic accidents, suicide, adverse drug

reactions and perhaps some will die of old age.

CDC statistics up to 1997 documented a 92% death rate [CDC, 1997] among

people diagnosed with AIDS before 1981. But, a footnote to this chart

indicates that " Reported deaths are not necessarily caused by HIV-related

diseases " . CDC definitions of pediatric AIDS exclude recovery by

definition, once a child is diagnosed with `AIDS' they must keep that

label, even if they fully recover from the AIDS-defining condition [MMWR,

1994].

Other research notes that the average time from HIV infection to AIDS is

about 10 years, both in North Americans with access to drugs [Munoz, 1997]

and in malnourished Africans with no access to these `life saving'

compounds [, 2002].

A few researchers have studied so-called Long-Term Non-Progressors (LTNP),

people who are HIV-positive but who remain healthy for many years without

antiretroviral drugs.

This information does not support popular assumptions about HIV and AIDS,

so it is simply brushed aside.

HIV/AIDS `facts', as with so many medical `facts', often get created

through consensus meetings. With AIDS, this means that a group of medical

doctors, public health officials and researchers get together and decide on

guidelines for testing or treatment for men, for women, for adolescents or

for children. By inviting only those who accept the `drugs into bodies'

philosophy of AIDS, it can be ensured that a pro-drug spin will be

published, and that fundamental assumptions will not be questioned.

This unscientific declaration then becomes the `standard of care', and

doctors below the authors in the hierarchy are virtually compelled to work

within this newly created box or risk being accused of malpractice. Yet,

the impact of financial conflicts among the writers of the consensus

position is rarely considered, nor the impact of the selection process (if

it is even made public).

" There would never be any public agreement among doctors if they did not

agree to agree on the main point of the doctor being always in the right. "

- Bernard Shaw

Language

Language was used by medieval Christians to prevent communication of

anything except the most simple religious concepts to its adherents. It was

not until the 1960's, for example, that the Catholic church stopped using

Latin in its masses. Language is a protective barrier around a hierarchical

organization. The early church was concerned that if people listened to

religious text in their native language, they might form their own opinions

about theological issues. How much better to provide a ritual with familiar

sounds, but no real meaning.

Three different branches of Christianity used three different languages,

not one of which was understood by the average churchgoer. The Roman

Catholics used Latin, the Eastern Orthodox used Greek, and the Egyptian

church used Coptic. Worse than this, in the middle ages, many priests did

not even speak Latin, and consequently mumbled in a way that would have

been incomprehensible even to the few who did understand the language.

Well into the 20th Century much science was still published in Latin.

Scientists still use Latin or Greek to develop their own terminology, which

is legitimate if they are truly defining a novel concept. However, you walk

into a doctor's office with muscle pain, and leave with Myalgia - have you

been diagnosed or bamboozled? If you walk in with a runny nose and leave

with a prescription for Rhinorrhea medication, are you better off?

While the bulk of language in medical science may be unintelligible to most

people, scientists need to communicate through a carefully designed public

subset of their language. What is `dumbed down' to the level of the man in

the street can be very manipulative.

The words `potent' or `powerful', for example, are often used to describe

toxic medicines, particularly for Cancer and AIDS. These imply that the

drugs have a powerful effect on the disease. Yet, this is obviously not

true, because drugs for neither Cancer nor AIDS ever completely eradicate

the disease. Cancer patients are told they are in remission, not cured, and

signs of HIV can usually be found in people with AIDS, even when they have

been taking drugs for a long time. [saag, 1999]

These drugs do, on the other hand, have a very potent and powerful on the

patient. They can cause an amazing array of side effects including serious

anemia requiring blood transfusions, muscle wasting, bone rotting

(osteonecrosis in polite company), heart attacks as well as pancreas and

liver failure [aras.ab.ca, 2003]

There is a special mini-language used to describe patients. They can be

classified as Naïve, Experienced or Compliant. A Naïve patient is not one

who is stupid, but one who has never taken drugs before. An Experienced

patient is the opposite, someone who has taken lots of AIDS drugs.

Good patients are not only Experienced, but also Compliant. They take their

drugs when they are supposed to, and never miss a dose. Presumably they

don't whine and complain about side effects either, but just carry their

cross heroically to the grave.

Scientists often fight over names. Brontosaurus is no longer the official

name of a dinosaur because, although that name had been used since 1879, it

was many years later discovered that the name Apatosaurus had been given to

the same fossil in 1877. The naming purists won out. Brontosaurus is history.

In the case of HIV, politics played a much bigger role than even historical

precedence.

Gallo originally claimed that HTLV-I (Human T-Cell Leukemia Virus I) was

the cause of AIDS. This was a bit hard to swallow, because he had

previously been claiming that it caused uncontrolled replication of

lymphocytes (cancer), and now was claiming that it caused the death of this

type of cell. He didn't even bother trying with HTLV-II, which has only

ever been detected in one person. So, he changed the `L' in HTLV from

Leukemia to Lymphotropic (which merely means `attracted' to lymphocytes)

and claimed that he had discovered a new virus, the probable cause of AIDS,

and it was in the same family as his previous two viruses. This, he

claimed, should be called HTLV-III.

