HIV hypothesis wrong, or in trouble?

[Cognition]

Hi, I have a question and I hope that a molecular biologist or anyone who really knows can give me an answer without immediately ridiculing it.

I noticed that some very prominent scientists (especially Peter Duesberg, see his website http://www.duesberg.com) including some Nobel-prize winners like Kary Mullis and Walter Gilbert, are seriously criticising the HIV-hypothesis. How true is all this? Are they just telling lies or is they a real problem here?

[zyncod]

They're mistaken and unwilling to let go of a pet hypothesis. Duesberg is not even a virologist. There was a time in the early 90s when the concordance of HIV with AIDS was questionable, and there was a chance that the drugs of that time (AZT, etc) were seriously hurting people. As our understanding of the virus has evolved, almost no educated person still questions the HIV-AIDS link. With the cocktail drugs of today, AIDS is more of a chronic disease than a death knell.

[ecoli]

They're mistaken and unwilling to let go of a pet hypothesis. Duesberg is not even a virologist. There was a time in the early 90s when the concordance of HIV with AIDS was questionable,

 

I believe it's still questionable, but at least it's less questionable now.

 

 

What do you mean? We know that AZT hurts people. It's a very dangerous drug, we just hope it kills the HIV virus faster then humans

 

As our understanding of the virus has evolved, almost no educated person still questions the HIV-AIDS link.

 

Which would make it a particularly hard blow to find out if it wasn't true. I'm not saying absolutely either way, but I still harbor some doubts. Especially due to the faulty research from day one.

 

AFAIK, there hasn't been a single HIV virus isolated from any human sperm to date.

[Cognition]

What I am also very curious about is the "facts" duesberg mentions in his papers. He is saying several things that seem to me to be quite "difficult" for the HIV hypothesis to explain away. He has done a lot of research to retroviruses that might cause Cancer and he says HIV is also of the type "retrovirus": it is a relatively simple virus, with one genome, and it is very strange that people that are infected with it experience a slight disturbance in their health (flu-like symptoms) and that this passes, the body makes anti-bodies and then the virus may stay dormant for years, before people develop AIDS. and even in People that are literally dying from AIDS it is extremely hard to find the virus, while you would expect abundance of the virus in those people....On the other side, it seemd to be extremely difficult to clearly find out the mechanism by which HIV cripples the Immune-system, and Robert Gallo now is convinced "cofactors" have to be part of the explanation. How far is the REAL knowlegde about HIV and AIDS at the end of 2005. Do we know now exactly the mechanism by which HIV cripples the Immune system?

[Dak]

AFAIK, there hasn't been a single HIV virus isolated from any human sperm to date.

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10616359&dopt=Abstract

 

just the first one that I found... HIV virions have definately been found in semen.

[Dak]

On the other side, it seemd to be extremely difficult to clearly find out the mechanism by which HIV cripples the Immune-system, and Robert Gallo now is convinced "cofactors" have to be part of the explanation. How far is the REAL knowlegde about HIV and AIDS at the end of 2005. Do we know now exactly the mechanism by which HIV cripples the Immune system?

 

AFAIK, no-one knows the exact mechanisms... its a pretty safe assumption that the production of multiple HIV viruses kills many CD4+ cells, but it is thought there are probably other mechanisms at work; for example, its possible that failed infection attempts by HIV might leave gp120 on the surface of CD4+ cells, causing them to fuse with other CD4+ cells, rendering both cells inoperable; or that the body makes anti-(anti-gp120-antibody)-antibodys, which bind to CD4+ cells and mark them for attack by macrophages.

 

Whatever the mechanisms, theres a pretty obviouse correlation between HIV infection and AIDS.

[ecoli]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10616359&dopt=Abstract

 

just the first one that I found... HIV virions have definately been found in semen.

 

I stand corrected.

 

Whatever the mechanisms' date=' theres a pretty obviouse correlation between HIV infection and AIDS.[/quote']

 

One of Mullis' main points, is that the correlation can be misintepreted. For example. if somebody tests positive for HIV and they die of cancer, then there death is said to be AIDS related. If another person tests positive for HIV, but doesn't get cancer, they are said to not suffer from AIDs. If a person is not tested for HIV and they die from cancer, then they are said to have died from cancer. Do you see why there is the potential for the correlation not to be accurate?

[Cognition]

Indeed. And that is why all the "circumstantial" evidence is not as solid as it seems at first glance

[zyncod]

One of Mullis' main points, is that the correlation can be misintepreted. For example. if somebody tests positive for HIV and they die of cancer, then there death is said to be AIDS related. If another person tests positive for HIV, but doesn't get cancer, they are said to not suffer from AIDs. If a person is not tested for HIV and they die from cancer, then they are said to have died from cancer. Do you see why there is the potential for the correlation not to be accurate?

 

Except that AIDS patients tend to die of cancers that other patients don't get. Like Kaposi's sarcoma, and other usually virally-mediated cancers.

 

What do you mean? We know that AZT hurts people. It's a very dangerous drug, we just hope it kills the HIV virus faster then humans

 

AZT is not really used any more, and the drugs of today are far less dangerous. Given the complex etiology of immune disorders, the HIV-AIDS concordance was a cause for concern in the early 90s. Now, with the "experimental" situation we have in Africa, no real scientists continue to doubt this.

 

And it's actually kind of callous and insulting to these millions of people that people like Duesberg continue to put this stuff out there, considering that they obviously are not up to date on the literature. It gives people like Thabo Mbeki a reason not to give pregnant women antiretrovirals, and therefore many more babies are born with AIDS than need be. It would be fine if Duesberg was questioning this within the scientific community and wasn't a publicity hound. But politicians will use any connection with the scientific community to legitimize their preconceived notions. Like using Michael Crichton as an "expert" on global warming.

[Nashyboyo]

In my personal oppionion I think Duesberg is full of shit. He's saying things like

 

Why is the increasing crime rate in bangladesh correlating with the number of baked beans I spill on my shirt every meal time!

 

I just think the guy wanted some attention. He got it!

[ecoli]

I think his most valid point is about the critisism of the early research linking HIV to AIDS. Most of it was rushed and there's plenty of people who say that Dr. Gallo pulled the research for HIV out of his ass. As it turns out, it may very well have been the world's luckiest guess. The government was being pressured to find the cause to AIDS, and 'luckily' Gallo had the answer just when the they needed it, and becoming famous himself in the process.

When Duesberg first published his work about critisizing the HIV/AIDS link, I feel that he had a good point. But, of course, he was simply ignored, and most of the money that was given to investigate in AIDS research was appropriated in AIDS related diseases, everything from cancer to the common cold.