Nexus - 0107 - New Times Magazine-pages

Page Content (OCR)

AIDS The AIDS- —'"* escribed by Dr Harry Sabin, developer of Sabin Oral D u e Ss b € r $ polio vaccine, as “the micro-biologist who most proba- bly knows more about retroviruses than any other,” Professor Peter Duesberg is the experts’ expert. Discoverer of the cancer-causing ‘oncogenes’, Peter / Mi Duesberg is adamant that Dr Robert Gallo’s little bug HIV f a i e n S$ e (Human tmmuno-deficiency retroVirus), the villain in the aad = A.|.D.S. drama, does not cause AIDS. Ironically, Duesberg is the : mentor of Gallo, co-discoverer with Luc Montagnier of the HIV retrovirus. Duesberg may know more about retroviruses - the class of virus “Inject some pure, uncontaminated HIV into my veins,” that includes HIV - than anyone else, according to Sabin. says Duesberg, “and I am confident I will not get AIDS.” - an “Most animai and all human retroviruses so far discovered incredible public challenge from a man with the credentials and (except HIV) are neither pathogenic nor carcinogenic,” says personality of Professor Peter Duesberg! Duesberg, “ and are usually only associated with benign disor- The operative word here is uncontaminated. On the surface ders.” Duesberg’s ‘challenge’ is the sort of media-grabbing stuff ex- This does notexclude HIV from being pathogenic or carcino- pected of cranks. Threatening such drastic action to prove your genic. Its clinical and epidemiological association with AIDS theory is ‘unscientific’, causing Duesbergs’ colleagues to brand lends a high probability of it being the cause, even though no his approach as dangerous. Yet none of these critics accused other retrovirus performs like HIV. Yet Peter Duesberg, pure sci- French researcher Dr Daniel Zagury of the same thing when he entist, fully aware of these circumstantial associations, is still injected himself with a preliminary, untested AIDS vaccine in prepared to take the risk and inject HIV into his veins. February 1986. He didn’t get AIDS. - but AIDS is hard to catch. Or is he? However, Zagury only injected a substance designed to Perhaps Duesberg’s ‘challenge’ is not quite what it seems. It prevent AIDS - a somewhat pointless exercise unless you intend is at this point we return to the idea of uncontaminated HIV. to expose yourself to the virus. Duesberg is not suggesting This is Duesberg’s one condition. What he is prepared to injecting a vaccine, but the pure retrovirus HIV - claimed as the inject is uncontaminated HIV; that is, HIV that has been com- cause of AIDS - a rare and courageous challenge which strikes at pletely isolated from the human body and is bio-chemically the objective heart of medical research. It galls the medical active in culture. research establishment that Duesberg has taken issue with the This holds the key to Duesberg’s outrageous ‘challenge’. He conventional view of AIDS, not by presenting an alternative is confident that medical science will not be able to fully isolate theory but with this ‘challenge’ to the standards of objectivity HIV and provide an uncontaminated sample. |n fact he is so being applied. confident it can’t, he is prepared to stake his life on it! He is saying to the world that medical ‘research’ cannot be It’s a calculated gamble by a man who knows his ‘field’, for trusted any more - that it has lost its way. if HIV can’t be ‘decontaminated’ then there is a high probability it is not the primary cause of AIDS. The notion that a lethal killer has to be ‘decontaminated’ - Psychology of Research made clean - is paradoxical. Yet microbiology demands such ‘decontamination’, as it is this isolation of a virus that determine whether or not it is the cause of a particular disorder. None of this is addressing the physiological aspects of AIDS, Isolating HIV isn’t easy. In fact, retroviruses are one of the dealing more with psychological dimensions which include the most difficult micro-organisms to isolate from their ecology due attitude of medical researchers. Duesberg’s view, vindicated in to the fragility of their RNA genome (genetic code). So fragile, in Zagury’s ‘mad science’ stunt, is that medical research is more fact, that on contact with the atmosphere its genome dissolves interested in finding a ‘cure’ for AIDS than in being objective in in ten seconds, totally deactivating our ‘lethal killer’. interpreting the evidence. For this reason retroviruses are not normally found outside But isn’t finding a cure what it’s all about? body fluids and up until the first human retrovirus was uncov- Yes, but to find the cure means knowing what causes the ered, were described as endogenous - that is, they are usually disease. Duesberg is saying HIV does not cause AIDS and found attached as part of the genetic code of the organisms they medical science’s conviction that it does isn’t based on objective are discovered in. proof, but on circumstantial evidence subjectively organised to By the mid-seventies the endogenous category had more or derive ‘readily curable’ causes. Grants and fame are what less been abandoned and the tendency was to view all viral researchers now pursue - the ‘cure’ is merely a means. disorders as exogenous - that is, coming from a source other than Duesberg is not the sort of scientist to do extreme things like the organism’s own DNA. AIDS, being a contagious disease, conduct experiments on himself with potentially lethal viruses, slipped easily into the exogenous category. if he thought they were only probably harmless. Remember, 16 NEXUS New Times Seven - Summer 1989 escribed by Dr Harry Sabin, developer of Sabin Oral polio vaccine, as “the micro-biologist who most proba- bly knows more about retroviruses than any other,” Professor Peter Duesberg is the experts’ expert. Discoverer of the cancer-causing ‘oncogenes’, Peter Duesberg is adamant that Dr Robert Gallo’s little bug HIV (Human tmmuno-deficiency retroVirus), the villain in the A.