Montagnier, of the Institut Pasteur, called his discovery LAV -

Lymphadenopathy (lymph node disease) Associated Virus, due to the

characteristic swollen lymph glands in many people with AIDS. He also

claimed that this was the probable cause of AIDS.

The name HTLV was doomed when it became clear that Gallo had covertly used

Montagnier's cell cultures to ‘discover’ his virus. Gallo had so much

political power, however, that calling it LAV, a direct slap in his face,

would have been impossible.

An agreement between US President Reagan and French Prime Minister

Jacques Chirac became the official history of a simultaneous discovery,

although many knew that this was a fabrication. Based on this, HIV, Human

Immunodeficiency Virus, became the consensus name. This had the added

advantage that it solidified the association between the virus and the

Acquired Immuno-Deficiency Syndrome.

" Who controls the past, controls the future: who controls the present

controls the past. "

- Orwell

Another example of the importance of naming occurred around 1994, when it

was widely agreed that Kaposi's Sarcoma was not caused by HIV, but by

another virus called Human Herpes Virus 8. [Chang, 1994] This is very

interesting, because this skin cancer was one of only two diseases that

started the whole AIDS thing in the first place, and now it turns out that

it was not caused by HIV, even though KS is still an AIDS-defining

condition, and HIV supposedly still causes AIDS. The name HHV8 simply was

not adequate, so the new name KSHV - Kaposi's Sarcoma Herpes Virus was

invented. Now, everybody would know that the causal link between the virus

and the disease was a `fact' just by speaking its name. Presumably, not

many people are going to read the literature and wonder why about one-half

of some age groups of schoolchildren in Egypt, where the disease is quite

rare, have antibodies to KSHV? [Andreoni, 1999]

Censorship

Dogmas requires censorship, because otherwise people will be exposed to a

variety of opinions, and people have a nasty habit of not always picking

the `right' one. They must be protected from this.

I once took a moderated internet news group called sci.med.aids seriously,

and tried to start a civilized discussion regarding whether HIV caused

AIDS. The news group was established to allow a wide-ranging, open

discussion of all issues related to the science of HIV and AIDS. Its

moderators, well-meaning folks that they are, have standard codes for

various types of rejections. There are codes to reject spam, advertising,

abusive language, badly formatted posts and, most interesting to me, one

that effectively bans any discussion of the hypothesis that HIV causes AIDS.

In 1996, I requested opinions on Dr. Duesberg's just published book

" Inventing the AIDS Virus " [Duesberg, 1996]. The posting was rejected. I

then attempted to post a question asking for evidence that HIV causes AIDS.

It was also rejected using their special code for the " HIV<>AIDS " debate.

To eliminate the possibility that I was just not good enough or scientific

enough to post on this group, I wrote the most obsequious email about an

unnamed sick friend, superficially in praise of modern AIDS researchers. I

ensured that the posting had absolutely zero scientific content. It was

posted on the group in a flash. I quickly got a response from a researcher

looking for startup funds for a new therapy, an offer to send me a free

audio tape that could save my friend's life, a vaccine researcher probably

looking for trial participants and an oncologist offering to treat my friend.

After a couple of days I told the newsgroup that it was all a hoax. Even

that posting was rejected ... because it " concerned the HIV<>AIDS debate " .

More recently, and more seriously, myself and a Ukrainian Statistician,

Vladimir Koliadin, have attempted to get raw data from the CDC on all AIDS

cases, excluding, of course, personal identifying information. We wanted to

see if we could find trends in the data that would contradict the commonly

quoted belief that AIDS drugs have improved the health and increased the

life span of HIV-infected people. Even though we were only asking for data

that we knew they had (as much of it had been published for years up to

1997), after a number of emails back and forth, we were finally told that

" we are quite short staffed and have to prioritize requests " . [CDC, 2001]

The Concorde clinical trial found little or no benefit to the early use of

AZT, and also little value in the use of CD4 cell counts to measure

`progression' to AIDS. The problem with this trial was that it was intended

to compare the early prescription of AZT with later prescription (i.e.

after the diagnosis of AZT). We asked for data that would allow us to

analyze trends in health prior to the first use of AZT, as opposed to their

analysis that included the use of AZT in the `placebo' arm. They recently

wrote to us and told us that they did not think that we could add any value

to the analyses that they had recently performed [Darbyshire, 2003], even

though we have reviewed their papers, and nothing like our proposed

analysis appears there.

Treating raw data and other products of a research project as the private

property of investigators is a common form of censorship in medicine. In

Science Fictions , Crewdson describes how Gallo would only share his

reagents with researchers who were unlikely to be critical, and often

forced other researchers to agree to significant restrictions on what they

could do with them [Crewdson, 2002]. In the `Bluestone' affair, Erdem

Cantekin, a member of a research team attempted to release data that showed

that antibiotics were not effective for treating ear infections, but

instead found his career derailed after the leader of the same research

team counter-attacked. [Crossen, 2001; Bell, 1992] A recent survey of life

scientists found that data withholding is a significant impediment to the

free flow of information, and that it is more likely to occur when

commercial interests are present. [, 2002]

Hierarchies

Hierarchies are common methods of arranging complex organizations, whether

religions, governments, companies or medical research.

