During the early 1980, I worked (and lived) in the middle east. AIDS was just beginning to become a major problem in the US. In many parts of the world it was virtually unheard of yet, but in the Saudi Arabia we heard pleanty of it (because of the the large number of people coming in for Haj (the annual pilgramage to Mecca). At that time it was generally accepted to have originated in Africa and the belief of the time was that it was accidently caused by British Doctors working on a “live-virus” vaccine and testing it in Africa. These other two theories came much later, long after I returned home to the United States.
Ok, first of all, are you replying to a Cecil Adams column?
If so, which one, and do you have the URL?
Secondly, if not, what other two theories are you referring to, and what in your mind gives the man-made theory preferential status?
The fact that that theory was developed first?
One might as well say the earth is flat because that theory was developed first.
Here’s the link to the column on the question of whether AIDS is a manmade disease: http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a3_371.html
Jill, you owe me a margarita… or marguerita… or however it’s spelt, as long as there’s plenny tequila.
Humankind doesn’t have the technical know-how to create such a virus, anymore than we have the know-how to create a vaccine for it. And those margaritas were good, weren’t they, CK? (Though I guess I still owe you one, as we split the tab.)
HIV may not be man-made, but the AIDS apidemic might be. My dad is a geneticist, and I recently had a very interesting conversation with him on this subject. Apparently, the famous Salk polio vaccine might have been the vector linking simian and human cases. The vacine used live, attenuated viruses grown in culture of cells taken from monkeys. In the race to develop a vacine, Jonas Salk cut out some of the testing on the vacine he might otherwise have done. One result of this was that the vacine was later found to have been contaminated with a known virus, SV-40, which causes cancer in monkeys. Wracked with guilt, Salk and later the Salk Institute, spent a great deal of effort in determining whether this contamination could have resulted in increased cancer risk in the kids he tested the vaccine on. The results were negative so-far, but no-one knows for sure what might happen as the recipients age, since many cancers are age-dependent.
As if that’s not bad enough, there’s more. Even though Salk is the one praised as ahero today, most people were not injected with his vaccine, but with a killed-virus serum developed by a compeditor shortly after Salk’s. When the change was made in the U.S. to the killed-virus serum, U.S. drug companies were stuck with huge quantities of leftover live-virus serum. So they did what pharmaceutical companies always do when a drug is declared unsafe or illegal here, they shipped it overseas to countries with poorer healthcare systems and fewer regulations–in this case the very countries in Africa where AIDS is believed to have developed over the next several years. No one bothered to check what other viruses might have contaminated the serum, but the species of monkey used to culture the vaccine was the same species which now carries SIV.
I’ll check with my dad to make sure I got all of the details right. His area of study is ageing, not virology, but he definitly knows enough to tell if the theory is BS or not. As to whether it’s true, well the evidence is all circumstantial, but it’s convincing enough to be scary, IMHO. Anyone out there (Cecil, maybe) want to investigate it?
The Salk vaccine link for AIDS is a fairly old accusation. If it were true, it would be fairly easy to relate the use of vaccines in particular areas of Africa and the intensity of AIDS cases in the earliest times of the epidemic. It would also be likely that remote populations would have a much higher rate of infection usual for a natural epidemic, compared to urban populations in the earliest outbreaks, since the program to innoculate children were far more broadly based than natural vectors would be. These characteristics are not displayed by the epidemiology of AIDS, and a number of other fairly easily verified facts have not been noted by any of the many researchers investigating HIV.
How the disease is transmitted is the single most important aspect in the mystery of this particular disease. If you could only get AIDS from the collection plate at your local church, no one would fail to get tested, however long it had been since he had touched the collection plate. No one minds being suspected of donating to the church.
Virus don’t make judgements of character, and neither should anyone who really wishes to deal with the facts of AIDS. Get tested. If you haven’t gotten laid since 1979, get tested anyway. A negative HIV test won’t hurt you. AIDS kills.
TrisYou are right, Tris that there is no evidence of a link between the vaccine and HIV in Africa or anywhere else. We know how HIV is spread. Almost everyone contracting HIV nowadays has had unprotected sex with someone who is infected or has shared needles with another drug user who is infected. Any claims of unusual modes of transmission are investigated, and we’d soon find out if people were getting it any other ways. I don’t know that people with no risk factors really need to rush out and get tested for HIV, though. And anyone who hasn’t gotten laid since 1979… well, you have my condolences.
Jill
[Note: This message has been edited by JillGat]
James P. Hogan’s essay “AIDS Heresy and the New Bishops” provides some info that may be of interest, based on conversations with Duesberg, and other sources.
Among the data Hogan brings up:
-
The WHO clinical case-definition for AIDS used in Africa (as of 1997) does not rely on an HIV test, and in fact many of the AIDS cases are HIV-negative. So if the definitions of AIDS-Africa and AIDS-USA are different, does it make sense to assume they’re the same disease? (The CDC did add a category of AIDS cases that did not require HIV. Odd, if it’s supposed to be the cause.)
-
At least some of the big increases in reported AIDS cases in the US may have had less to do with more people getting sick than with newer indicator diseases being added to the list. For example, cervical cancer was added to the list, and suddenly heterosexual women were the fastest-growing AIDS group.
-
While correlation of HIV and AIDS seems to be high, the case for a specific causal relationship is weak; Koch’s Postulates for proving the agent of an infectious disease haven’t been met, at least not without redefining them somewhat. (1: Must be present in all cases. 2: Must be isolated from host and cultured. 3: Must be able to cause disease in a new host. 4: Must be present in the new infected host.)
I don’t have any background info myself to back any of this up (nor any background in medicine with which to evaluate the evidence if I had it), but it’s an interesting read. It, and “Ozone Politics” and a couple more, can be found along with some short stories in Rockets, Redheads, and Revolution (the name is a play on the name of an earlier book of his).
–Ken
An addendum to my previous message: I just found out Hogan’s AIDS essay is online at http://www.monadnock.net/fanspaces/hogan/heresy.html if you want to read it there.
(Apologies for getting a little off the original topic of a man-made disease…)
to wax philosophical for a moment…would aids/hiv be a problem for the earth if god had rested on the sixth day rather than the seventh? (plz don’t get into religeon, it’s the point i was looking for) Nature has ways of protecting itself, and how humans manipulate it, rather on purpose or not is of no consequence. So to the point…asking if aids is man made may be like asking if crime is man made> certainly humans have been the main contributor to the epidemic side of it whether in the lab or in the alley or back seat.
An easy AIDs (and other related illnesses) test, in my opinion, is when I donate blood.
If you answer the form honestly, but are still worried, they do test the blood, and let you know privately if there’s any problem.
Since I donate once or twice a year, and still qualify as a donor, at least I’m fairly certain about my status.
First - NEVER NEVER USE A BLOOD DONATION TO CHECK YOURSELF FOR DISEASE. If you are still in a window period after infection, you could pass on infected blood to the recipients of your blood. Go to a public health office to test for HIV. They’ll give you accurate information, and most of them will test you anonymously (not asking for your name).
[[- The WHO clinical case-definition for AIDS used in Africa (as of 1997) does not rely on an HIV test, and in fact many of the AIDS cases are HIV-negative.]] The first part of this statement is true, because many parts of Africa do not have the funds to test everyone for HIV. The second part is completely false. Many seroprevalence studies have confirmed the presence of HIV in populations with AIDS in Africa.
[[So if the definitions of AIDS-Africa and AIDS-USA are different, does it make sense to assume they’re the same disease? (The CDC did add a category of AIDS cases that did not require HIV. Odd, if it’s supposed to be the cause.)]]
The definition of AIDS in Africa and the US are the same. There is another strain that is common in Africa but not in the US (type II) but the test will usually test for both of them. Since when did the CDC “add a category of AIDS cases that did not require HIV”? It is true that there are other diseases that cause immunosuppression and that the CDC investigates all unusual cases of apparent AIDS (those with rare modes of transmission, or where the test for HIV is negative), but the intensive investigation of all such cases just strengthens and confirms that HIV causes AIDS and that the modes of transmission in almost all cases are as they have been.
[[- At least some of the big increases in reported AIDS cases in the US may have had less to do with more people getting sick than with newer indicator diseases being added to the list. For example, cervical cancer was added to the list, and suddenly heterosexual women were the fastest-growing AIDS group.]]
The new criteria that caused the biggest leap in reported cases was the addition of low CD4 counts as an AIDS definition in 1993. Also, of course, adding HIV to the list of notifiable diseases gives a bolus of new cases not previously reported. But it is easy to account for these changes when analyzing data. One can still look at trends over time. We still estimate that 40,000 Americans are newly infected with HIV each year. Heterosexual women did not become the “fastest growing group of AIDS cases” because of the addition of cervical cancer as an AIDS defining condition.
