This article is taken from the Question and Answer section of Dr Vernon Coleman’s Health Letter. It gives general material and opinions for information only and is not to be considered an alternative to professional medical advice. Readers should consult their family doctors or other qualified medical advisers on any matter relating to their health and wellbeing.



What do you think of the argument I have heard put forward that AIDS is not caused by HIV? Is it really possible that the medical establishment has wasted billions of dollars on HIV and AIDS?


Back in the mid 1980s I had serious reservations about the existence of a relationship between HIV (or, indeed, any causative organism) and AIDS.

In the late 1980s I accepted the link between HIV and AIDS but rejected the theory, popular among the medical and nursing professions, politicians, journalists, insurance companies keen to find an excuse to increase their premiums, drug companies desperate to sell their latest AIDS related product, and just about every other scaremongering half wit eager to jump on the 'AIDS is the biggest plague to hit mankind' bandwagon that AIDS was a sexual transmitted disease which was likely to wipe out a large proportion of the western world.

I argued that AIDS should be regarded as a blood related disorder, rather than a sexually transmitted disease, and that because of this it was primarily a disease that threatened homosexuals and drug addicts rather than heterosexuals. I didn't say that these were the only groups who would develop AIDS but that they would probably be the main sufferers.

The evidence shows I was right about that but I now strongly suspect that I was wrong even to accept that there was (or is) a link between HIV and AIDS.

The huge AIDS industry, now employing thousands of scientists, hundreds of thousands of administrators and paramedics and vast armies of sanctimonious fund raisers – as well as burning up billions of dollars of taxpayers money which could have been much better spent on something useful – is now too committed to the notion that HIV causes AIDS even to admit that it might be false. But false it very probably is.

There have been around 400,000 AIDS patients in the last ten years. (The ground rules for defining an AIDS patients have constantly been changing in order to keep the number of AIDS victims as high as possible and, therefore, try to justify the expenditure involved.)

Those 400,000 patients have been treated by around 5,000,000 AIDS researchers and specialist AIDS medical workers. If the amount of effort and money spent on AIDS had been spent on teaching people how to avoid heart disease millions of lives could have been saved and heart disease would now be something of a rarity among men and women under the age of 70. Since the early 1990s most of the under employed AIDS experts have kept themselves busy doing their best to maintain the AIDS myth – the myth which has paid their unjustified and unjustifiable salaries. The AIDS industry – like the global cancer industry – is now predominantly composed of individuals whose primary concern is their own financial survival. The needs of patients – and the community at large – take a poor second place.

Despite the money that has been spent, and the countless number of animals who have been sacrificed (in the US 1,500 chimpanzees which were bred for AIDS research and which, it is now recognised, have no useful function in the AIDS research industry, are kept alive in cages at an annual cost of something like $7,300,000), the AIDS industry has yet to make just one of the many promised breakthroughs or save any human lives. And that failure is probably due to the fact that scientists have based their research work on a premise with about as much supporting evidence behind it as the theory that the earth is flat.

AIDS was first noted in 1981 in the US. At the time it was described as GRID (Gay Related Immune Deficiency) because it only seemed to affect gay men. And it seemed most prevalent among promiscuous gay men. One early survey showed that the first 100 men with the disease had had, on average, no less than 1,120 sexual partners each. (Though how they each remembered the precise figure I can't imagine.)

None of the diseases associated with GRID were new. Some had previously occurred in drug addicts. And some observers wondered if the new syndrome had developed among these gay men because of their promiscuous, drug taking lifestyle.

But at the same time as doctors had identified the existence of what they thought was a new syndrome scientists had developed a technique to classify and count different types of lymphocytes – white blood cells – and researchers noticed that some GRID patients had low numbers of particular types of white blood cell. It was, therefore, assumed that GRID was infectious and caused by some sort of organism. And thus the AIDS syndrome was born. AIDS was never a new disease but merely an artificial syndrome consisting of several already existing diseases.

Surprisingly, it was upon this fragile theory that the whole AIDS industry has been built.

Naturally, everyone wanted to find the organism responsible for causing AIDS. When HIV was allegedly identified it was given this dubious honour, despite the fact that it was originally isolated in no more than around a third of AIDS patients. (Even today most AIDS patients do not have an HIV infection.)

The strange fact is that despite the billions that have been spent on research the world is still waiting for someone to prove that AIDS really does exist. There is not and never has been any solid research linking HIV to AIDS – let alone proving that HIV causes AIDS.

So, the big question now may appear to be 'What causes AIDS?'

But, in fact, I suspect that in truth that isn't the big question at all.

In reality, I suspect that the big question is: 'Does AIDS actually exist?'

And I suspect that the answer is that it doesn't.

As I have already pointed out AIDS is a syndrome which does not consist of any new symptoms or diseases.