Hierarchies control decision making, define and refine dogmas, and put

limits, sometimes extremely tight, on legitimate dissent. Even today, in

the Catholic church (and others), only the leadership at the top can make

policy changes, others have to work within the system.

Members of the hierarchy benefit from the status and wealth that it

provides them, but they are also aware that they can easily be expelled if

they become a threat. Any one person is expendable. Even popes have been

deposed. This may be why people within hierarchies are so conservative.

They know that they have much power, but also know that if they use it in

unexpected ways, they are liable to find themselves with a knife in the

back - literally or figuratively.

Entering a hierarchy requires special training which, in the case of

medicine, involves medical school or graduate school. Schmidt's 2000 book

Disciplined Minds contends that graduate school is designed more to squeeze

highly intelligent people into their place in the scientific hierarchy,

than it is to provide a place and time for open exploration of science. He

believes that the `comprehensive examinations' that are part of most

curriculums are designed not to test knowledge, but rather to determine

whether the student is prepared to submit to the system by completing a

highly demanding project that may be completely meaningless to them.

The hierarchy in HIV/AIDS is revealed by examining how the information on

HIV/AIDS flowed down to us from Gallo, a researcher at the National

Institutes of Health. After registering his claim with the US patent office

(which already had Montagnier's claim, but was having `difficulty'

processing it) reported his discovery to his boss, Margaret Heckler, who

then announced that American scientists had found the probable cause of

AIDS at a press conference. Then they reported their results in an

unprecedented four papers in the prestigious journal Science. Then the

floodgates opened as the non-scientific media reported on the press

conference and provided diluted summaries of the scientific publications.

Although we have been virtually drowned in information on HIV and AIDS

since then, the flow of information has been very clearly downhill, with

us, the general public, the the bottom, receiving much, but without

permission to transmit much.

Perfect Evil

The concept of a God who (dis)embodies Perfect Goodness is found in many

religions. But, equally important to some religions, is the notion of

Perfect Evil - Satan, Lucifer, Beelzebub, the Devil.

The contrast between Capital `G' Good and Capital `E' Evil strengthens a

hierarchical organization, because everything within the organization is

classified Good and everything opposed to it is Evil. The more serious the

external threat, the less attention is paid to internal deficiencies.

We know that we live in a world of shades of grays, not black evils and

white goodnesses. But, moral decisions are so much easier to make if one

simply has to choose between perfect Good and perfect Evil.

Medieval Christianity made people's decisions a lot easier by creating a

fallen angel - Satan - to take the rap for everything bad that happened or

that threatened the power of the hierarchy. People who did evil things,

worshipped other Gods, worshipped the same God in a different sect, or who

were trying to reform the church from inside, could easily be accused of

being `possessed' by the Devil.

Perfect Evil means that you never have to stop and say " Sorry " . Whether

burning Joan of Arc at the stake or killing Infidels in battle you didn't

have to worry about the commandment - " Though shalt not kill " . That does

not apply to the eradication of Evil.

Striking a blow against the Devil is more important than saving the life of

the person possessed. If they cannot be reclaimed for the forces of

Goodness by persuasion, they must have the devil beaten out of them. If

this kills them, it also kills Evil.

HIV is the modern day Perfect Evil. It stands with a small, select group of

fatal diseases, such as cancer and Ebola. People who are told that they are

possessed by HIV are immediately shaken to the core and often, in a sense,

die right on the spot. If they beg for hope, they are usually told that

they can only save themselves by religiously taking doses of antiretroviral

drugs. When the illnesses come, whatever their cause, they are now

programmed to blame them on HIV.

" It is easy - terribly easy - to shake a man's faith in himself. To take

advantage of that to break a man's spirit is devil's work. "

- Bernard Shaw

HIV is the trump card of disease. If you have HIV nothing else matters. If

you are an IV drug abuser and you have Tuberculosis AND you test

HIV-positive, then HIV caused your Tuberculosis, which is now classified as

AIDS. But, if you are an IV drug abuser and you have Tuberculosis and you

DON'T test HIV-positive, then taking drugs caused your Tuberculosis. Of

course, when you think about it, if drug users get TB without HIV, then at

least some of the HIV-positive drug users didn't get sick from HIV.

HIV makes risk analysis trivial. If you are an HIV-positive mother, you

will be warned that breastfeeding doubles your risk of infecting your baby,

and that therefore you MUST formula feed your baby. You won't be told that

doubling your risk actually means that 86% of babies will NOT be infected

by breastfeeding [Dunn, 1992]. And, research by Coutsoudis [Coutsoudis,

1999] showed that exclusive breastfeeding might be associated with no extra

risk.