|.D.S. drama, does not cause AIDS. Ironically, Duesberg is the mentor of Gallo, co-discoverer with Luc Montagnier of the HIV retrovirus. “Inject some pure, uncontaminated HIV into my veins,” says Duesberg, “and I am confident I will not get AIDS.” - an incredible public challenge from a man with the credentials and personality of Professor Peter Duesberg! The operative word here is uncontaminated. On the surface Duesberg’s ‘challenge’ is the sort of media-grabbing stuff ex- pected of cranks. Threatening such drastic action to prove your theory is ‘unscientific’, causing Duesbergs’ colleagues to brand his approach as dangerous. Yet none of these critics accused French researcher Dr Daniel Zagury of the same thing when he injected himself with a preliminary, untested AIDS vaccine in February 1986. He didn’t get AIDS. - but AIDS is hard to catch. However, Zagury only injected a substance designed to prevent AIDS - a somewhat pointless exercise unless you intend to expose yourself to the virus. Duesberg is not suggesting injecting a vaccine, but the pure retrovirus HIV - claimed as the cause of AIDS - a rare and courageous challenge which strikes at the objective heart of medical research. It galls the medical research establishment that Duesberg has taken issue with the conventional view of AIDS, not by presenting an alternative theory but with this ‘challenge’ to the standards of objectivity being applied. He is saying to the world that medical ‘research’ cannot be trusted any more - that it has lost its way. Psychology of Research None of this is addressing the physiological aspects of AIDS, dealing more with psychological dimensions which include the attitude of medical researchers. Duesberg’s view, vindicated in Zagury’s ‘mad science’ stunt, is that medical research is more interested in finding a ‘cure’ for AIDS than in being objective in interpreting the evidence. But isn’t finding a cure what it’s all about? Yes, but to find the cure means knowing what causes the disease. Duesberg is saying HIV does not cause AIDS and medical science’s conviction that it does isn’t based on objective proof, but on circumstantial evidence subjectively organised to derive ‘readily curable’ causes. Grants and fame are what researchers now pursue - the ‘cure’ is merely a means. Duesberg is not the sort of scientist to do extreme things like conduct experiments on himself with potentially lethal viruses, if he thought they were only probably harmless. Remember, NEXUS New Times Seven - Summer 1989 Duesberg Challenge Duesberg may know more about retroviruses - the class of virus that includes HIV - than anyone else, according to Sabin. “Most animai and all human retroviruses so far discovered (except HIV) are neither pathogenic nor carcinogenic,” says Duesberg, “ and are usually only associated with benign disor- ders.” This does not exclude HIV from being pathogenic or carcino- genic. Its clinical and epidemiological association with AIDS lends a high probability of it being the cause, even though no other retrovirus performs like HIV. Yet Peter Duesberg, pure sci- entist, fully aware of these circumstantial associations, is still prepared to take the risk and inject HIV into his veins. Or is he? Perhaps Duesberg’s ‘challenge’ is not quite what it seems. It is at this point we return to the idea of uncontaminated HIV. This is Duesberg’s one condition. What he is prepared to inject is uncontaminated HIV; that is, HIV that has been com- pletely isolated from the human body and is bio-chemically active in culture. This holds the key to Duesberg’s outrageous ‘challenge’. He is confident that medical science will not be able to fully isolate HIV and provide an uncontaminated sample. |n fact he is so confident it can’t, he is prepared to stake his life on it! It’s a calculated gamble by a man who knows his ‘field’, for if HIV can’t be ‘decontaminated’ then there is a high probability it is not the primary cause of AIDS. The notion that a lethal killer has to be ‘decontaminated’ - made clean - is paradoxical. Yet microbiology demands such ‘decontamination’, as it is this isolation of a virus that determine whether or not it is the cause of a particular disorder. Isolating HIV isn’t easy. In fact, retroviruses are one of the most difficult micro-organisms to isolate from their ecology due to the fragility of their RNA genome (genetic code). So fragile, in fact, that on contact with the atmosphere its genome dissolves in ten seconds, totally deactivating our ‘lethal killer’. For this reason retroviruses are not normally found outside body fluids and up until the first human retrovirus was uncov- ered, were described as endogenous - that is, they are usually found attached as part of the genetic code of the organisms they are discovered in. By the mid-seventies the endogenous category had more or less been abandoned and the tendency was to view all viral disorders as exogenous - that is, coming from a source other than the organism’s own DNA. AIDS, being a contagious disease, slipped easily into the exogenous category. Ea Ea