Chapter Nine
Sarah recognizes Dr. Alan Fowler as he walks to the witness stand. He testified in the AIDS trial a couple months ago in Phoenix; in fact, he was Benjamin Messick’s first witness in the case, talking about the human immune system and the definition of AIDS. She hopes she doesn’t have to sit through the same presentation again, although she remembers that she learned a lot from it.
Right now Dr. Fowler has been sworn in and taken his seat in the witness chair. Campbell is still fumbling around with his legal pad at the lectern, but the judge doesn’t seem to be impatient, yet. Maybe he’s a little more lenient on a Monday morning. Ah, here we go.
“Dr. Fowler, how long have you been Chief of Internal Medicine at Johns Hopkins?”
“Almost six years.”
“And after you graduated from Harvard Medical School, what did you specialize in?”
“Immunology.”
“And have you been published in the field of immunology?”
“Many times.”
“Dr. Fowler, will you please tell us how the immune system works in a normal human being?”
“We don't know with 100% certainty...”
Armand is standing. “Your Honor, what exactly is the relevance of a lecture I hear coming about the human immune system?”
Campbell leaves the lectern and walks toward the judge. “Your Honor, we’re discussing an HIV test based on detecting antibodies in human blood. Antibodies are a function of the immune system, and I think it is critical that we understand how that immune system works and what antibodies actually do in a human being. In addition, I’m going to present some testimony later about the relationship between the HIV tests and the CD4 cells, or T-cells, of the immune system. So it’s very relevant.”
This time Judge Stevenson is not so sure. “I’m going to allow this testimony to proceed, but if I find that you’re off track, Mr. Campbell, I’m going to stop you. Objection overruled. Ask your questions, Mr. Campbell.”
“Thank you, Your Honor.”
Campbell repositions himself behind the lectern and scans his notes to refresh his memory.
“Dr. Fowler, you were about to tell us how the immune system works in a normal human being.”
“As I started to say, we don't know with 100% certainty. But I brought along some of the teaching aids I created at Johns Hopkins that try to explain our theories in very simple terms, if that will help.”
Campbell turns to the Judge. “Your Honor, with the court’s permission, we’d like to show the jury a short video presentation.”
When neither the judge nor Armand object, Campbell picks up a remote control, pushes a button, and a large roll-up screen descends from the ceiling clearly visible to both the jury and gallery. Sarah has to move only slightly to her right to get an excellent view.
With the touch of another button, the lights in the courtroom dim and the screen comes alive. It is Dr. Fowler’s voice on the video.
“The human body has a wonderful and intricate immune system to help it fight off disease. One of the major components of that immune system is a group of cells called T-cells. There are several different kinds of T-cells, each with its own unique function. For example, one group is known as ‘Helper’ T-cells, or CD4 cells.”
While Fowler narrates, high-tech graphics on the screen portray the Helper T-cells in action.
“They're the watchdogs for the body. They continually search throughout the body, looking for anything foreign they don't recognize, and then notify the body about the invader. For example, if you get a splinter in your finger, the Helper T-cells will find it and then sound the alarm, warning of a possible danger.”
The video shows a young boy getting a splinter, and then the camera zooms in toward his finger and seemingly continues right through his skin to show an animated rendition of the Helper T-cells at work.
“Or if you come in contact with a strange bacterium or virus, the Helper T-cells will activate the body's immune system. In other words, they ‘help’ the body maintain its health.”
Campbell shoots a glance at the jury to make sure they’re with him so far. They are.
“When the foreign invader has been identified, the next thing is to figure out how to destroy it. The first step is to find a key that will open the door of the invader’s defenses and make it vulnerable to a counter-attack. If no key is available already, the immune system will make a new one.”
The video shows different keys trying to open the lock on a door of a cell. Finally, one succeeds, and the inside of the invading cell is exposed.
“What happens next is that ‘Killer’ T-cells are released by the immune system to storm in and destroy the invader and also any cells in the body which are presently infected by the outside organism.”
The video is very cleverly going back and forth between live shots of actual Killer T-cells and animation of how they operate.