How is the very significant health risk of formula feeding compared with

the risk of HIV infection? Very simply, it isn't. Since HIV is fatal, every

baby who is HIV infected will die. Every formula fed baby, on the other

hand, might die or might not. Pedantic types, like me, point out that 100%

of babies have to be formula fed in order to benefit (if it is a benefit)

only the 14% [Dunn, 1992] of them who will be infected (if that is the

right term). This means that the benefits of preventing HIV infection must

be 7 times greater than the risks of the formula feeding that is being

prescribed.

Perfect Goodness

Perfect Goodness is the domain of God, of course. But, some of the Goodness

trickles down the hierarchy. The Pope might not be perfect, but he (and it

is always a he) is infallible. One presumes that Cardinals come close to

this standard, because any one of them could be the next Pope. Bishops and

Priests have been known to sin, sometimes very publicly, but at that level,

one expects some imperfections, such as fondling the altar boys, drinking,

fondling the altar boys, keeping a mistress, fondling the altar boys,

gambling, etc. Those outside the hierarchy can drink their droplets of

Goodness by obeying the dictates of the church, learning its dogmas and, of

course, giving generously of their worldly goods.

With AIDS it is clear that the medical profession represents the Forces of

Goodness, organized into a massive hierarchy. At the top are a handful of

researchers and the heads of an alphabet soup of US and international

health organizations, such as the CDC, NIH, FDA, NIAID, WHO, Unicef and

UNAIDS. Then come the thousands of AIDS researchers, doctors and health

bureaucrats who so envy those at the top. Then the nurses, social workers,

the NGOs, the media and the politicians. We, the people, are clearly at the

bottom.

The forces of Perfect Goodness are the only ones that can, most assume,

bring salvation. The sacrament of communion for this religion is not

unleavened bread and wine, but a rainbow of pills with a glass of water.

War - Metaphor & Reality

The contrast between Simple and Perfect Goodness and Simple and Perfect

Evil makes war a simple analogy. Through recorded history, right into the

present, war has often been more than an analogy, with religions being

either the cause of wars, or the excuse for wars.

Christianity was characterized early on by a peaceful, `Turn the other

cheek', approach to life. But, gradually, it became, like so many

religions, used to justify war. When the Church and State were working

together it was easy to define their mutual enemies as Satanic, and turn

war into a holy activity.

The War analogy has long been used by mainstream medicine. The " War on

Cancer " is a good example (of the analogy, not of a successful war).

Over 100 medical papers since 1975 contain the phrase `magic bullet' in

their title. Terms like `weapon', `fight' and `target' are common. The

tools used, particularly for drawn-out medical battles, are similar to some

of the world's most feared weapons - radiation and toxic chemicals.

With wars come victims. And in a drawn-out fight between the doctor and

HIV, the patient can often become collateral damage. For a recent disease,

AIDS has one of the best developed history of medical toxicity, even though

the disease's first drug, AZT, was not approved until 1987 [aras.ab.ca, 2003].

" Cured yesterday of my disease, I died last night of my physician. "

- Prior (17th c)

Admiration of Enemies

Ironically, the use of the war metaphor leads to an elevation of enemies.

The 11th Century French Song of Roland praises the heroism of slain

warriors on both sides of this battle between Christians and Muslims.

Bravery in battle is clearly aligned with Godliness.

HIV is regarded with awe by the many AIDS scientists who have joined the

medical crusade against it. No matter how hard they battle it, the virus

cannot be eradicated from the body. [Harrington, 2000] No matter which

medications they prescribe, the virus mutates around them. Antibodies are

produced, but they are ineffective. Vaccines it evades thrice before

breakfast. No matter how intense the war, this Devil is never vanquished.

Strangely, the army of Goodness - Modern Medicine - rarely suffers

casualties. No matter how often medical professionals are exposed to HIV,

they rarely get AIDS. According to the CDC 1997 surveillance report, only

54 US health care workers are believed to have acquired HIV infection

through on the job exposure, and only 25 of them have contracted AIDS. That

was out of a cumulative total of 633,000 US AIDS cases, so occupational

cases make up 0.004%.

Not a single one of these AIDS cases was in a paramedic or surgeon, even

though these two groups are most likely to be exposed to HIV-positive

blood. [CDC, 1998]

I quote 1997 statistics because after that, the CDC perhaps began to

understand that the lack of casualties among the warrior class was a bit

embarrassing, and stopped publishing statistics on HIV and AIDS among

health care workers.

The victims of this war, like most wars in fact, are the collateral damage

- the civilians, the people diagnosed with HIV infection or AIDS who

provide the battleground. There are attempts to award them heroic status

through their death, but this is inextricably associated with their

acceptance of the HIV=AIDS dogma. Those who do not accept are `in denial'.

The implication being that they deserve their death because they refuse `a

better life through chemicals'.

Church/State Power Sharing

The very early Christian church deliberately kept itself separate from the

state. Christians were taught to " Give to Caesar those things that are

Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's " .