[[- While correlation of HIV and AIDS seems to be high, the case for a specific causal relationship is weak;]]
I could go on, but suffice it to say that the correlation between HIV and AIDS is as strong or stronger than any other disease condition and its causal agent.
For more information about HIV and AIDS, please go to an accurate source, such as www.cdc.gov
Jill
Sorry.
I should point out that as a monogamous person, who has never been the recepient of a blood donation, my chance of AIDs is virtually nill (barring some horrible accident with a needle in a hospital immunization, or some bizarre acident in a restroom or somesuch)
I just felt fairly certain that I could shift myself from low-risk to none, since I donate regularly.
Suggesting it as a method for someone who thinks they may have been infected would be very stupid, and I hope I didn’t give that impression.
[[I should point out that as a monogamous person, who has never been the recepient of a blood donation, my chance of AIDs is virtually nill (barring some horrible accident with a needle in a hospital immunization, or some bizarre acident in a restroom or somesuch)]]
You’re right. And as long as you answer all the questions honestly when you donate, no problem.
On the origin of HIV/AIDS:
http://hivinsite.ucsf.edu/social/spotlight/2098.3cce.html
Thanks for the info, Tris and Jill! With out checking all the references, it certainly seems from the UC website that the Salk vaccine is an unlikely vector (though possibly not the needles that were used!). Nevertheless, it doesn’t sound totally resolved, especially since, as the article pointed out, there are huge social pressures on the scientific community not to credit that theory.
In any case, Jill, I certainly was not suggesting that anything but the known vectors cause transmission today. Part of the scientific process, of course, involves continuously reevaluating even well established theories, so it makes sense for researchers to consider other possible modes of transmission. Using that as an excuse to engage in behavior that, frankly, would be pretty stupid even if it weren’t for AIDS, makes about as much sense as jumping off a ten-story building because physicists still debate how gravity works. Hopefully, anyone reading this already knows that, though.
Thanks, Jill, for the pointers. It’ll take some time to look through all the info (and Hogan’s web site has pointers to several sites supporting the opposite view). The summaries, of course, are too vague to analyze in this context (e.g., when so-and-so “developed AIDS” after exposure to HIV, what does it mean besides showing antibodies for HIV, and does “no other risk factors” mean isolation or merely not being in one of the high-risk groups), and more specific data could take forever to sort through. And, as I said, I haven’t the medical background for much of it. Still, when a respected researcher in retroviruses is (from these perhaps biased reports) ignored and then ridiculed for suggesting that a disease may not be caused by the suspected retrovirus, it can’t hurt to be a little skeptical and try to examine both viewpoints ourselves. Especially when the status quo involves the dominant side getting lots of funding, and the alternate theory threatens to take it away.
Re fast-growing groups: Yes, the changing definitions can be accounted for in re-processing the raw data. But that has to happen. In general, anyone playing fast and loose with statistics, whether intentionally or not, can produce sensationalist stories that may not be supported by the raw numbers.
Re definitions: I haven’t dug up the specific data yet on the various web sites. I was going from Hogan’s statement of Duesberg’s argument, which was that some of the AIDS categories boil down to, “If you have indicator disease X and are HIV-negative, you have X; if you’re HIV-positive, you’ve got AIDS.”
Kyberneticist:
Is that really true in the U.S.? Here in Germany, all donated blood is tested (and you’re informed if necessary). If you identify yourself on the form as belonging to a risk group, they use only certain components of the blood regardless of the test results, because of the window period that Jill mentioned.
FWIW, New York Blood Services tests all blood they receive. They check for HIV, hepatitis, and a couple of other infections; if any are found, the donor is informed and the blood is not transfused into anyone else. (It’s used for research instead.)
I’m sure that practices vary somewhat, especially outside the US. YMMV.
Laugh hard; it’s a long way to the bank.
In the USA, all blood is screened for blood-borne pathogens. If someone has risk factors for a disease, then the blood is probably tested, but it isn’t used regardless of whether anything is found or not.
[[Part of the scientific process, of course, involves continuously reevaluating even well established theories, so it makes sense for researchers to consider other possible modes of transmission. ]]
Exactly. And that’s part of my job.
Jill