“And finally, the immune system creates an antibody – a kind of ‘memory chip’ that remembers exactly what key was successful in breaking through this particular invader’s defenses. The immune system will keep this antibody memory chip for the rest of its life to fight any future invasion by this same intruder. This is the basic theory behind the flu vaccines, or measles vaccine, or any other vaccine.”
The video zooms out from inside the young boy’s body, back through his skin, and stops to show him receiving a vaccination in a doctor’s office.
“In a smallpox vaccination, for example, a very small amount of the disease organism is introduced in the body intentionally. The Helper T-cells locate the invader and alert the immune system; the right key is found or created to open the small pox cells; the Killer T-cells destroy all the smallpox bacteria and any infected cells; the immune system creates the antibody against the smallpox bacteria; and the body is now ready to defend against any future smallpox invasion. We have virtually succeeded in eradicating small pox from the world mainly through this process of artificially stimulating a large number of human bodies to destroy the small pox virus by way of these vaccinations.”
Campbell interrupts. “I'm going to pause the tape there for a minute.”
As the lights come back up, Campbell turns to the witness. “Dr. Fowler, could you boil all that down to one or two sentences for us?”
Fowler isn’t quite sure how he can make it any easier or simpler to understand, but he’ll give it a shot. “Well, the immune system of a healthy human body protects us from disease using special cells we call T-cells to alert the body to an invasion and attack the invader. When we've been successful in our defense, those cells that are fighting the invader are called off, and we will have made antibodies to prevent that specific disease from making us sick in the future.”
“And if this system is working correctly?”
“We might have some mild symptoms of a disease, but after a short time our body should return to normal and we will usually not have that same disease again, because the invader has been neutralized and we are now protected. In fact, in most cases we say that we are ‘immune’ from that disease now.”
Campbell looks at the jury again to make sure he’s not losing them. They still appear to be okay. At least no one is sleeping or looking confused.
“Dr. Fowler, how do these antibodies actually work?”
“Again, we don’t know exactly how they work, but we have a pretty good idea. It’s all based on… why don’t you let the video explain it, and then I can answer questions again afterwards.”
Campbell dims the lights and starts the tape again.
“The human body is an incredibly efficient machine,” says Dr. Fowler on the video. “But you could also call it very lazy. It wants to do as little work as possible. When something foreign invades the body, it first looks to see if it already has antibodies to fight that particular invader, so it already knows how to defeat it and doesn’t have to go through the whole process again.”
The video is showing graphics of a
germ with a lock on its surface making its way through the skin of a young girl, and imaginary antibodies shaped like keys approaching the germ, seeing if they fit into the lock. One by one, the antibody-key images don’t fit and then disappear.
“If the body finds a pre-existing antibody that works against the invader, it will use it open the door and then trigger the Killer T-cells.”
Finally, one of the antibody-keys fits into the lock, turns and unlocks the germ, exposing its insides to thousands of Killer T-cells that then destroy it.
“But if no antibody is found for this particular invader, the immune system must start over from scratch by identifying the invader’s particular protein makeup, making a new key to open up the invader, activating the Killer T-cells that will destroy it, and finally making the antibody memory chip that will protect from a future attack from the same invader.”
Campbell punches the Stop button and turns up the lights. He also retracts the screen, obviously finished with the video presentation.
“Dr. Fowler, can you explain a little bit more about this ‘key’ that winds up being recorded as what you have called an ‘antibody memory chip’?”
“Basically, it has to do with deciphering the protein make-up of the invading organism and how to dismantle those proteins and therefore kill the unwanted cells. Do you need to know more than that?”
Campbell considers the question for a minute and then decides, “Probably not. So can you help us apply what we’ve just learned specifically to HIV antibodies?”
“Yes. If the Human Immunodeficiency Virus should enter a human body, the immune system will first look to see whether it already has an antibody with the right key to unlock the HIV and send out the Killer T-cells to destroy it. If not, it will isolate the HIV, find out what this HIV is made of, create a new key, activate the Killer T-cells, and make a new antibody with that specific key code for the next time HIV appears.”
“So if someone has the antibodies to HIV in their blood…”
“…it means that at some point, HIV was detected and the immune system went through the process of finding out what it had to do to destroy the virus, and created those so-called antibody memory chips when it discovered the correct key.”
Campbell had made a few notes on his yellow pad during Fowler’s last comments. Now he looks up at the witness again.