But, by the middle ages the church hierarchy and European royalty had

become tightly entwined - not completely integrated, as the Lords of

worldly and otherworldly power often fought over the hearts, minds, bodies

and wealth of the populace. Sometimes kings would have the upper hand,

appointing compliant bishops to ensure that the church and its influence

was subservient to his needs. At other times, particularly in the 1100's

and 1200's a strong Pope would keep kings in check by threatening to deny

them access to religious ceremonies and services, and through alliances

with friendly kingdoms.

A good illustration of this was the pressure brought to bear on the

famously bad King of England by Pope Innocent III. He invalidated all

religious services in England, excommunicated the King and, perhaps more

importantly, lined up the more compliant King of France to invade England.

Due to a combination of this, and internal pressure, caved in and

signed Magna Carta in 1215. The Pope's concern was that was setting

himself above religious authority, not that he was crushing the British

nobility under this thumb. And nobody cared about the Serfs.

When things were going well, however, Church and State worked closely

together. The Church could give moral authority and, in the early days, had

a bureaucratic infrastructure that helped primitive governments to

function. Bishops often acted as the King's regional administrators.

Modern medicine, and AIDS in particular, is also based on cooperation and

tension between Governments and Science. Governments create and enforce

policy, Scientists create the facts that form the mental environment within

which Governments operates. Governments tax the population to pay for

research to manufacture more facts.

When scientists threaten dire consequences, particularly those due to an

infectious disease threat, governments listen. They know that if they

ignore the threat, and the disease breaks out they will be blamed. If

action is taken and nothing happens, scientists will usually look like they

prevented a crisis. If, on the other hand, the crisis occurs anyway, they

usually can claim that it would have been much worse without action.

An example of government's genuflecting to the medical establishment

occurred during the 1970's Swine Flu scare. President Gerald Ford did what

seemed to be a very smart thing when faced with a clamor for universal

vaccination of Americans - he called all the top scientists in the US

together to meet with him, including arch-rivals Sabin and Salk. He asked

if any of them had concerns about universal vaccination. Silence. He

invited all the scientists to come into his private office for a private

chat after the general meeting. Nobody came. Consequently, vaccination of

every American was attempted. Luckily, a variety of problems made this

impossible, particularly among the very young and elderly, because the

final death toll was: Swine Flu 1, Swine Flu Vaccine: at least 25 from

Guillaine Barre syndrome alone (with about 500 cases of this illness in

total and a billion dollars in lawsuits against the US government).

[Laitin, 1997] Given that adverse reactions are usually significantly

under-reported, the actual toll of illness and death might have been

considerably higher.

More recently, a whisper of heresy from South African President Thabo Mbeki

resulted in the `Durban Declaration', a document with the tone of a

religious creed [Durban, 2000]. In a pre-emptive strike a week before an

international AIDS conference in Mbeki's country, more than 5,000 people

signed this document condemning Mbeki, who had merely raised the question

of whether HIV caused AIDS, not attempted to answer it himself. Part of the

shock was that a politician, a man outside the scientific hierarchy, would

concern himself with evaluating a scientific question.

Heretics and Traitors

" All great truths begin as heresies "

- Bernard Shaw

" That is the essence of science. Ask an impertinent question, and you are

on the way to a pertinent answer. "

- Bronowski

Heresy was not the most heinous crime in early Christianity, they took

murder, greed and adultery more seriously. But as the religion became an

integral part of feudal systems, this crime rose to the top of the heap.

Mindless loyalty was important in feudal times to keep society functioning

in the presence of enormous inequities of power and wealth.

Today's medical dissidents in AIDS, Cancer and other areas of medicine

usually see major problems with the dominant paradigm, but are faced with

institutions that do not want to discuss them. This is not an argument over

minutiae, it is about the very fundamentals. AIDS dissidents argue that HIV

tests just drive people into hopelessness and into taking toxic drugs that

will kill them. There is almost no room for compromise with those who fully

accept the HIV=AIDS=Death theory, and feel that antiretroviral drugs, for

all their known flaws are the only option.

Prior to 1987, Dr. Duesberg was considered to be one of the top

retrovirologists in the world. For 25 years he claims that he never had a

grant application turned down [Duesberg, 1997]. But, after his infamous

Cancer Research paper was published [Duesberg, 1987] arguing that

retroviruses, including HIV, could not cause disease, he found the

scientific world turning against him. From that point on, not a single one

of his government grant applications was approved, and he has had to rely

on a small amount of private funding and his university salary to do any

research at all.

How do we know whether Duesberg is another Galileo, or an attention-seeking

huckster, like the people behind the Piltdown Man hoax of 1912 that fooled

archaeologists for 40 years, or the cronies of Philippine dictator Marcos

who fooled many anthropologists and the National Geographic Society with

the faked Tasaday stone age tribe in the early 1970s [MacLeish, 1972], the

proponents of cold fusion, perpetual motion machines or human cloning?

