LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5
















By Topic:










By Author:











Proportional Font








The Hidden Face of HIV -- Part 1


Mitchel Cohen <[log in to unmask]>


Science for the People Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>


Sat, 17 Feb 2007 01:36:33 -0500





text/plain (451 lines)

The Hidden Face of HIV -- Part 1

"Knowing is Beautiful"

By Liam Scheff
Published: Monday January 3rd, 2005

As a journalist who writes about AIDS, I am endlessly amazed by the 
difference between the public and the private face of HIV; between 
what the public is told and what's explained in the medical 
literature. The public face of HIV is well-known: HIV is a sexually 
transmitted virus that particularly preys on gay men, African 
Americans, drug users, and just about all of Africa, although we're 
all at risk. We're encouraged to be tested, because, as the MTV ads 
say, "knowing is beautiful." We also know that AIDS drugs are all 
that's stopping the entire African continent from falling into the sea.

The medical literature spells it out differently -- quite 
differently. The journals that review HIV tests, drugs and patients, 
as well as the instructional material from medical schools, the 
Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and HIV test manufacturers will 
agree with the public perception in the large print. But when you get 
past the titles, they'll tell you, unabashedly, that HIV tests are 
not standardized; that they're arbitrarily interpreted; that HIV is 
not required for AIDS; and finally, that the term HIV does not 
describe a single entity, but instead describes a collection of 
non-specific, cross-reactive cellular material.

That's quite a difference.

The popular view of AIDS is held up by concerned people desperate to 
help the millions of Africans stricken with AIDS, the same disease 
that first afflicted young gay American men in the 1980s. The medical 
literature differs on this point. It says that that AIDS in Africa 
has always been diagnosed differently than AIDS in the U.S.

In 1985, the World Health Organization called a meeting in Bangui, 
the capital of the Central African Republic, to define African AIDS. 
The meeting was presided over by CDC official Joseph McCormick. He 
wrote about in his book "Level 4 Virus hunters of the CDC," saying, 
"If I could get everyone at the WHO meeting in Bangui to agree on a 
single, simple definition of what an AIDS case was in Africa, then, 
imperfect as the definition might be, we could actually start 
counting the cases. . . " The results -- African AIDS would be 
defined by physical symptoms: fever, diarrhea, weight loss and 
coughing or itching. ("AIDS in Africa: an epidemiological paradigm." 
Science, 1986)

In Sub-Saharan African about 60 percent of the population lives and 
dies without safe drinking water, adequate food or basic sanitation. 
A September, 2003 report in the Ugandan Daily "New Vision" outlined 
the situation in Kampala, a city of approximately 1.3 million 
inhabitants, which, like most tropical countries, experiences 
seasonal flooding. The report describes "heaps of unclaimed garbage" 
among the crowded houses in the flood zones and "countless pools of 
water [that] provide a breeding ground for mosquitoes and create a 
dirty environment that favors cholera."

"[L]atrines are built above water streams. During rains the area 
residents usually open a hole to release feces from the latrines. The 
rain then washes away the feces to streams, from where the [area 
residents] fetch water. However, not many people have access to 
toilet facilities. Some defecate in polythene bags, which they throw 
into the stream." They call these, "flying toilets.''

The state-run Ugandan National Water and Sewerage Corporation states 
that currently 55% of Kampala is provided with treated water, and 
only 8% with sewage reclamation.

Most rural villages are without any sanitary water source. People 
wash clothes, bathe and dump untreated waste up and downstream from 
where water is drawn. Watering holes are shared with animal 
populations, which drink, bathe, urinate and defecate at the water 
source. Unmanaged human waste pollutes water with infectious and 
often deadly bacteria. Stagnant water breeds mosquitoes, which bring 
malaria. Infectious diarrhea, dysentery, cholera, TB, malaria and 
famine are the top killers in Africa. But in 1985, they became AIDS.

The public service announcements that run on VH1 and MTV, informing 
us of the millions of infected, always fail to mention this. I don't 
know what we're supposed to do with the information that 40 million 
people are dying and nothing can be done. I wonder why we wouldn't be 
interested in building wells and providing clean water and sewage 
systems for Africans. Given our great concern, it would seem foolish 
not to immediately begin the "clean water for Africa" campaign. But 
I've never heard such a thing mentioned.