“Are you saying that HIV antibodies are not produced until the body has figured out how to successfully defeat HIV?”
“Think about it, Mr. Campbell. Why would the body, this incredibly efficient and lazy machine, produce antibodies to something before it had discovered how to destroy it? That would be a waste of time, don’t you think? Why create an antibody that turned out to be the wrong key – that did not result in successfully neutralizing the invader – and take up valuable memory space with useless data?”
“So we don’t have antibodies until we’ve been infected with something that poses some danger to us?”
“I didn’t say that. We inherit some antibodies from our mother at birth, which gives us a head start in fighting diseases for the first eighteen months of our lives – until our own immune system can take over. There are also immune-boosting nutrients in the mother’s breast milk, which is one of the reason breast feeding is so important to the health of a newborn child. In addition, we believe that certain antibodies might be genetically transmitted from both parents to a child as kind of dormant memory chips that can be activated if the child later encounters the same foreign invader that infected his father or mother. Remember, ‘highly efficient and very lazy.’ All of this is called ‘naturally acquired passive immunity.’”
Campbell decides not to pursue the question of inheriting HIV antibodies; it would simply be too much for the jury to grasp at this point. Besides, he had more important points he wanted to get across. “I assume there are other kinds of immunities as well?”
“Yes, and the kind we’re talking about today is called ‘naturally acquired active immunity,’ when we are exposed to a live pathogen – one of those ‘invading organisms’ I mentioned – and create our own antibodies.”
“So, Dr. Fowler, let’s get back to the specific HIV antibodies. I believe you said they were produced as the last step in the immune system’s process of fighting this virus. What I want to know is: Can we have HIV antibodies if we are currently infected with live and active HIV itself?”
“Technically, yes, we can – but for a limited amount of time. Remember that we don’t produce antibodies until our immune system has figured out how to defeat – and is in the process of destroying – the invading organism. So let’s first talk about someone who already has antibodies to HIV, either created from some past invasion of the virus or inherited from our parents, but they get infected again for some reason. Their existing antibodies would be activated, which would then release the Killer T-cells already proven to be successful against HIV. In this case, we could have HIV antibodies present along with the active HIV itself while the Killer T-cells were doing their job of destroying the virus.”
“But if we don’t have antibodies to HIV already?”
“Then our immune system would have to start from scratch to create the right key to let the Killer T-cells do their job to defeat HIV, and then produce the antibodies before all traces of the active virus were destroyed. In both cases, we can have HIV antibodies and live, active HIV present simultaneously. But as I said, that would be for a limited amount of time – and I mean days or even weeks, maybe; not months, or years. In the vast majority of cases, the presence of HIV antibodies would indicate a past infection rather than a present one.”
That was only half of the answer that Campbell was looking for. “Dr. Fowler, can we create new HIV antibodies without the Killer T-cells being activated, which would mean that our bodies were not destroying the HIV?”
“No. At least, it’s not logical. The immune system would not create antibodies until it knew with 100% certainty that it had found the right key required to successfully defeat the HIV, as evidenced by the actual performance of the Killer T-cells. Remember that a primary function of antibodies is to record exactly what key is required to destroy a particular invading organism, and that won’t occur until the destruction process is clearly working.”
Campbell pauses and looks up at the ceiling for a minute, apparently trying to remember something.
“But aren’t there other diseases where you have the antibodies to a virus like HIV, and also have live and active virus causing damage in the body at the same time?”
“Well, until HIV, there was never a case where a positive antibody test result would be interpreted diagnostically as a current, active infection with a virus. There is a test for syphilis, called a Wasserman, and supposedly you can have a positive Wasserman and still have an active syphilis infection. But syphilis is caused by a bacterium, not a virus. So I will say again that until HIV came along, in the absence of any symptoms, a positive antibody test for a virus meant immunity from the disease it could cause and not a current infection.”
Fowler moves slightly in the witness chair before continuing. “When the CDC decided to equate having the antibodies to HIV with having the active, live virus itself, all previous antibody theory – and vaccination theory, as well – suffered a severe blow. So today you can have something like Hepatitis C, where you can supposedly have the antibodies to HCV and yet at the same time have Hepatitis itself – which, by the way, is highly questionable, and a lot of scientists still don’t agree. But this had never happened before HIV, and it was a very disastrous precedent the CDC set which has literally thrown traditional medical and scientific research into chaos.”