One of the clues that this is not a conspiracy theory of madmen is that

many AIDS dissidents are serious scientists. Apart from Duesberg, some of

the most active and outspoken are Kary Mullis who won a Nobel Prize for the

invention of the Polymerase Chain Reaction, the so-called `Perth Group'

from Australia, including Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos and Val ,

Rasnick, a protease inhibitor drug designer, Geshekter, a professor

of African Studies, Gordon , a Public Health consultant, Mohammed

Al-Bayati, a toxicologist, o Giraldo, a nutritionist, Vladimir

Koliadin, a Statistician, Etienne de Harven, a retired Virologist, and Sam

Mhlongo the head of the department of Family Medicine at Go-Rankuwa

Hospital in South Africa. There are hundreds or thousands of others,

including doctors, lawyers, people with and without formal scientific

educations and, not least, HIV-positive people who have quit or never taken

the drugs, but have more motivation than most to educate themselves.

Punishment

Punishment for religious heretics has sometimes been severe, particularly

when the religion was able to harness the legal powers of the state.

Although many were just re-educated and released, the first executions of

reformers occurred in 1022 at Orleans. Death by burning was legalized by

Frederick II of Germany and Sicily in 1231. Torture was permitted by Pope

Innocent IV in 1252. The first Grand Spanish Inquisitor, Torquemada

sentenced 2,000 to be burned to death in the 1400's.

The HIV/AIDS dogmatists have not yet imposed the death penalty on any

person, although mandating antiviral drugs on children comes close. It is

not far-fetched to consider that, in a place with the death penalty,

transmission of HIV to a person who later dies could be construed as first

degree murder.

Mark Wainberg, former President of the International AIDS Society stated in

a major Canadian newspaper that AIDS dissidents should be jailed [Picard,

2000]. Several men have been jailed for having sex without revealing that

they were HIV-positive at the time. In the case of Nushawn , he

supposedly infected 6 women in less than a year. The best estimates are

that the risk of transmitting during heterosexual intercourse is about 1 in

a thousand. Statistically, he must have had sex millions of times to stand

an even chance of transmitting to all these women. But, statistical

implausibility did not stop him from being sent to jail.

One woman in Canada, Sophie Brassard, had custody of her children taken

from her because she refused antiviral medications. Her logic was that she

had been HIV+ and healthy for a decade without antiviral medications, but

the courts ruled against her.

The Tyson's in Oregon were forced, by court order, to stop breastfeeding

their baby and agree to give Felix AZT - or lose custody.

Emerson was luckier. She believes that one of her children died

from AZT, after which she pulled herself and her second child off the drug.

Partly because the child then recovered his health completely, she won her

court battle.

Dragging a few people to court has a chilling effect on many others. People

who have heard about these cases are likely to either submit without a

fight, or pretend to submit, and do subversive things like breastfeeding a

baby in secrecy. Few will publicly defy the system.

Scientists are not treated much better. Punishments include an inability to

publish, get grants, find graduate students to work in your lab or be

promoted. The media, taking their lead from the majority of scientists,

either ignore them completely, or write about them with thinly disguised

skepticism, or sarcasm, or allusions to `dangerous' ideas.

Worshipping Mammon

I have compared religion and science with, I hope, some success. A big gap

is that, although I have identified a parallel between Satan and HIV, I

have not identified a parallel with God. But, perhaps there is. Ultimately

the motivation of the major players in HIV/AIDS boils down to money. It is

no coincidence that Gallo contacted the patent office before announcing his

claims about HTLV-III. Without doing this he stood to lose the royalties

that would accrue to him, even as a government employee, for this invention.

This shows that the equivalent of God in modern HIV/AIDS science is Mammon.

It is not just medicine that has been corrupted by money, the crisis in

Enron, Worldcom was caused by an uncontrolled desire for personal enrichment.

Just as medieval religion made unthinking loyalty holy, and questioning

authority into a sin, the late 20th Century made the Worship of Money into

a new religion. The creation of new medicines, particularly for long-term

chronic conditions, became one of the ways to achieve the highest levels of

holiness in this sect. Patenting a blockbuster like Viagra turns many

researchers, and all pharmaceutical companies, on. While there is nothing

wrong with private companies making money, it must be tempered by a sense

of morality. Corrupting research to make a medicine look useful when it is

harmful, is immoral and criminal. Yet, those who practice it, often find

themselves sheltered by their institutions. [Wilmhurst, 2002; , 2001]

There is a whole area of research where scientists study the influence of

money on the analysis of clinical trials. For example, [stelfox, 1998]

found that researchers with financial relationships with manufacturers of

calcium channel blocker drugs were more likely to publish papers with

favorable reviews of them. [, 1998] found that the conclusions of

review articles were strongly associated with the affiliations of the

author. [Cho, 1996] found that original research articles with

pharmaceutical sponsorship were more likely to draw pro-industry

conclusions. [bekelman, 2003] found that a quarter of investigators, on

average, have industry affiliations, and they are more likely to reach

pro-industry conclusions in their research.

Wrobel, an editor for the British scientific journal Nature,

commented that " there is so much commercial involvement in modern biology

[so] it would be a waste of space for us to require of authors that they

list all commercial interests in their discoveries. " Recently, the New

England Journal of Medicine commented that anything under US$10,000 was too

small to worry about, and wouldn't qualify as a conflict of interest.

