This article was published in 2004.

<http://www.afrol.com/features/11116>:

----- Begin Quote -----

A growing number of researchers question the "official" inflated
numbers of HIV/AIDS prevalence in African countries such as Botswana,
South Africa and Lesotho. Poor testing, a special diagnosis of AIDS in
Africa and erroneous computer-generated estimates by the UN had led to
"misleading" numbers, they hold. The history of AIDS in Uganda serves
as proof.
The Austrian specialist of reproductive medicine, Christian Fiala,
leads the growing group of researchers questioning the extent of the
AIDS disaster in Africa. He holds that - while there indeed is a
worrying prevalence of HIV on the continent - the numbers presented by
the UN agency UNAIDS and national health authorities are highly
inflated.

Mr Fiala, in a recent reader's letter to the prestigious 'British
Medical Journals', calls for "sense, not hysteria" regarding the AIDS
epidemic in Africa. The claimed high numbers of victims to the
epidemic were only "based on estimates and certain assumptions," he
holds. Fellow researchers hold that the Austrian researcher and the
British journal are "courageous" just for publishing the critique.

Already in 1994, a study published in the 'Journal of Infectious
Diseases' had concluded that the HIV tests used were "possibly not
sufficient for the diagnosis of HIV infection in Central Africa." This
unreliability of HIV tests, according to Mr Fiala, had later been
"confirmed" in several newer medical research studies.

- In Africa in particular, writes Mr Fiala, "people have a high number
of antibodies against infectious diseases or against foreign proteins
after receiving blood or dirty injections. Some of these antibodies
may lead to a false positive HIV test."

But among the millions of Africans given the diagnosis AIDS, only very
few have actually been tested by these "unreliable tests". AIDS
diagnosis on the continent with the highest prevalence is done by
other standards than elsewhere, something that the World Health
Organisation (WHO) had decided on in 1985, given the high costs of
testing.

According to the WHO's Africa definition, "AIDS is diagnosed on the
basis of non-specific clinical symptoms and without an HIV test," Mr
Fiala says. Even today, "people with for example continuous diarrhoea,
weight loss and itching are declared to be suffering from AIDS. But
also the typical symptoms for tuberculosis - fever, weight loss and
coughing - are officially considered to be AIDS, even without an HIV
test," holds the Austrian specialist.

- In order to get a total estimate of AIDS cases, WHO at it's
headquarters in Geneva adds the registered AIDS sufferers to a high
number of unreported cases, which WHO presumes to have occurred,
explains Mr Fiala. "Thus in November 1997, the WHO announced that
since its previous report in July 1996, there had been a further 4.5
million AIDS cases in Africa. In this period, however, only 120,000
AIDS sufferers were actually registered."

Further proof for what the critics of the 'AIDS pandemic' call
"misleading" prevalence numbers was given by the case of Uganda. Ten
years ago, Uganda was internationally recognised as the country worst
struck by the disease, with local prevalence rates reaching 30
percent. Now, the Kampala government celebrates itself as an example
of how to fight AIDS, claiming that its energetic campaigns had turned
the tide.

Mr Fiala considers the Ugandan success story a bluff, assuming that
AIDS prevalence never could have been as high as originally claimed.
Poor testing methods and failed statistics had inflated the numbers.

He finds proof in Uganda's newest population census and household
surveys. During the last decade, the assumed high AIDS prevalence of
the early 1990s should have led to increased mortality in Uganda. This
is not the case. The country's mortality rate has in fact declined,
especially due to lower infant and childhood mortality rates. Uganda's
population now grows at an average annual rate of 3.4 percent - the
highest ever.

Further, he contradicts Ugandan government claims that the numerous
campaigns against AIDS could have led to a change in sexual behaviour
and thus to a fall in HIV infections. The national household survey of
2002 shows that Ugandan girls have the same sexual behaviour as they
had ten and thirty years ago. Further, protection against AIDS has not
improved - only 2 percent of Ugandan women regularly use a condom.

The South African writer Rian Malan in a recent article in the
UK-based 'Spectator' makes similar conclusions regarding the AIDS
pandemic in Southern Africa. In his article "Africa Isn't Dying of
AIDS," Mr Malan reacts to UNAIDS claims that almost 30 million
Africans now have HIV/AIDS.

