Unfortunately, it's very hard to say what the real story is. There have been so many changes in the definition of AIDS and so much manipulation of statistics that it's extremely difficult to separate fact from fiction. For example, the Centers for Disease Control originally defined AIDS as the appearance of one or more opportunistic diseases caused by an underlying immune system defect. Then in 1985, after Robert Gallo announced his miraculous discovery, the CDC revised its AIDS definition to require that the patient be Positive for HIV antibodies. It also required that there must be a low number of T4 "helper" cells or a low ratio of T4 to T8 cells to prove immune deficiency.

This meant a lot of lab work and expensive tests, and doctors in the field were not too happy. So the CDC changed their minds again in 1987. Now you needed no evidence of malfunctioning T-cells. Nor did you need an HIV test. If you had one of the opportunistic diseases, you were considered to have AIDS, and you were simply assumed to be HIV Positive. On the other hand, if you had an opportunistic disease and a laboratory-verified low T-cell count, but tested HIV Negative, you were still classified as an AIDS patient.

To add to the confusion, the CDC began expanding its list of AIDS diseases to include more than just the opportunistic infections. Kaposi's sarcoma, certain kinds of lymphoma (cancer), dementia (mental deterioration), and wasting syndrome (losing weight and body mass) had begun appearing in many of the diagnosed AIDS patients. Even though none of these diseases had anything to do with a suppressed immune system, by 1987 they were all AIDS diseases by definition.

Kaposi's sarcoma quickly became the hallmark disease of AIDS, with its ugly lesions on the chest and face and mouth. This was a little surprising, since Kaposi's sarcoma (KS) had always been defined as cancerous lesions on the lower legs and limited to elderly men of specific Jewish or Italian background. Apparently the AIDS lesions looked so similar to Kaposi's sarcoma that someone just adopted the name. However, recent research has proven that what has been called KS in AIDS patients is not a cancer at all, but in fact disappears totally from the patient just before death (which no cancer does).

And there is great confusion currently whether Kaposi's sarcoma is still considered an AIDS disease by the CDC. Some say it has been removed from the list; others disagree. What is known is that KS has nothing to do with the virus called HIV, that it is directly linked to the use of amylnitrites, and that the chest and facial lesions probably result from skin reactions to the drug as it is inhaled. Amylnitrites, of course, have been proven to destroy the human immune system.

Between 1987 and 1993, the CDC decided to add more non-opportunistic diseases to the list for AIDS, this time including infections like tuberculosis, recurrent pneumonia, and cervical cancer. All in all, the list now contains 30 different diseases.

Let's see if we can get this straight. AIDS is supposed to be the appearance of opportunistic diseases that arise because the body's immune system has ceased functioning properly due to some unknown cause. Then how did Kaposi's sarcoma ever get to be called AIDS in the first place -- much less dementia, lymphoma, or wasting syndrome? Why have non-opportunistic diseases been added? If a disease has not been the result of immune deficiency, how can it be called "Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome?"

Picture this....two patients walk into a hospital with identical symptoms of tuberculosis. Neither of them are given T-cell blood tests, but both are given HIV antibody tests. One is HIV Positive, and the other HIV Negative. The HIV Positive patient is diagnosed as "AIDS." The HIV Negative patient is diagnosed as "tuberculosis." Does that make any sense?

By definition, anyone with one or more of the opportunistic diseases on the official CDC list will be diagnosed with AIDS automatically and presumed to be HIV Positive, whether or not an HIV antibody test was done. And anyone with one or more of the non-opportunistic diseases on the official CDC list will be diagnosed with AIDS if they are also HIV Positive. In short, if you are HIV Positive and sick, you have AIDS.

If you are HIV Negative and sick, you either have AIDS if it is an opportunistic disease with a laboratory-verified low T-cell count, or you are diagnosed under the standard name of the disease and not AIDS.

But what if you are HIV Positive and you aren't sick? There are at least 500,000 people in the U.S. who fall into this category -- 1,000,000 HIV Positives minus 400,000 AIDS cases. And that's assuming that all of the 400,000 AIDS cases were HIV Positive, which is not true.

HIV Positive and healthy? Unfortunately, this is the worst possibility of all. As we will see in a minute, if you believe what most doctors will tell you, you will start taking the drug called AZT as a "precaution" against getting AIDS in the future -- and there's a 50-50 chance you'll be dead in about two years.