The UN recommendations for Africa actually demand the opposite 
--"billions of dollars" taken out of "social funds, education and 
health projects, infrastructure [and] rural development" and 
"redirected" into sex education (UNAIDS, 1999). No clean water, but 
plenty of condoms.

I have, however, felt the push to get AIDS drugs to Africans. Drugs 
like AZT and Nevirapine, which are supposed to stop the spread of 
HIV, especially in pregnant women. AZT and Nevirapine also terminate 
life. The medical literature and warning labels list the side 
effects: blood cell destruction, birth defects, bone-marrow death, 
spontaneous abortion, organ failure, and fatal skin rot. The package 
inserts also state that the drugs don't "stop HIV or prevent AIDS illnesses."

The companies that make these drugs take advantage of the public 
perception that HIV is measured in individual African AIDS patients, 
and that African AIDS -- water-borne illness and poverty -- can be 
cured by AZT and Nevirapine. That's good capitalism, but it's bad medicine.

Currently MTV, Black Entertainment Television and VH1 are running 
advertisements of handsome young couples, black and white, touching, 
caressing, sensually, warming up to love-making. The camera moves 
over their bodies, hands, necks, mouth, back, legs and arms -- and we 
see a small butterfly bandage over their inner elbow, where they've 
given blood for an HIV test. The announcer says, "Knowing is 
beautiful." Get tested.

A September, 2004 San Francisco Chronicle article considered the 
"beauty" of testing. It told the story of 59 year-old veteran Jim 
Malone, who'd been told in 1996 that he was HIV positive. His health 
was diagnosed as "very poor." He was classified as, "permanently 
disabled and unable to work or participate in any stressful situation 
whatsoever." Malone said, "When I wasn't able to eat, when I was 
sick, my in-home health care nurse would say, 'Well, Jim, it goes 
with your condition.' That's the way I thought," he said.

In 2004, his doctor sent him a note to tell him he was actually 
negative. He had tested positive at one hospital, and negative at 
another. Nobody asked why the second test was more accurate than the 
first (that was the protocol at the Veteran's Hospital). Having been 
falsely diagnosed and spending nearly a decade waiting, expecting to 
die, Malone said, "I would tell people to get not just one HIV test, 
but multiple tests. I would say test, test and retest."

In the article, AIDS experts assured the public that the story was 
"extraordinarily rare." But the medical literature differs significantly.

In 1985, at the beginning of HIV testing, it was known that "68% to 
89% of all repeatedly reactive ELISA (HIV antibody) tests [were] 
likely to represent false positive results." (NEJM -- New England 
Journal of Medicine. 312; 1985).

In 1992, the Lancet reported that for 66 true positives, there were 
30,000 false positives. And in pregnant women, "there were 8,000 
false positives for 6 confirmations." (Lancet 339; 1992)

In September 2000, the Archives of Family Medicine stated that the 
more women we test, the greater "the proportion of false-positive and 
ambiguous (indeterminate) test results." (Archives of Family 
Medicine. Sept/Oct. 2000).

The tests described above are standard HIV tests, the kind promoted 
in the ads. Their technical name is ELISA or EIA (Enzyme-linked 
Immunosorbant Assay). They are antibody tests. The tests contain 
proteins that react with antibodies in your blood.

In the U.S., you're tested with an ELISA first. If your blood reacts, 
you'll be tested again, with another ELISA. Why is the second more 
accurate than the first? That's just the protocol. If you have a 
reaction on the second ELISA, you'll be confirmed with a third 
antibody test, called the Western Blot. But that's here in America. 
In some countries, one ELISA is all you get.

It is precisely because HIV tests are antibody tests, that they 
produce so many false-positive results. All antibodies tend to 
cross-react. We produce antibodies all the time, in response to 
stress, malnutrition, illness, drug use, vaccination, foods we eat, a 
cut, a cold, even pregnancy. These antibodies are known to make HIV 
tests come up as positive.

