Gaping Holes in the AIDS Case Definition

Michael Wright
Norman, Oklahoma

This is a commentary on an exchange of emails between Michael Wright and the CDC, available as a PDF file (scanned image of the original emails) or as an HTML transcription.

The 1987 AIDS case definition was so loose and flexible that it provided circumstances under which persons who were HIV negative or of indeterminate HIV status could be diagnosed as AIDS cases. In my October 2000 communication from a CDC source, I was informed that HIV positive status is still not an absolute requirement for diagnosing AIDS under the revised 1993 definition. In an email from the CDC's National STD and AIDS Hotline, I was informed as follows, in response to my inquiries:

• In answer to question 1: If a person has been diagnosed with an AIDS Indicator Disease, then that person meets the 1993 AIDS Surveillance Case Definition, regardless of their CD4 count.
• In answer to question 2: The 1993 definition also allows for HIV negative patients or those of undetermined HIV status to be diagnosed with AIDS when other causes for immunodeficiency are ruled out AND the person is definitively diagnosed with an AIDS Indicator Disease.

Clearly, there is an implicit admission in this communication that HIV certainly cannot explain all officially-recognized “AIDS,” since the CDC still allows “AIDS” to be diagnosed in its absence !

Their answer to my first question is also significant. The official claim is that HIV causes “AIDS” by attacking the immune system, and we are to believe that the evidence of this attack is found in the form of a reduced CD4 cell count. But in their definition, as it was explained to me, this reduced cell count is NOT necessary to diagnose an “AIDS” case.

HIV is believed to be the cause of AIDS, yet non-HIV cases of AIDS can be diagnosed. Further, HIV is said to cause AIDS by depleting CD4 cells, but persons who are HIV-positive and have normal cell counts can be diagnosed as AIDS patients. The non-sequiturs and paradoxes in AIDS “science” are so vast that it simply boggles the mind to observe that the charlatans responsible for this fraud have been able to conduct their endeavor this long with impunity.