Kamille wrote:
[...]
> Root-Bernstein posited a multi-factorial model.
>
> I dug out one of my Duesberg books this morning to review some
> of it and, as I understand it, there are objections he has to
> the HIV/AIDS theory that have not been answered. Three of them are:
>
> 1. The HIV/AIDS model contradicts what is known experimentally
> about retroviruses. Most notably, they have a generation time
> of 24-48 hours which is inconsistent with the long latent period.
>
> 2. There are no other known retroviral diseases outside of
> the laboratory.
>
> 3. HIV does not kill T-cells.
>
> Have these three assertions of Duesberg's been answered? I would
> appreciate anyone that can point me to the literature.
Yes, they've been answered, and quite some time before the Johnson
et al. article of 1995.
For further reference, see:
http://www.aids.wustl.edu/aids/HIVaids.html
and
http://www.aids.wustl.edu/aids/relhivaids.html
(These are the FAQs associated with the newsgroup,
sci.med.aids. I recall Johnson posting to this group
around 1994-1996. I would also recommend searching
web sites at the National Institues of Health).
1) I know that #1 is incorrect. As stated by James, other viruses
such as the feline leukemia virus produce problems long after the
initial infection. The generation time is irrelevant. HIV integrates
into the host chromosome and continues to propagate. Antivirals
medications can severely reduce the reproduction of HIV but can
never eliminate the reservoir within infected cells.
2) Diseases caused by retroviruses outside the laboratory:
There are quite a few and their numbers are increasing as we
develop better methods of detection. For example, various simian
immunodeficiency viruses have been found which produced AIDS-like
problems in apes. These also have "latency" periods that can be
measured in years. Such references go back to the mid- to late-
1980's and early 1990's.
3) The destruction of T-cells by HIV has been documented. Those
references go back to the mid-1980's.
My experience with Duesberg (I've followed his rants since the
late 1980's and heard his talks at UC Berkeley), is that one
shouldn't expect to see well-represented commentary from
the man. Most of his arguments were dealt with by the early
1990's (I think earlier). Root-Berstein now limits his dissent
to suggest that HIV isn't the *sole* cause of AIDS symptoms.
And to some extent, that is correct. A disease that leads to
the impairment of the immune system is not likely to "kill"
directly. Other mechanisms, such as opportunistic infections and
cancers, will do that. That is one reason why symptoms may
vary between individuals and even regions of the world. Yet still,
the disease associated with HIV infection, do follow common
themes and have easily recognized patterns.
Personally, I am very disturbed by Johnson's comments and involvment
in the HIV/AIDS debate. Despite the fact that AIDS is "blooming"
in Africa (something Johnson said he expected to see if the
HIV/AIDS connection is real), or that all the criteria of Koch's
"Postulates" have been met, I've not heard him make any retractions
or corrections. In fact, I haven't read anything about his
current position for the past several years.
Regards,
Tim Ikeda
tikeda@sprintmail.hormel.com (despam address before use)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 03 2000 - 21:44:52 EST