Introduction to the AIDS controversy
In April 1984, U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Margaret Heckler announced to the world at a press conference that an American government scientist had discovered the probable cause of AIDS. This claim, made in the absence of the usual scrutiny and debate that is provided by refereed publication, was nonetheless received as fact by the general scientific community, and without further investigation a vast research program was launched. Based on the proposition that the newly identified retrovirus, termed HIV, is responsible for the apparently irreversible destruction of T-helper cells characteristic of AIDS patients, this program has until now been unsuccessful at providing either a vaccine or a cure, and has resulted in public health policies that are of questionable value in preventing the spread of AIDS. Since 1987, data contradicting a single-virus etiology of AIDS have been accumulating. As a result, a loosely affiliated worldwide network ofscientists - The Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV-AIDS Hypothesis - was formed in an attempt to bring about an impartial investigation of the question that was inadequately considered in 1984: Is HIV really the cause of AIDS? As an explanation for the origin of AIDS, the HIV hypothesis is implausible because it contradicts a number of established principles of virology and immunology. It is also at variance with a growing body of empirical observations. Some Examples: Retroviruses do not typically kill their host cells. On the contrary, they depend on continued replication of the host for their own survival. Viruses typically cause disease shortly after infection, before the immune system of their host can respond. There is no other example of a viral pathogen which causes primary disease only after long and unpredictable latent periods, only in the presence of neutralizing antibodies, and in the virtual absence of gene expression, as HIV is said to do. The number of HIV carriers in the U.S. has remained constant at one million since 1985, when widespread antibody testing was introduced, yet new viruses spread exponentially in a susceptible population. AIDS has remained confined to the same risk groups since it was first identified as a new disease syndrome, and there are many fewer cases than predicted. Approximately 75% of American hemophiliacs have been infected with HIV for more than 10 years. According to the HIV hypothesis at least 50% should have died of AIDS by now, yet mortality among hemophiliacs has not increased and only 2% of HIV-positive hemophiliacs develop AIDS indicator-diseases annually. The same diseases are found in similar frequencies in HIV positive and HIV negative intravenous drug users, and the overall mortality in the two groups is the same. The HIV antibody tests are not standardised. No gold standard has been used and may not even exist to determine specificity. The tests are also not reproducible. The proteins which are considered to be specific to HIV may in fact represent normal cellular proteins. A positive test may represent nothing more than cross-reactivity with the many non-HIV antibodies present in AIDS patients and those at risk. Despite these and many other inconsistencies,
the HIV-AIDS hypothesis remains the sole basis for the public health
policies that are aimed at controlling the spread of AIDS by advocating
(1) "safe-sex" practices, (2) the use of "clean"
needles to inject toxic, unsterile drugs, and (3) the long-term administration
of potent metabolic poisons, like AZT, which are claimed to prolong
the lives of HIV-infected persons; and for research programs directed
almost exclusively at developing pharmaceuticals designed to interfere
with HIV replication. By Claudio Capozza MBBS (Italy), Naturopathic Doctor (Australia) & www.laleva.cc
|
