It seems the book mentioned earlier, The River by Edward Hooper, which suggests that HIV crossed to humans from non-human primates by means of an early version of a polio vaccine, is getting very respectful reviews.
Today’s (30 November 1999) science section of The New York Times has an article “New Book Challenges Theory of AIDS Origins” by Lawrence Altman, which says in essence that although Hooper’s case is not conclusive the evidence he presents is enough to warrant a reinvestigation of the evidence.
Hooper’s case rests on the apparent match between the time and place of the earliest confirmed cases of HIV I in humans and the testing of a polio vaccine prepared in tissues from an undetermined species of primate.
(One thing that made ME wonder about the plausibility of the scenario is the requirement that someone have been infected by the virus by taking a vaccine administered orally.)
The Times article states that one reason Hooper’s hypothesis is being taken somewhat seriously is that claims that AIDS existed before the vaccine test rested largely on the case in an English sailor. It is now know that this man did not have AIDS.
I’ve read only the article, not the book. I’m left with the sense that the polio vaccine hypothesis is not wholly impossible, but is rather unlikely.
IIRC in the original *R.S.*article it said that the oral vaccine was administered as a spray, possibly ending up in the mucous membranes of the nose or possibly infecting through bleeding gums.
I remember in the 80s when I called the Center for Disease Control in Atlanta and the guy on the phone clearly stated that HIV has been found in blood samples since around 1910.
This would mean that it was already present so any theory that it could have been made in the 50’s or later is absurd.
If I remember correctly, the NY Times article regarding the vaccination theory covered this. It said one reason the theory was gaining some plausibility is that scientists are now retracting the supposed pre1960s findings of HIV.
In 1992 a story by freelance journalist Tom Cutris was headlined The Origin Of AIDs and it examined the theory that th HIV virus was accidentally introduced into humans via the late 1950’s polio vaccin campaign in Africa. The 1950’s polio vaccine, which was grown in a broth of monkey or chimpanzee tissue, could have contained a then-undetectable simian version of HIV. Viruses can jump from one species to another often with dreadful affects. Teh vaccien was distributed to thousands of people in an area that turned out to be the epi-center of the AIDs outbreak in Africa. All interestign, but most interesting of all: The seed stocks of the original vaccine were said to have been preserved in cold storage. This theory could accually be tested.
When Curtises article ws published in Rolling Stone magazine a few scientists rationally called for testing, others attacked Curtis and his theory as unlikely or impossable since it was published in a Rock and Roll magazine. Still others pointed to overlooked evidence that seemed to disprove it. One eminent doctor sued the magazine. In the end, the tests were never conducted.
In September however, anothe journalist, Edward Hooper, published an exhaustively researched book, “The River: A Journey to the Source of HIV and AIDs”, which strengthens the theory put forth in Curtis’ article. The books publication has renewed the cries for testing and an investigation into the theory. “A seriously researched theory about something so devistating deserves a full scientific investigation even if the theory is unlikely and the chances of proving or disproving it are slim. Since the credo of science is to seek the truth, science should assure the public of it’s integrety,” says Dr. Lawrence K. Altman discussing this theory in the New York Times.
—Derek Mycroft—
This book most certainly does exist. It’s available from Amazon.com for $24.50 and it’s available at the Los Angeles Public Library, so it’s likely to be available at other libraries as well. (It’s 1104 pages long, so don’t expect to read it in one sitting!) On Amazon, under Editorial Reviews, Hooper himself writes:
Information on the origin of HIV from a reliable source:
“Although HIV has not been found in any of the vaccine batches which have been tested thus far, polio vaccines have been found to be contaminated with various other pathogens.”
[[If I remember correctly, the NY Times article regarding the vaccination theory covered this. It said one reason the theory was gaining some plausibility is that scientists are now retracting the supposed pre1960s findings of HIV.]]
The earliest confirmed HIV positive blood sample came from 1959 in what is now the Congo.
Of course HIV can’t meet the qualifications of being proven the cause of AIDS–the proof would be committing murder! Thus failure to meet the qualifications is meaningless.
As for AIDS patients that test negative, remember that the most common test does not look for AIDS at all, but rather for the body's immune reaction to it. Thus a negative does *NOT* prove that HIV isn't present.
[[Thus a negative does NOT prove that HIV isn’t present.]]
But it’s a pretty damn good test, if you allow the one and a half to three months it usually takes for “seroconversion” (the blood developing antibodies) to occur before you test. An HIV test actually is two tests - the first is the ELISA or EIA, which is sensitive - it picks up some false positives - and the Western Blot or another confirmatory test that is specific - weeds out the false positives. It would be extraordinarily rare for a person with AIDS to test negative for HIV antibodies. At least they would have a positive bDNA or viral load, if they aren’t on medical therapy that’s brought it down.
Jill
<HR>
<FONT FACE=“Webdings” SIZE=5 COLOR="#ff2400"> <B> <I>-</I> </B> </FONT>
>But it’s a pretty damn good test, if you >allow the one and a half to three months it >usually takes for “seroconversion” (the blood >developing antibodies) to occur before you >test.
You're assuming that their immune systems aren't already pretty much trashed by the infection, or for some other reason they don't show normal antibody reactions.
Any test based on antibodies rather than the pathogen itself is going to have a few strange results. They are generally false positives, but false negatives can happen as well.
[[You’re assuming that their immune systems aren’t already pretty much trashed by the infection, or for some other reason they don’t show normal antibody reactions.]]
That’s why I mentioned the viral load test, too. Though every case of AIDS I’ve seen, no matter how trashed their immune system, shows a positive antibody test too. I’m thinking of the ones who show up acutely ill in the hospital and often die soon afterwards. They’ve usually never been tested before, received no HIV treatment and probably have been infected for a long time. They may have no CD4 cells left at all. But they all, in my experience, test positive for antibodies. I have read about extraordinarily cases in which people with AIDS tested negative, but that’s why they were written about. It almost never happens.
Jill