The medical literature lists dozens of reasons for positive HIV test 
results: "transfusions, transplantation, or pregnancy, autoimmune 
disorders, malignancies, alcoholic liver disease, or for reasons that 
are unclear. . . "(Archives of Family Medicine, Sept/Oct. 2000).

"[H]uman or technical errors, other viruses and vaccines" (Infectious 
Disease Clinician of North America 7; 1993)

"[L]iver diseases, parenteral substance abuse, hemodialysis, or 
vaccinations for hepatitis B, rabies, or influenza. . . " (Archives 
of Internal Medicine August, 2000).

"[U]npasteurized cows' milk. . . Bovine exposure, or cross-reactivity 
with other human retroviruses" (Transfusion,1988)

Even geography can do it:

"Inhabitants of certain regions may have cross-reactive antibodies to 
local prevalent non-HIV retroviruses" (Medicine International 56; 1988).

The same is true for the confirmatory test -- the Western Blot.

Causes of indeterminate Western Blots include: "lymphoma, multiple 
sclerosis, injection drug use, liver disease, or autoimmune 
disorders. Also, there appear to be healthy individuals with 
antibodies that cross-react. . . ." (Archives of Internal Medicine, 
August 2000).

"The Western Blot is not used as a screening tool because. . . it 
yields an unacceptably high percentage of indeterminate results." 
(Archives of Family Medicine, Sept/Oct 2000)

Pregnancy is consistently listed as a cause of positive test results, 
even by the test manufacturers. "[False positives can be caused by] 
prior pregnancy, blood transfusions. . . and other potential 
nonspecific reactions." (Vironostika HIV Test, 2003).

This is significant in Africa, because HIV estimates for African 
nations are drawn almost exclusively from testing done on groups of 
pregnant women.

In Zimbabwe this year, the rate of HIV infection among young women 
decreased remarkably, from 32.5 to 6 percent. A drop of 81% -- 
overnight. UNICEF's Swaziland representative, Dr. Alan Brody, told 
the press "The problems is that all the sero-surveillance data came 
from pregnant women, and estimates for other demographics was based 
on that." (PLUS News, August, 2004)

When these pregnant young women are tested, they're often tested for 
other illnesses, like syphilis, at the same time. There's no concern 
for cross-reactivity or false-positives in this group, and no repeat 
testing. One ELISA on one girl, and 32.5% of the population is 
suddenly HIV positive.

The June 20, 2004 Boston Globe reported that "the current estimate of 
40 million people living with the AIDS virus worldwide is inflated by 
25 percent to 50 percent."

They pointed out that HIV estimates for entire countries have, for 
over a decade, been taken from "blood samples from pregnant women at 
prenatal clinics."

But it's not just HIV estimates that are created from testing 
pregnant women, it's "AIDS deaths, AIDS orphans, numbers of people 
needing antiretroviral treatment, and the average life expectancy," 
all from that one test.

I've certainly never seen this in VH1 ad.

At present there are about six dozen reasons given in the literature 
why the tests come up positive. In fact, the medical literature 
states that there is simply no way of knowing if any HIV test is 
truly positive or negative:

"[F]alse-positive reactions have been observed with every single 
HIV-1 protein, recombinant or authentic." (Clinical Chemistry. 37; 
1991). "Thus, it may be impossible to relate an antibody response 
specifically to HIV-1 infection." (Medicine International, 1988)

And even if you believe the reaction is not a false positive, "the 
test does not indicate whether the person currently harbors the 
virus." (Science, November, 1999).

The test manufacturers state that after the antibody reaction occurs, 
the tests have to be "interpreted." There is no strict or clear 
definition of HIV positive or negative. There's just the antibody 
reaction. The reaction is colored by an enzyme, and read by a machine 
called a spectrophotometer.

The machine grades the reactions according to their strength (but not 
specificity), above and below a cut-off. If you test above the 
cut-off, you're positive; if you test below it, you're negative.