Once again Campbell is careful not to get sidetracked into other issues. “Dr. Fowler, let’s get back to the presence of antibodies indicating a past infection, rather than a present one.”
“Yes, let’s, because there is definitely more to be said on that subject.”
“The CDC says that h
aving the antibodies to HIV – in other words, testing Positive on an HIV test – means that the person is currently infected with the virus.”
“I beg to differ. As I said, there may be a period of time when active virus and the antibodies to it are present together, but that is very short-lived; and to say that having evidence of HIV antibodies constitutes current infection violates the entire theory of vaccinations, for example.”
“How so?”
“How much do you know about vaccinations, Mr. Campbell.”
“Not enough, obviously.”
“Well, I touched on it a little in the video, but let me elaborate. The first vaccine was developed in 1796 by Edward Jenner who was trying to protect people against the cowpox virus. In fact, the name ‘vaccine’ itself comes from the Latin ‘vacca,’ meaning ‘cow.’ The whole point of a vaccination is to inject a small amount of a dangerous germ – either alive or dead – into the human body to stimulate the immune system into fighting it. The amount is so small that it cannot usually cause a bad case of the disease itself, but large enough for the immune system to consider it a threat and go through the process of developing the Killer T-cells to fight it off and creating the antibodies to protect against future invasions.”
“Please give us a specific example.”
“Let’s take something most people are familiar with – the flu vaccine. The idea is to give you a little bit of the flu virus in a flu shot so that your body can make the antibodies to it, so that you won’t get the actual flu in the future.”
“You’re saying that the point of a vaccination is to fool the body, almost, into turning on its immune system and eventually producing antibodies to that particular germ.”
“You could say it that way, yes. And whenever we get vaccinated against something, if the vaccine was successful, we say that we are now immune from the disease that germ could cause. Case in point again: the world is now immune from the small pox virus; or at least, that’s what the World Health Organization declared in 1979, I think. Maybe it was 1980. At any rate, that, in fact, is the only point in getting vaccinated in the first place – to produce immunity, or close to it.”
“So if you have the antibodies to a germ, you’re supposed to be immune to the disease it causes?”
“That’s right.”
“Then having the antibodies to HIV can only mean that our immune system has done its job, and done it well, defeating the HIV infection and creating immunity to whatever problem HIV might cause in the future.”
“Objection. Leading the witness.”
“Sustained. Rephrase, Mr. Campbell.”
The judge was right, and so was Armand, but Campbell had decided to try it anyway. No problem. Rephrase. “Dr. Fowler, what does it mean, then, to have the antibodies to a virus like HIV?”
“Traditionally, it has meant that our immune system has done its job perfectly, defeating the HIV infection and creating immunity to whatever problem HIV might cause in the future.”
A chuckle started in the jury box and went around the gallery as Fowler repeated, almost word-for-word, the question Campbell had asked.
“So someone who is told they are HIV-Positive as a result of taking an HIV test…”
“…should actually be happy about it. I know that sounds strange, and the thousands of people who have been told they are HIV-Positive are obviously not happy about it. But think for a minute. Testing HIV-Positive means that you have the antibodies to HIV – not the virus itself, but the antibodies – and having the antibodies has always meant that you have successfully defeated, or are successfully defeating, a dangerous invader and are now immune to any disease it could cause. Frankly, being told you are HIV-Positive would normally be no more serious than being told you had green eyes or brown hair; better actually, because it would signal a healthy immune system, one that was working well and had created immunity for you.”
“I thought HIV was supposed to destroy a person’s immune system.”
“It is. At least that’s what we’ve been told for many years.”
“But do I understand you correctly that we couldn’t have created antibodies to HIV unless our immune system was working properly – as it should?”
“That’s exactly what I’m saying. The fact that we have antibodies to HIV can only mean that our immune system was healthy enough to go through the process of detecting and defeating the Human Immunodeficiency Virus and making antibodies against it for the future. Having antibodies is almost always a sign of a healthy immune system, in other words, not a sick one.”