- But, says Mr Malan, "the figures are computer-generated estimates
and they appear grotesquely exaggerated when set against population
statistics." In Botswana, the country with the world's highest AIDS
prevalence, several reports had suggested that population had dropped
from 1.4 million in 1993 to under a million currently, due to the AIDS
pandemic.

Not true, says Mr Malan. "Botswana has just concluded a census that
shows population growing at about 2.7 percent a year, in spite of what
is usually described as the worst AIDS problem on the planet. Total
population has risen to 1.7 million in just a decade. If anything,
Botswana is experiencing a minor population explosion," the South
African writer concludes.

He continues slaughtering UN and national statistics on South African
AIDS deaths. UNAIDS is using a computer simulator called Epimodel to
estimate AIDS related deaths, which had produced estimations of
250,000 AIDS deaths in South Africa in 1999 alone.

South Africa however, unlike all other African countries, has reliable
mortality reporting. Pretoria data showed that total deaths - of all
kind of causes - in South Africa had been 375,000 in 1999 - "far too
few to accommodate the UN's claims on behalf of the HIV virus," Mr
Malan notes.

A South African study based on local mortality data thus reduced the
number of estimated lethal victims of AIDS to 143,000 - still
representing 40 percent of all deaths in 1999. Later studies resulted
in two more downwards regulations of the assumed AIDS deaths in South
Africa in 1999. Current estimates are of an AIDS death toll somewhere
around 65,000 for that year - "a far cry indeed from the 250,000
initially put forth by UNAIDS," Mr Malan comments.

Local South African studies, where population segments have been HIV
tested, according to Mr Malan show a far lower prevalence than
official estimates. At a university in KwaZulu-Natal, HIV prevalence
was only one ninth of the expected number and bank employees had one
forth of the expected HIV prevalence. Mr Malan believes that the
picture is equal in other African countries, where UNAIDS estimations
are used.

Paul Bennell, a health policy analyst at Sussex University's Institute
for Development Studies (UK), agrees. After the BBC in November 2002
had reported that "one in seven" of Malawian teachers would die of
AIDS in that year alone, Mr Bennell looked at the available mortality
evidence from Malawi.

His 2003 study 'Teacher mortality at primary and secondary schools in
Malawi 1997-2002' found actual teacher mortality to be "much lower
than expected". In Malawi, for instance, the all-causes death rate
among schoolteachers was under 3 percent, not over 14 percent as the
UN's computer-generated estimates had suggested.

Further, teachers' mortality in Malawi appeared to "have peaked in
1999 and 2000," Mr Bennell found. "The epidemic is not growing in most
countries," insists the British scientist. "HIV prevalence is not
increasing as is usually stated or implied," he concludes.

Mr Bennell regrets that "there is virtually no population-based survey
data in most of the high-prevalence countries, including Botswana,
Ethiopia, Malawi, Lesotho, Namibia and Swaziland."

In Lesotho, for example, UNAIDS' computer-generated estimates have
shown dramatic increases in HIV prevalence without testing of the
population. While UNAIDS estimates put HIV prevalence at 8.4 percent
in Lesotho in 1997, this boomed to 23.6 percent in 1999 and 32 percent
in 2001. The numbers have never been tested in real life, however.

For the growing number of sceptical scientists, the allegedly
"misleading" UNAIDS numbers come at a high price for Africans. Mr
Fiala regrets the "fatal consequences" of these numbers. "Thus for
example, UNAIDS 1999 recommended Finance Ministers in the African
countries cut their budgets for social security, education, health,
infrastructure and rural development in order to have more funds
available for the fight against AIDS," he notes.

Also Mr Malan fears the consequences of this "error". It gives the
false impression "AIDS is the only problem in Africa, and the only
solution is to continue the agitprop until free access to AIDS drugs
is defined as a 'basic human right' for everyone."

Meanwhile, he holds, a far greater number of Africans are dying from
diseases that are cured at a much lower cost, such as malaria and
tuberculosis (TB) and research on these diseases is suffering. "Two
million get TB, but last time I checked, spending on AIDS research
exceeded spending on TB by a crushing factor of 90 to one," he notes.
He now urges to "start questioning some of the claims made by the AIDS
lobby."

----- End Quote -----