So what determines the all-important cut-off? From The CDC's 
instructional material: "Establishing the cutoff value to define a 
positive test result from a negative one is somewhat arbitrary." 
(CDC-EIS, "Screening For HIV," 2003 )

The University of Vermont Medical School agrees: "Where a cutoff is 
drawn to determine a diagnostic test result may be somewhat 
arbitrary. . . .Where would the director of the Blood Bank who is 
screening donated blood for HIV antibody want to put the 
cut-off?...Where would an investigator enrolling high-risk patients 
in a clinical trial for an experimental, potentially toxic 
antiretroviral draw the cutoff?" (University of Vermont School of 
Medicine teaching module: Diagnostic Testing for HIV Infection)

A 1995 study comparing four major brands of HIV tests found that they 
all had different cut-off points, and as a result, gave different 
test results for the same sample: "[C]ut-off ratios do not correlate 
for any of the investigated ELISA pairs," and one test's cut-off 
point had "no predictive value" for any other. (INCQS-DSH, Brazil 1995).

I've never heard of a person being asked where they would "want to 
put the cut-off" for determining their HIV test result, or if they 
felt that testing positive was a "somewhat arbitrary" experience.

In the UK, if you get through two ELISA tests, you're positive. In 
America, you get a third and final test to confirm the first two. The 
test is called the Western Blot. It uses the same proteins, laid out 
differently. Same proteins, same nonspecific reactions. But this time 
it's read as lines on a page, not a color change. Which lines are HIV 
positive? That depends on where you are, what lab you're in and what 
kit they're using.

The Mayo Clinic reported that "the Western blot method lacks 
standardization, is cumbersome, and is subjective in interpretation 
of banding patterns." (Mayo Clinic Procedural, 1988)

A 1988 study in the Journal of the American Medical Association 
reported that 19 different labs, testing one blood sample, got 19 
different Western Blot results. (JAMA, 260, 1988)

A 1993 review in Bio/Technology reported that the FDA, the 
CDC/Department of Defense and the Red Cross all interpret WB's 
differently, and further noted, "All the other major USA laboratories 
for HIV testing have their own criteria." (Bio/Technology, June 1993)

In the early 1990s, perhaps in response to growing discontent in the 
medical community with the lack of precision of the tests, Roche 
Laboratories introduced a new genetic test, called Viral Load, based 
on a technology called PCR. How good is the new genetic marvel?

An early review of the technology in the 1991 Journal of AIDS 
reported that "a true positive PCR test cannot be distinguished from 
a false positive." (J.AIDS, 1991)

A 1992 study "identified a disturbingly high rate of nonspecific 
positivity," saying 18% antibody-negative (under the cut-off) 
patients tested Viral Load positive. (J. AIDS, 1992)

A 2001 study showed that the tests gave wildly different results from 
a single blood sample, as well as different results with different 
test brands. (CDC MMWR, November 16, 2001)

A 2002 African study showed that Viral Load was high in patients who 
had intestinal worms, but went down when they were treated for the 
problem. The title of the article really said it all. "Treatment of 
Intestinal Worms Is Associated With Decreased HIV Plasma Viral Load." 
(J.AIDS, September, 2002)

Roche laboratories, the company that manufactures the PCR tests, puts 
this warning on the label:

"The AMPLICOR HIV-1 MONITOR Test. . . .is not intended to be used as 
a screening test for HIV or as a diagnostic test to confirm the 
presence of HIV infection."

But that's exactly how it is used -- to convince pregnant mothers to 
take AZT and Nevirapine and to urge patients to start the drugs.

The medical literature adds something truly astounding to all of 
this. It says that reason HIV tests are so non-specific and need to 
be interpreted is because there is "no virologic gold standard" for HIV tests.

The meaning of this statement, from both the medical and social 
perspective, is profound. The "virologic gold standard" is the 
isolated virus that the doctors claim to be identifying, indirectly, 
with the test.

Antibody tests always have some cross-reaction, because antibodies 
aren't specific. The way to validate a test is to go find the virus 
in the patient's blood.

You take the blood, spin it in a centrifuge, and you end up with 
millions of little virus particles, which you can easily photograph 
under a microscope. You can disassemble the virus, measure the weight 
of its proteins, and map its genetic structure. That's the virologic 
gold standard. And for some reason, HIV tests have none.

