There has been a great deal of confusion among doctors as to how to diagnose AIDS, and this is no wonder when it is considered that most of the information of the subject released by the so-called AIDS establishment is based on pure supposition. A virus is supposed to be the cause but can hardly ever be found; antibodies to the virus can be found in most cases but not in all cases. People with the antibodies mostly don't get sick while some without antibodies do. So, setting aside the theory of the virus as more or less irrelevant, the "official" method of diagnosis has been on the basis of whether a patient had one or more of the classic symptoms, such as pneumocystis pneumonia, Kaposi's sarcoma, cytomegalovirus, or others of the AIDS complex or chronic fatigue syndrome. As already mentioned, any of these could get you an AIDS pronouncement if you happened to be a male homosexual or an intravenous drug user, whereas for anyone else a diagnosis would be made in an unbiased fashion and be called simply pneumonia, hepatitis, or perhaps chronic fatigue.

As this method of diagnosis is at best only an "educated guess", a new system has been proposed by which a patient will be defined as having AIDS if their T4 (also called CD4) lymphocyte level falls below a certain figure. Thus, if and when this method is adopted, a person without a syndrome will be decreed to have the syndrome simply on this account, but even if at this stage the diagnosis is wrong, it won't be for long, because as fear takes hold and the destructive medical drugs get to work, the patient's already compromised immune system can only get worse. When fear alone (see reference which follows) can reduce a patient's normal T4 cell count by over fifty per cent, from 494 to 234 in one week, the new method of diagnosing AIDS would appear to be based on just as shaky a foundation as the "official" AIDS theory itself.

Medical "maverick" Dr Laurence Badgley of San Francisco has had as much experience personally helping AIDS patients as anybody, and is the author of two books about it, Choose to Live and Healing AIDS Naturally About T4 cells he has this to say:

"People with AIDS must learn that much of what they are told about AIDS is mere speculation, ie theories. The idea that the virus invades white blood cells, called T4 helper cells, and destroys them is one such theory. This theory and myth has been presented to the public as fact. The idea that a diminished number of T4 cells is the critical factor in the development of AIDS is another such theory. The idea that a number of T4 cells below 200 is the magic measure of whether a person should start taking AZT is a pig-in-the-poke choice of numbers.

In my own medical practise I have a few patients who have had less than 50 T4 helper cells for months and years and they haven't become weakened or ill with serious infections. On the other hand one patient who followed a natural therapy had a T4 cell increase from less than 100, to over 600, at which time he developed pneumocystis carinii pneumonia.

T4 white blood cell counts are intimately related to mental focus. One of my patients was without symptoms and went to another doctor for an "AIDS test". The doctor did the test, which was positive, as well as the T4 helper cell count, which was 494 and normal. Upon learning that his antibody test was positive, the patient went into a tailspin of depression and fear. One week later he returned to the doctor because of his anxiety, and his T4 helper cell count was taken again. After one week of depression and no other symptoms his T4 cell count fell over 50% to 234.

This intimate relationship of the mind and body raises a question about the true nature of the AIDS epidemic. It is not far fetched to postulate that much of the immune system depression among AIDS- est-positive patients might be the result of doctors telling them that it is likely they will get AIDS and die. The brain is a giant immune system gland that operates on hope, joy, and optimism. The gland turns off in response to mental attitudes of fear and depression.

The question is raised as to how many people are dying because they have been programmed to die. The observation is made that doctors who tell their patients they have a terminal disease are programming their patients to die. The charge is made that these doctors are performing malpractise."

A current news item reports that Australian hepatitis experts at Sydney's Westmead Hospital are currently agitating for speeded up approval for a new "breakthrough drug" for hepatitis C. The drug is called alpha interferon, and according to "eminent medical researchers" it has proved very successful, "the preliminary results showing that 65% of hepatitis C patients have responded excellently to it"* and that "some 25 to 40% of sufferers are potentially cured". The side effects included depression, skin rashes and low white blood cell counts.

*This percentage of favorable reactions is the typical percentage gained by the placebo effect in all kinds of diseases, and in the absence of controlled studies cannot be attributed to anything other than the placebo effect. In chronic disease, the immense power of the placebo effect--both for good and sometimes for bad--cannot be overestimated (see "The Mental Factor" in Chapter 16).

Those people at risk of hepatitis C, said the experts, were intravenous drug users, people receiving blood transfusions, renal dialysis patients, people who have been tattooed and male homosexuals. But aren't these the people who are also vulnerable to AIDS? Could it be--the question arises again--that AIDS experts, yuppie flu experts and hepatitis experts are all trying to solve the same problem? That the "different" diseases they specialize in are, in fact, all only slightly different symptoms of the one disease?

Whether you agree or not, pay attention to this paragraph of the report: "Professor Farrell said alpha interferon did have side-effects but they could be managed. Serious side-effects--in about five percent of patients--were depression, skin rashes and a low white blood cell count" (author's italics). What is meant by "they could be managed"? Does this mean that "high-risk" patients whose symptom--hepatitis--is one of the pre-AIDS symptoms, will be given a drug which will add more AIDS symptoms? Lower their white cell count?

What if their white cell count hits the magic 200 level?* Will they be plucked out of the hepatitis category and put in the AIDS category? Given AZT?

*Currently the AIDS establishment recommends that AZT be given at levels below 500!

The blind leading the blind is not malpractice, but it is just as sad to behold.