And in order to justify the huge expenditure of time and money on research into finding a cure many of those involved in helping to maintain the AIDS industry have for years been busily changing the rules about the way that AIDS is defined. These days if you die of influenza or tuberculosis there is a good chance that you will be included in the AIDS statistics. (Including TB victims in the AIDS statistics is one of the ways in which the alleged AIDS plague in Africa has been created. This type of 'bending' of the statistics is nothing new. When the authorities wanted to give the impression that smallpox had been conquered by the vaccination programme they attributed many deaths caused by smallpox to chickenpox – even though chickenpox is very rarely a fatal disease.)

I suspect that the immune system breakdown which, in 'developed' countries usually leads to a diagnosis of AIDS, is probably a result of any one of a number of factors.

The use of illicit and recreational drugs has been offered as one explanation but I suspect that the over use of prescription drugs (including, I fear, some of those which may be recommended for the 'treatment' of AIDS) is probably just as significant.

Nutritional deficiencies, constant stress and a steady exposure to carcinogenic chemicals all probably help to explain why AIDS (and other immune system problems) are now so commonplace.

The AIDS syndrome is still commonest among gay men, drug users and haemophiliacs – many of whom are probably exposed to drug use of one sort or another. The available evidence – such as it is – supports my hypothesis as well as any other.

It is my view that the best treatment for AIDS is a powerful immune system reinforcement programme – similar to the one I recommend for avoiding and treating cancer and for avoiding and treating infectious diseases.

There is no doubt that the original predictions for AIDS have all been proved utterly wrong.

In the 1980s a spokesman for the British Medical Association warned that by 1991 every family in Britain would be touched by AIDS and attacked me viciously when I quoted evidence supporting a less scary point of view. Other medical establishment groups jumped on the 'AIDS is going to kill us all so give us lots of money to try and find a cure' bandwagon and the official line was defended with unprecedented ferocity and an astonishing amount of self righteous, sanctimonious venom.

The World Health Organization forecast that 100 million people might be infected by the year 1990 and the Royal College of Nursing in the UK forecast that one in fifty people in Britain would have the disease by the early 1990s. As far as I know none of these groups have apologised for their absurd scaremongering and none have provided an explanation for the size of their error.

In addition numerous organisations and individuals have, when applying for grants, made dramatic promises of 'miracle breakthroughs' and 'wonder vaccines' perhaps because they know that the bigger the promise the larger the grant will probably be.

I have explained how and why AIDS became so fashionable in my book Betrayal of Trust. I believe that gay pressure groups (working to make sure that AIDS did not become established as a 'gay' disease') were responsible for the initial development of the 'plague' myth. And that AIDS was then turned into a major scare through the efforts of insurance companies (eager to find an excuse to put up premiums), drug companies (keen to sell new products), doctors (keen to help drug companies), researchers (eager to get their hands on the vast amounts of money being raised by volunteers), religious groups (desperate to exploit an opportunity to suppress sexual activity outside marriage) and politicians (eager, as always, to leap on an opportunity to frighten the voters – since when voters are frightened it is much easier to introduce new, repressive legislation).

I stand by that account.

But it is now my considered view that the disease we know as AIDS probably doesn't exist and has never existed.

AIDS is a unique invention of the late 20th century: a plague disease that never was and a warning to us all to ignore politicians and the drug company dominated medical establishment.

AIDS is a new and, in my view, misleading name for an increasing number of separate identifiable diseases. It is as though a group of doctors had decided that all children suffering from measles, mumps or diptheria should in future be described as suffering from Child's Disease. And then, when the incidence of measles, mumps and diptheria fell, the doctors, in order to make Child's Disaease fulfil the prophecies made for it and to justify the vast amounts of money spent on it, added new diseases to the list. So, as Child's Disease might grow to include whooping cough and chickenpox, so AIDS has grown and now, for example, patients with tuberculosis can be included in the AIDS statistics. Where is the medical or scientific logic in any of this? Just what is the point? And who benefits? (As Lenin once pointed out, if you understand who benefits then you will know why.)

Perhaps the most worrying thing about AIDS is my suspicion that the hypothesis I have expressed here will never even be acknowledged or discussed by AIDS experts, by people working in the AIDS industry or by the mainstream media.

AIDS has become a sacred disease. To question the motives of those involved in the search for a vaccine or a cure, or the treatment of alleged AIDS patients, is politically incorrect and utterly unacceptable.

My hypothesis fits all the known facts and can explain everything that has happened over the last two decades. But if this hypothesis goes unnoticed nothing much will have changed and the AIDS industry will be following a long established pattern based on a mixture of hypocrisy, expediency and commercial need.

Back in the late 1980s and early 1990s I was vilified for daring to point out that all the available scientific evidence showed that AIDS was not going to be the plague that killed us all.

However, the AIDS industry quickly learned that the best way to silence opposition is to ignore it. That they have done consistently throughout the 90s. And that is what I expect them to continue to do. The silence will hide the truth.