In 1986, JAMA reported that: "no established standard exists for 
identifying HTLV-III [HIV] infection in asymptomatic people." (JAMA. 
July 18, 1986)

In 1987, the New England Journal of Medicine stated that "The meaning 
of positive tests will depend on the joint [ELISA/WB] false positive 
rate. Because we lack a gold standard, we do not know what that rate 
is now. We cannot know what it will be in a large-scale screening 
program." ( Screening for HIV: can we afford the false positive 
rate?. NEJM. 1987)

Skip ahead to 1996; JAMA again reported: "the diagnosis of HIV 
infection in infants is particularly difficult because there is no 
reference or 'gold standard' test that determines unequivocally the 
true infection status of the patient. (JAMA. May, 1996)

In 1997, Abbott laboratories, the world leader in HIV test production 
stated: "At present there is no recognized standard for establishing 
the presence or absence of HIV antibody in human blood." (Abbot 
Laboratories HIV Elisa Test 1997)

In 2000 the Journal AIDS reported that "2.9% to 12.3%" of women in a 
study tested positive, "depending on the test used," but "since there 
is no established gold standard test, it is unclear which of these 
two proportions is the best estimate of the real prevalence rate. . . 
" (AIDS, 14; 2000).

If we had a virologic gold standard, HIV testing would be easy and 
accurate. You could spin the patient's blood in a centrifuge and find 
the particle. They don't do this, and they're saying privately, in 
the medical journals, that they can't.

That's why tests are determined through algorithms -- above or below 
sliding cut-offs; estimated from pregnant girls, then projected and 
redacted overnight.

By repeating, again and again in the medical literature that there's 
no virologic gold standard, the world's top AIDS researchers are 
saying that what we're calling HIV isn't a single entity, but a 
collection of cross-reactive proteins and unidentified genetic material.

And we're suddenly a very long way from the public face of HIV.

But the fact is, you don't need to test HIV positive to be an AIDS 
patient. You don't even have to be sick.

In 1993, the CDC added "Idiopathic CD4 Lymphocytopenia" to the AIDS 
category. What does it mean? Non-HIV AIDS.

In 1993, the CDC also made "no-illness AIDS" a category. If you 
tested positive, but weren't sick, you could be given an AIDS 
diagnosis. By 1997, the healthy AIDS group accounted for 2/3rds of 
all U.S. AIDS patients. (That's also the last year they reported 
those numbers, CDC Year End Addition, 1997).

In Africa, HIV status is irrelevant. Even if you test negative, you 
can be called an AIDS patient:

 From a study in Ghana: "Our attention is now focused on the 
considerably large number (59%) of the seronegative (HIV-negative) 
group who were clinically diagnosed as having AIDS. All the patients 
had three major signs: weight loss, prolonged diarrhea, and chronic 
fever." (Lancet. October,1992)

And from across Africa: "2215 out of 4383 (50.0%) African AIDS 
patients from Abidjan, Ivory Coast, Lusaka, Zambia, and Kinshasa, 
Zaire, were HIV-antibody negative." (British Medical Journal, 1991)

Non-HIV AIDS, HIV-negative AIDS, No Virologic Gold standard -- terms 
never seen in an HIV ad.

But even if you do test "repeatedly" positive, the manufacturers say 
that "the risk of an asymptomatic [not sick] person developing AIDS 
or an AIDS-related condition is not known." (Abbott Laboratories HIV 
Test, 1997)

If commerce laws were applied equally, the "knowing is beautiful" ads 
for HIV testing would have to bear a disclaimer, just like cigarettes:

"Warning: This test will not tell you if you're infected with a 
virus. It may confirm that you are pregnant or have used drugs or 
alcohol, or that you've been vaccinated; that you have a cold, liver 
disease, arthritis, or are stressed, poor, hungry or tired. Or that 
you're African. It will not tell you if you're going to live or die; 
in fact, we really don't know what testing positive, or negative, 
means at all."

GNN contributor Liam Scheff is an investigative journalist and health 
advocate who's been published in the New York Press, LA Citybeat and 
Boston's Weekly Dig. His reporting on cell-killing drugs like 
Nevirapine was recently featured in a BBC documentary.

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Search Archives

Search Archives

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
May 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998



CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager