|
A
CHALLENGE TO THE AIDS ESTABLISHMENT
By
Peter Duesberg
Bio/Technology Nov. 1987
Acquired
Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) has become a cause celebre
for journals, companies, and scientists, and the "deadly
AIDS virus" has been sold to the public as the cause of
AIDS with the confidence and authority that is usually derived
from absolute scientific proof. The bases of the virus-AIDS
hypothesis are that this retrovirus was originally isolated
from an immune-deficient patient, that 80%-90% of AIDS patients
have antibody to the virus, and that there is a reasonable correlation
between anti-viral antibodies and persons in high-risk groups
for the disease. The hypothesis is appealing because it appears
to fit a 100-year-old tradition of triumphs in medicine that
proved viral and bacterial parasites to be the causes of contagious
disease. But this appearance is deceptive.
Three criteria
need to be met before a virus can be said to function as a pathogen.
It must be biochemically active. It must infect or intoxicate more
cells than the host can regenerate or spare. And the host must be
genetically and immunologically permissive. Yet almost none of the
accumulated data on the "Human Immunodeficiency Virus"
(HIV) demonstrate that the virus satisfies any of these criteria.
HIV is latent
and inactive, not only in the 1-2 million Americans who test positive
for antibody to the virus, but also in the 10,000 who annually develop
AIDS and the 5,000 who die from it. Yet all other pathogenic viruses
are known to be meta-bolically active when they cause disease. Latency
is the mechan-ism by which parasites typically survive as passengers
in asymp-tomatic hosts.
HIV also fails
to meet the second criterion since it actively infects fewer than
.01% of susceptible lymphocytes and since 5% of T cells are regenerated
during the 2 days it takes the virus to infect the cell. Moreover,
it is truly paradoxical that HIV is said to cause AIDS only after
an asymptomatic incuba-tion period of at least 5 years, although
antiviral immunity is induced within a few weeks. Ever since Jenner
discovered the principle of vaccination, anti-viral immunity (the
basis of the AIDS test) has been considered the ultimate weapon
against rather than an indication for, future disease.
Consistent
with the presence of antiviral antibody, there is very little direct
evidence for the presence of the virus in per-sons with AIDS. There
is not one report of a virus titer from an AIDS patient. Indeed,
virus can only be isolated from 50% of symptomatic and asymptomatic
carriers, and then only by tech-niques originally designed to activate
latent viruses. The methods are to grow millions of cells in culture,
away from the immune system and as yet unknown suppressors of the
host, until at least one previously latent virus becomes active.
This will then be multiplied by adding uninfected cells until a
detectable titer is reached. Thus isolating virus from 50% of AIDS
patients implies that 50% carried less than one latent virus in
several million cells.
In fact, viral
genomes have only been detected in about 15% of persons who test
positive for HIV antibody; in these persons, about one proviral
genome is found in 100-1000 susceptible lym-phocytes. In other words,
85% of antibody-positive persons carry either less provirus than
this or none at all. Moreover, most of these proviruses are dormant
since only one in 10,000-100,000 susceptible cells express viral
RNA in both symptomatic and asymptomatic carriers. In contrast,
the titers of other known retroviruses are between 10 to the fourth
power to 10 to the tenth power infectious units per ml of serum
or tissue when they function as pathogens.
The virus-AIDS
hypothesis also totally fails to explain how the virus depletes
T-helper cells, and why it takes at least 3-5 years to do so. Unlike
all other animal viruses, retroviruses need mitosis to initiate
infection. Moreover, no HIV gene remains inactive during replication,
which takes about 1-2 days, as with all other retroviruses. Thus
HIV would be expected to kill T cells and cause AIDS when it first
infects an organism and not 5 years later when it is biochemically
inactive and suppressed by antiviral immunity. The 5-year latency
presents proponents of the hypothesis with two bizarre options:
either old T cells die 5 years after infection, or the offspring
must die in the 50th generation, given a one-month generation
time for the average T cell.
Nevertheless,
killing of T cells within weeks, not years, after infection has
been observed in cell culture-in apparent agreement with the claim
that the virus kills T cells. But this type of killing is fundamentally
different from the unconditional cell lysis achieved by true cytocidal
viruses. It involves cell fusion mediated via HIV antigens on the
surface of infected cells, and is conditional on the cells and virus
isolates used. Further, it does not occur in chronically infected
human T-cell lines that grow indefinitely in culture yet produce
more virus than any other system, nor has it ever been observed
in blood taken from an AIDS patient. In fact, limited cell killing
by fusion is a common feature of retroviruses, none of which have
as yet been claimed to cause AIDS.
It seems clear
from the foregoing that the virus-AIDS hypothesis fails to make
a case for sufficiency. It offers no explanation for why less than
1% of antibody-positive persons develop AIDS and why the mean latency
between infection and disease is 5 years, whereas antiviral immunity
is established in a few weeks. A latent period for pathogenicity
that exceeds the latent period for immunity is unambiguous evidence
for a co-factor or another causative agent altogether. Finally,
the hypothesis cannot support a claim that the virus is even neces-sary
for AIDS in view of the fact that it is barely present and consistently
latent even in persons with the disease. Since the transmission
of AIDS depends on frequent contacts involving the exchange of cells,
the case for a viral cause remains open.*
|