NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/sci/skeptic/19885

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-19 | 6.3 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!darwin.sura.net!ukma!cs.widener.edu!dsinc!netnews.upenn.edu!sagi.wistar.upenn.edu
From: [e-mail] (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: FAQ refinements regarding HIV and AIDS
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 19 Nov 92 15:10:51 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
Lines: 120
Nntp-Posting-Host: sagi.wistar.upenn.edu
In-reply-to: [e-mail]-mrc (Paul Johnson)

There are some lacunae and misrepresentations in the FAQ that I'd like
to correct.

In article <[e-mail]>, paj@uk (Paul Johnson) writes:
>9.1: What about these theories on AIDS?
>---------------------------------------

>There are two AIDS theories that often appear in sci.skeptic.  The
>first is Strecker's theory that the CIA invented HIV by genetic
>engineering; the second is Duesberg's theory that HIV has nothing to
>do with AIDS.

I don't read s.s enough to know, but perhaps the Rolling Stone Wistar
theory is or is becoming the third AIDS theory often mentioned here?
If you ask, I'll write a paragraph summarizing the issues.

>The generally accepted theory is that AIDS is caused by the Human
>Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV).  There are two different versions of
>HIV: HIV-1 and HIV-2.  These viruses are believed, on the basis of
>their genetic sequences, to have evolved from the Simian
>Immunodeficiency Virus (SIV), with HIV-2 being much more similar to
>SIV.

Note that there are strains of SIV now known that are close to HIV-1.

>a: HIV has been found in preserved blood samples from the 1950's.
>   [Anyone have a reference for this?]

a: AIDS has been retrospectively diagnosed in numerous cases, dating
   back as early as 1952 [1].  HIV has been found in one blood sample
   from 1959 [2].  Modern day contamination of an old sample would not
   work, because the high virus mutation rate makes it easy to trace.

[1] D Huminer, J B Rosenfeld, S D Pitlik "AIDS in the pre-AIDS Era"
REVIEWS OF INFECTIOUS DISEASES v9,#6, (Nov/Dec 87), pp1102-1108.

[2] A J Nahmias et al "Evidence for human infection with an HTLV III/
LAV-like virus in central Africa, 1959" LANCET (1986) 1:1279-80.

>b: We didn't have the biotechnology back then for the necessary gene
>   splicing.  (But maybe the CIA has secret advanced technology?)

b: We didn't have the biotechnology back then for the necessary gene
   splicing.  We also did not know enough about immunology to even
   recognize AIDS as a distinct disease, were someone carrying out
   non-genetic experiments.

>c: The genetic sequences for HIV, SIV, BLV, and OLV are freely
>   available (e.g. from genbank).  You can look at them and compare
>   them yourself.  The HIV sequence is totally different from BLV and
>   OLV, but is fairly similar to SIV, just as the scientists say.

c: The genetic sequences for HIV, SIV, BLV, and OLV are freely
   available (e.g. from genbank).  You can look at them and compare
   them yourself.  Being retroviruses, the sequences are all vaguely
   similar, at least in parts.

   When HIV was first identified, it was called HTLV-III (by Gallo),
   because it was the third Human T-cell Lymphocyte Virus identified.
   The early literature on the virus made the point that HTLV-III was
   closer to OLV than it was to HTLV-I/II, as these were the only ones
   known to compare it with.  But this "closer" is not close enough for
   the alleged gene splicing.

>Duesberg's theory is: HIV is a harmless retrovirus that may serve as a
>marker for people in AIDS high-risk groups.  AIDS is not a contagious
>syndrome caused by one conventional virus or microbe.

Change "contagious" to "infectious".  Contagious refers to a disease for
which breathing in the same room, or shaking hands, or the like is a risk
factor (like pneumonia or typhus, and unlike AIDS).  "Infectious" means
there's an infecting agent causing the disease.

>a: HIV does not meet Koch's postulates for the causitive agent of an
>   infectious disease.
>b: The conversion rate from HIV infection to AIDS depends greatly on
>   the country and risk group membership, so HIV isn't sufficient to
>   cause AIDS.
>c: The HIV virus is minimally active, does not seem to infect many
>   cells, and is suppressed by the immune system, so how could it
>   cause problems?
>d: It takes between 2 and 15 years from HIV infection for AIDS to
>   occur.  HIV should cause illness right away or never.
>e: HIV is similar to other retroviruses that don't cause AIDS.  There
>   seems to be nothing special about HIV that would cause AIDS.
>f: AIDS patients suffer very different diseases in the US and Africa,
>   which suggests that the cofactors are responsible, not AIDS.
>g: How could two viruses, HIV-1 and HIV-2, evolve at the same time?
>   It doesn't seem likely that two deadly viruses would show up
>   together.

>Virtually the entire scientific community considers Duesberg a flake,
>although he was a respected researcher before he came out with his
>theory about AIDS.

This is false.  Duesberg is considered badly wrong, regarding etiology,
but not because he's become a flake.  This is his area of expertise, so
he's worth listening to, even when wrong.  And numerous researchers do
listen to what he has said and take it seriously, without rejecting the
overwhelming evidence that HIV causes AIDS.

The earliest studies of HIV showed that it could kill T-cells in culture.
The conclusion was that this is the disease mechanism.  But later studies
showed that under more realistic conditions, HIV usually does not kill
T-cells (like most retroviruses, it buds off duplicates and lets the cell
live), and his point c) really is a serious stickler in trying to figure
out the actual HIV to AIDS causation mechanism.

Duesberg drew the wrong conclusion.  The right conclusion is that the
causation is something subtle and different from any other known disease.
Several theories abound, with various amounts of experimental evidence.
Unfortunately, we still don't know enough about the immune system.

>More information can be found in published rebuttals to Duesberg, such as in
>Nature V345 pp659-660 (June 21, 1990), and in Duesberg's debate with
>Blattner, Gallo, Temin, Science V241 pp514-517 (1988).

I'll give references if needed.
--
-Matthew P Wiener ([e-mail])