“But that’s not what we’re being told.”
“You’re right, it isn’t. Instead, people are scared to death when they are told they are HIV-Positive, because the CDC has made it sound like having the antibodies to HIV means that you have active, dangerous virus itself floating around in your blood, ready to multiply exponentially and kill you. And they said that without any proof, by the way.”
“That’s what our last witness said as well.”
Campbell pauses to read his notes and find out where he wants to go from here. But before he can ask his next question, Fowler speaks up.
“Let me ask you a question, Mr. Campbell.”
Campbell feels so confident that Fowler is on his side and wouldn’t be trapping him, he grants this totally unusual request from the witness.
“Yes?”
“The so-called AIDS experts have been saying for years that an HIV vaccine is just around the corner, right?”
Campbell is amazed that Armand would let him get away with this. “Yes, starting with the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services at the press conference on April 23, 1984, when she announced that Dr. Gallo had found the probable cause of AIDS. She also announced that she expected a vaccine to be developed ‘within two years’ – her exact words. That was over twenty years ago, with hundreds of billions of dollars spent since in vaccine research.”
“So my question is this.” Fowler looks at the jury rather than at Campbell. “How are we going to know when we have made a successful vaccine against HIV?”
“Your Honor, what is this? Since when do we allow witnesses to ask questions of the attorneys? This is ridiculous!” Armand is looking at Campbell incredulously.
Campbell can’t help but laugh inside. He’s actually getting to like Armand a lot.
The judge doesn’t seem to be as amused as he shoots a disapproving look at the Solicitor. “It took you long enough, Mr. Armand. I was wondering the same thing, and when you were going to object. Knock it off, Mr. Campbell.”
“Very well, Your Honor. Dr. Fowler, let me turn the question around and ask you the same thing. How will we know when we have a successful HIV vaccine?”
“I don’t know the answer to that question, which is why I was asking you.”
“Well, how do we know whenever we have created a new, successful vaccine to any virus?”
“That’s simple. People test Positive on an antibody test after getting the vaccine.”
There is a loud gasp in the courtroom as the reality sinks in. The judge even has to use his gavel to restore quiet again. The shock is something Campbell wants to play up.
“What you’re saying is that people are already testing Positive for HIV antibodies – the very things an HIV vaccine would be designed to create – but an HIV-Positive test result is being interpreted completely differently for some reason; and if we want to produce a successful HIV vaccine, we’d be trying to create antibodies to HIV, which already exist in these people and show up on the HIV tests.”
Fowler nods. “Maybe that’s why, Mr. Campbell, we still don’t have a vaccine after twenty-three years.”
Campbell is flipping pages on his legal pad to decide what questions to ask next when the judge interrupts.
“Mr. Campbell, have you finished with this witness?”
“No, Your Honor. I have quite a few more questions for Dr. Fowler.”
The judge doesn’t look t
oo thrilled with that answer. “Then we’re going to stop here and take a lunch break. You can continue this afternoon, Mr. Campbell. Court is recessed until two p.m.”
Sarah watches Fowler as he leaves the witness stand. He seems different somehow from the way he was at the AIDS trial a few months ago. Then he appeared to be a totally objective expert witness about the human immune system. Now he seems more… what’s the word… opinionated about HIV and AIDS, more convinced that there are severe problems with the HIV=AIDS hypothesis, even critical of those he called the ‘so-called AIDS experts.’ Sarah assumes he’s done his own research since the AIDS trial and come to his own conclusions, putting him ahead of the rest of his peers.
It was too soon for the full effects of the AIDS trial to make its way into mainstream thought, but slowly and surely the scientific community is recognizing the serious flaws in the HIV=AIDS theories and calling for a reevaluation of the real cause of AIDS. Of course, Sarah’s not going to hold her breath waiting for Dr. Gallo, or Dr. Fauci, or the AIDS-Nazis John Moore and Mark Wainberg, to stand up and admit they had made a big mistake for the last twenty-some years. That would probably never happen.
But trials like this one, bringing out the truth about the HIV tests, could go a long way toward stopping the diagnosis of people as HIV-Positive and bringing down the whole HIV house of cards. It’s really only a matter of time, she decides.
Are You Positive? Page 12