AIDS scientists usually draw conclusions that favour industrial interests.

Patented or patentable drugs are almost always seen as the solution to the

disease, rather than non-toxic ways to strengthen the immune system.

Condoms are the preferred method of prevention. Formula is preferred over

breastmilk for children of HIV+ mothers. Cesarean sections are recommended

instead of natural birth.

The Ultimate Heresy - " Does it Exist? "

Religion is the worship of God. Seriously questioning the existence of God

is the ultimate religious heresy. But, it's also a worldly heresy, because

it threatens the organization built up around belief in that God.

Questioning the existence of God in the middle ages would have been

inconceivable. Even the most radical medieval heretics would never have

suggested it.

Questioning the existence of HIV is today's ultimate heresy. Even asking

the question is heretical. In fact, it is rare for anyone to question the

existence of any virus.

But, if HIV exists, why has it never been purified, not even from

artificial culture systems? [bess, 1997; Gluschankof, 1997] How have its

RNA and proteins been identified without purification? How can the accuracy

of tests be known when they cannot be validated by virus purification? How

can a virus that, if detected at all, can only be detected by the most

sensitive techniques known to man, be biochemically active? These are

reasonable questions. But, they threaten the whole multi-billion-dollar

structure based on the acceptance of this virus. That structure cannot

tolerate people asking them.

Conclusions

Every generation believes that it is vastly superior to those who came

before. We find it difficult to believe that our knowledge and methods of

learning have much in common with the way beliefs were developed and

distributed hundreds of years ago in a society that was largely illiterate.

Yet, if we are honest, very little of our information about scientific

issues is direct, and few people take the trouble to examine the basic

science, if it is even available.

We may believe in scientific discoveries because they either make us feel

good, or because they provide a frisson of fear, like an alien movie.

HIV/AIDS fulfils our deepest fears. Just like so many bad alien movies,

there are no outward signs of who has been captured until the alien life

form bursts out, and then it is simply too late.

We want to believe that there are simple solutions to mysterious and

complex problems - a pill, perhaps. But a quick solution would,

paradoxically, not generate much respect for science. We would quickly take

it for granted. Nor would it generate billions of dollars in revenue.

Religion and Science both promise us a better life, although Religion may

emphasize a better after-life, and Science a better here-and-now. These

organizations are both usually tightly controlled through a hierarchical

structure, even though they both have their roots in free thought and

egalitarianism. Reform is made more difficult when the same organization

creates the dogmas, constrains the debates about the dogmas, and controls

the interpretation of new ideas. Both began very inward looking and

self-critical, but gradually evolved into over-confidence and intolerance

as they acquired more power and influence.

Control is not absolute, however. It takes work to see around the facade,

but not an inordinate amount. It takes courage to challenge the system,

even if it is only questioning the advice of your own doctor. But, not more

courage than any of us have. It takes education to analyze flaws in

research, but we live in a highly educated society with free or affordable

access to many materials. It takes stamina to struggle to get closer to the

truth, knowing that no matter how hard you try you will never achieve

absolute truth. But, if you look back after a while, you will be able to

see how far you have climbed.

" Science may have found a cure for most evils; but it has found no remedy

for the worst of them all - the apathy of human beings. "

-Helen Keller

My aim tonight is not to impose a new dogma. I hope you will mull over my

analogies with religion and find some flaws, and perhaps some parallels

that I did not even touch on. But, if I can stop you from simply accepting

ideas as scientific because they come from someone whose job description is

`scientist', if I can challenge you to make truly independent decisions

about your personal health, I will have accomplished all that I could hope

for.

" To see what is in front of one's nose needs a constant struggle "

- Orwell

Further Reading

[Andreoni, 1999] Andreoni et al. High seroprevalence of antibodies to human

herpesvirus-8 in Egyptian children: evidence of nonsexual transmission.

JNCI. 1999 Mar 3; 91(5): 465-9.

[aras.ab.ca, 2003] Alberta Reappraising AIDS Society websites:

http://aras.ab.ca/azt.html, http://aras.ab.ca/haart.html,

http://aras.ab.ca/test.html.

[bekelman, 2003] Bekelman JE et al. Scope and impact of financial conflicts

of interest in biomedical research: a systematic review. JAMA. 2003 Jan 22;

289(4): 454-65.

[bell, 1992] Bell RI. Impure Science: Fraud, Compromise, and Political

Influence in Scientific Research. Wiley. 1992.

[bess, 1997] Bess JW et al. Microvesicles Are a Source of Contaminating

Cellular Proteins Found in Purified HIV-1 Preparations. Virology. 1997;

230(1): 134-144.

[, 2002] EG et al. Data withholding in academic genetics:

evidence from a national survey. JAMA. 2002 Jan 23-30; 287(4): 473-80.

[CDC, 1998] HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report (through December 1997). CDC.

1998; 9(2).

[CDC, 2001] Personal correspondence (Pascale Wortley, Xen Santas, Monina

Klevens). 2000-2001.

