The organization routinely “amends” their statistics on HIV/AIDS and in some cases, exaggerates the dangers. For example, the CDC, in its main publication, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), published the total of AIDS cases for 1995 as 68,367 (MMWR 1-12-96 p. 23), then published 71,547 (MMWR 8-20-96 p. 749) and 71,210 (MMWR 1-1-97 p. 1138)...all three sets of data for the same year (1995). The CDC treats AIDS as its golden child. No other disease has its cumulative, multi-decade case totals routinely published nor has the “data tortured” classification of the “25 to 44 year old group” which was selected to show the worse statistical expression of the AIDS epidemic. It is not used for any other human disease category. This lacks scientific reliability.

In 1996, the CDC was taken to task in Congressional hearings accusing the organization of exaggerating the risks of AIDS and inflating case numbers in order to increase funding. In one exchange, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Director, Secretary Shalala, was asked by a Congressional investigator (Mr. Istook), “But I still don’t understand why you were telling this committee about an increase in AIDS and trying to dramatize increases when actually the reports from the CDC show fewer cases and that the increase you talk about is due to a change in definition.”

The Secretary responded by stating, “I deny my testimony was inaccurate.”

Incidentally, it was Secretary Shalala who in a news conference in 1984, announced: the discovery of the AIDS virus by NIH sponsored Dr. Gallo, that HIV was the sole cause of AIDS and a vaccine would be ready by 1986. None of these statements proved true.

The CDC has often been involved in shady situations involving money and scandal. The famous head of the CDC, Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, invented Universal Precautions (recommending glove, mask and eye ware for health care workers during all patient contacts). It was based on the Hadler Hepatitis B infection report (a case about an oral surgeon who transmitted Hepatitis B to patients) which was later found to be scientifically flawed (incorrect HBV incubation periods were used). In late 1999, Dr. Koop was exposed in what was reported as a million dollar “financial arrangement” with a latex glove maker (WRP Corp), the attempted suppression of government action responding to the erupting latex allergy epidemic and a failing web site (Dr. Koop Life Care Corp.) which sold stock to the public.

Recent CDC scandals over misuse of funding, the unexpected resignation of its director, the retraction of its recommendation for an anti-AIDS cream, nonoxynol-9, (it increased the AIDS transmission rate, not reduced it, the feeble attempt to boost AIDS case numbers with a new AIDS designation (AIDS-Opportunistic Illnesses) and the latest Surgeon General’s condemnation (after the 9-11 and anthrax attacks) that the, “Atlanta labs are a national disgrace,” placed a cloud over the integrity of the policies and scientific methodology used at the CDC.

In an effort to reduce criticism in an often no-win situation, the CDC began a program that exerted great efforts to avoid embarrassing questions and admissions. One way of doing this was to use “unpublished data” to substantiate “scientific” conclusions/recommendations and when questioned, to refuse researchers requests to examine the non-referenced data by claiming coverage under the Public Health Service Act. Section 301(d) of the Act allows the organization to avoid releasing data under the guise of protecting individuals’ privacy. It is important for health care providers to carefully examine the scientific basis of governmental mandates and recommendations and not blindly follow edicts that may be more politically than scientifically inspired.

The Many Definitions of AIDS: Confusion

The AIDS of 1984 is different from the AIDS of 2004. It differs by definition, which has changed numerous times. AIDS is truly a “political” disease. The definition of AIDS differs from country to country. In the U.S. there were major changes in the definition in 1987, 1992, 1993 and 2000. Each of these changes resulted in the inclusion of increasingly more ill individuals to the point that AIDS is really a collection of 25+ immunodeficient diseases. The 1993 definition change caused an almost doubling of yearly AIDS case numbers in one week. After a year or so the case numbers came crashing down and in a fit of spin doctoring, the CDC refers to the episode as a “temporary distortion.” In 1987 the CDC defined AIDS as: “Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV), the virus that causes acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS), is transmitted through....”

By 1998 the CDC changed its definition: “Acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) is a group of diseases or conditions which are indicative of severe immunosuppression related to infection with the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV).”

These definitions all related to serologic HIV testing. A different set of classifications were reserved by the World Health Organization (WHO) for third world countries without the means to do accurate lab HIV testing. In 1992, WHO devised a definition of AIDS involving a combination of major (weight loss, diarrhea, fever, etc.) and minor signs (cough, dermatitis, herpes zoster, etc.). If you had two major and one minor sign, you had “AIDS.” Unfortunately these signs are also present in TB, malaria, cancer, malnutrition, parasite infestation and a whole host of other “natural” background diseases that occur in many of the poor folk in third world countries. You do not have to be HIV positive to have “AIDS.” Since AIDS receives more funding than the above diseases, there is a strong financial pressure for impoverished health departments to diagnose more cases of “AIDS.” Thus we are faced with the CDC and WHO, political organizations with an unimpressive record of counting statistics and some serious deficiencies in the analysis and interpretation of AIDS data. It is unfortunate, but this is the best epidemiology we have today. We must be very careful in what data we accept as accurate and factual.

A number of studies illustrate these phenomena. Castro et al. found that 75% of HIV positive individuals reporting no high-risk behavior later admitted that they lied. In a CDC study of heterosexually acquired AIDS patients, 9% later admitted they were homosexuals. Cochran and Mays found 47% of individuals with sexually transmitted disease lied about their behavior: 20% said they would lie about being HIV positive. In a U.S. government study of 12,329 AIDS patients claiming “undetermined” risk factors, follow up interviews discovered that all but 491 individuals (3.9%) really participated in high-risk behavior. Health care workers were found to be no more truthful in telling the facts about their private activities.

Why would someone lie that they caught HIV/AIDS occupationally when, in truth, it was from high-risk behavior? The answer is simple. If you claim to have been infected with HIV/AIDS occupationally, you get sympathy from your family and community, disability payments, legal protection and other secondary benefits. If you admit your AIDS came from high-risk behavior (e.g. anal intercourse with homosexual men, drugs) you get thrown out of the house, divorced, jailed, fired from your job and generally stigmatized. That is why people lie about AIDS and we should be very suspicious of any stories claiming non-risk sources of occupationally involved AIDS infection. In many of these cases, the CDC took subjects’ claims at face value in absence of other scientific facts. This “soft” data forms the basis of the CDC’s determinations in the seven possible dental (occupational) AIDS transmission cases.

The Seven Dental Workers With “Possible” Occupationally Acquired HIV

The CDC, in several years of “HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report” issues, stated that there were seven dental workers who are “possible” cases of occupational HIV/AIDS transmission. The designation “possible” is defined as, “These healthcare workers have been investigated and are without identifiable behavioral or transfusion risks: each reported percutaneous or mucocutaneous occupational exposures to blood or body fluids or laboratory solutions containing HIV, but HIV seroconversion specifically resulting form an occupational exposure was not documented.” In this often-quoted data, there are no sources referenced. The last possible occupational case was recorded in 1995. With no further cases reported, the CDC stopped publishing this category of health care “infection” in 2001.

(continued on page 4)