[Chang, 1994] Chang Y et al. Identification of herpesvirus-like DNA

sequences in AIDS-associated Kaposi's sarcoma. Science. 1994 Dec 16; 266:

1865-9.

[Coutsoudis, 1999] Coutsoudis A et al. Influence of infant feeding patterns

on early mother-to-child transmission of HIV-1 in Durban, South Africa: a

prospective cohort study. Lancet. 1999 Aug 7; 354: 442-3,471-6.

[Crewdson, 2002] Crewdson J. Science fictions: A scientific mystery, a

massive cover-up, and the dark legacy of Gallo. Little, Brown. 2002.

[Crossen, 2001] Crossen C. A medical researcher pays for doubting industry

claim. WSJ. 2001 Jan 3.

[Darbyshire, 2003] Darbyshire JH. Personal correspondence regarding

Concorde trial data. 2002-2003.

[Duesberg, 1987] Duesberg PH. Retroviruses as Carcinogens and Pathogens:

Expectations and Reality. Cancer Res. 1987 Mar 1; 47: 1199-1220.

[Duesberg, 1996] Duesberg PH. Inventing the AIDS Virus. Regnery. 1996. With

foreword by Mullis K.

[Duesberg, 1997] Duesberg PH. Letter from Dr. Duesberg. Personal

correspondence. 1997 Aug 8.

[Dunn, 1992] Dunn DT et al. Risk of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1

transmission through breastfeeding. Lancet. 1992 Sep 5; 340: 585-8.

[Durban, 2000] The Durban Declaration. Nature. 2000 Jul 6; 406: 15-16. See

also the rebuttal at: http://thedurbandeclaration.org

[Epstein, 1996] Epstein S. Impure science: AIDS, activism, and the politics

of knowledge. University of California Press. 1996.

[Gallo, 1984] Gallo RC et al. Frequent Detection and Isolation of

Cytopathic Retroviruses (HTLV-III) from Patients with AIDS and at Risk for

AIDS. Science. 1984 May 4; 224: 500-3.

[Gluschankof, 1997] Gluschankof P et al. Cell membrane vesicles are a major

contaminant of gradient-enriched human immunodeficiency virus type-1

preparations. Virology. 1997; 230(1): 125-133.

[Harrington, 2000] Harrington M et al. Hit HIV-1 hard, but only when

necessary. Lancet. 2000 Jun 17; 355(9221): 2147-52.

[Laitin, 1997] Laitin EA et al. The Influenza A/New Jersey (Swine Flu)

Vaccine and Guillain-Barré Syndrome: The Arguments for a Causal

Association. www.hsph.harvard.edu/organizations/DDIL/swineflu.html. 1997.

[MacLeish, 1972] MacLeish K et al. Stone age men of the Philippines.

National Geographic. 1972 Aug; 142(2): 219-249.

[MMWR, 1994] Revised classification system for human immunodeficiency virus

infection in children less than 13 years of age. MMWR. 1994; 43(RR-12): 1-10.

[, 2002] D et al. HIV-1 infection in rural Africa: is there a

difference in median time to AIDS and survival compared with that in

industrialized countries? AIDS. 2002; 16: 597-603.

[Muñoz, 1997] Muñoz A et al. The incubation period of AIDS. AIDS. 1997; Vol

11 (suppl A): S69-76.

[Picard, 2000] Picard A. HIV deniers should be jailed: researcher. Globe &

Mail. 2000 May 1; A3.

[Ross, 2000] Ross S. Clinton: AIDS a Security Threat. Associated Press.

2000 Dec 1.

[saag, 1999] Saag MS et al. HIV-1 and HAART: A time to cure, a time to

kill. Nat Med. 1999 Jun; 5(6): 609-11.

[schmidt, 2000] Schmidt J. Disciplined minds: a critical look at salaried

professionals and the soul-battering system that shapes their lives. Rowman

& Littlefield. 2000.

[sci.med.aids] http://www.aids.wustl.edu/aids

[silverstein, 1981] Silverstein AM. Pure Politics & Impure Science.

Hopkins. 1981.

[stelfox, 1998] Stelfox HT et al. Conflict of interest in the debate over

calcium-channel antagonists. NEJM. 1998 Jan 8; 338(2): 101-6.

[Wilmhurst, 2002] Wilmhurst P. Institutional corruption in medicine. BMJ.

2002 Nov 23; 325: 1232-5.

[, 2001] D et al. Uninformed consent: what patients at `The

Hutch' weren't told about the experiments in which they died. Seattle

Times. 2001 Mar 11-15.

--------------------------------------------------------

Sheri Nakken, R.N., MA, Hahnemannian Homeopath

Vaccination Information & Choice Network, Nevada City CA & Wales UK

$$ Donations to help in the work - accepted by Paypal account

earthmysteriestours@... voicemail US 530-740-0561

(go to http://www.paypal.com) or by mail

Vaccines - http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/vaccine.htm

Vaccine Dangers On-Line course - http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/vaccineclass.htm

Reality of the Diseases & Treatment -

http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/vaccineclass.htm

Homeopathy On-Line course - http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/homeo.htm