Jim F.
On Wed, 22 Sep 1999 14:20:47 -0400 Carl Remick <cremick at rlmnet.com>
writes:
>This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not
>understand
>this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.
>
>------_=_NextPart_001_01BF0527.317E87A4
>Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
>
>[As unintended consequences go, this -- if true -- takes the prize.
>The
>following is from the Sept 4. New Scientist.]
>
>The Cruellest Irony: We May Have To Think the Unthinkable About HIV
>and AIDS
>
>Could doctors testing a polio vaccine in Africa in the late 1950s have
>unintentionally started the AIDS epidemic?
>
>Seven years after this conspiracy-style theory was first floated, the
>publication of The River, a new book by the writer Edward Hooper, is
>forcing
>scientists to take this disturbing possibility seriously again. Hooper
>spent
>nine years researching the book and has paid great attention to
>detail. Few
>experts doubt that he has done his homework. So how seriously should
>we take
>the theory?
>
>It's widely accepted that humans became infected with HIV-1, the main
>AIDS
>virus, through contact with chimpanzees. When and how the chimp
>version of
>the virus jumped into humans, however, is much less clear.
>Epidemiologists'
>best guess is that hunters became infected with blood as they cut up
>chimp
>carcasses for meat.
>
>By contrast, Hooper's theory centres on a polio vaccine that was
>tested on
>about a million people in central Africa between 1957 and 1960.
>Because the
>vaccine was produced in cultures of kidney cells from various primate
>species, Hooper argues that some of it could have been contaminated
>with the
>virus that was later identified in humans as HIV-1. All that was
>needed to
>seed the AIDS epidemic was a few contaminated batches.
>
>If Hooper is right, it would mean 14 million people have so far died
>and 33
>million been infected because of a well-intentioned--and ultimately
>successful--attempt to stem the tide of polio. That's some tragic
>irony. But
>discomfort is no reason to ignore the possibility.
>
>When the vaccine theory of AIDS first surfaced, scientists could be
>justifiably dismissive. The word then was that the kidney cells used
>to make
>the polio vaccines came from macaque monkeys, not chimps. Also,
>scientists
>believed that the first recognisable case of AIDS involved a British
>seaman
>whose travels were over before the vaccinations began.
>
>We now know that this was not a genuine HIV infection. More
>importantly,
>Hooper provides the first evidence that chimp kidneys may have been
>used to
>culture the vaccine and he identifies a geographic match between the
>vaccine
>trial sites and what are now regarded as the first known cases of HIV
>infection, including the earliest in 1959.
>
>But if the vaccine theory has become less obviously far-fetched, it
>still
>has problems. For example, the vaccine was also tested on thousands of
>individuals in Poland but there's no evidence of early HIV infection
>there.
>Secondly, different subspecies carry different forms of the chimp
>virus and,
>if current research is correct, the subspecies of chimp from the Congo
>whose
>kidneys might have been used is the "wrong" one: it harbours only a
>distant
>relative of HIV-1.
>
>And if vaccine trials were responsible for HIV-1 in central Africa,
>where
>does that leave HIV-2, the sister virus that emerged in West Africa?
>HIV-2
>seems to have "jumped" species from the sooty mangabey in at least
>four
>separate incidents. Were vaccines involved in these leaps too? Or did
>HIV-1
>need help to jump species even though HIV-2 didn't? Either version
>requires
>excessive special pleading. Especially since biologists who have
>studied
>different strains of HIV-1 are confident that they began to diverge
>from a
>single viral ancestor no later than 1940.
>
>But even if there is only the tiniest chance that Hooper is right, the
>implications of his theory demand that it should be investigated. The
>obvious next step is to test the remaining frozen stocks of the
>vaccine for
>the presence of the chimp virus. Of course, negative results will not
>resolve the controversy, because other batches, now used up or lost,
>might
>have been contaminated. But this is no excuse for doing nothing.
>
>So far, few of the players have shown any sense of urgency. An expert
>committee that looked into the vaccine theory in 1992 called for tests
>on
>the remaining stocks and an end to using monkey tissues to make
>vaccines.
>Well, the stocks have still not been tested, and although most
>manufacturers
>have switched to using human cells to culture the vaccine, some still
>have
>not. Production methods are far more stringent than they were 40 years
>ago.
>But the fact is that any vaccines cultured in monkey tissues could
>still
>carry a risk of unknown primate viruses.
>
>For this and other reasons, it is now up to the WHO to try to answer
>Hooper's questions as quickly as possible. A refusal to test the
>leftover
>vaccine stocks will simply fuel conspiracy theories everywhere.
>
>[end]
>
>Carl
>
>------_=_NextPart_001_01BF0527.317E87A4
>Content-Type: text/html;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
><HTML>
><HEAD>
><META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
>charset=3Diso-8859-1">
><META NAME=3D"Generator" CONTENT=3D"MS Exchange Server version =
>5.5.2650.12">
><TITLE>The uncertain path of scientific progress</TITLE>
></HEAD>
><BODY>
>
><P><FONT SIZE=3D2>[As unintended consequences go, this -- if true -- =
>takes the prize. The following is from the Sept 4. New =
>Scientist.]</FONT>
></P>
>
><P><FONT SIZE=3D2>The Cruellest Irony: We May Have To Think the =
>Unthinkable About HIV and AIDS</FONT>
></P>
>
><P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Could doctors testing a polio vaccine in Africa in =
>the late 1950s have unintentionally started the AIDS epidemic? </FONT>
></P>
>
><P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Seven years after this conspiracy-style theory was =
>first floated, the publication of The River, a new book by the writer
>=
>Edward Hooper, is forcing scientists to take this disturbing =
>possibility seriously again. Hooper spent nine years researching the =
>book and has paid great attention to detail. Few experts doubt that he
>=
>has done his homework. So how seriously should we take the theory? =
></FONT></P>
>
><P><FONT SIZE=3D2>It's widely accepted that humans became infected
>with =
>HIV-1, the main AIDS virus, through contact with chimpanzees. When and
>=
>how the chimp version of the virus jumped into humans, however, is
>much =
>less clear. Epidemiologists' best guess is that hunters became
>infected =
>with blood as they cut up chimp carcasses for meat. </FONT></P>
>
><P><FONT SIZE=3D2>By contrast, Hooper's theory centres on a polio =
>vaccine that was tested on about a million people in central Africa =
>between 1957 and 1960. Because the vaccine was produced in cultures of
>=
>kidney cells from various primate species, Hooper argues that some of
>=
>it could have been contaminated with the virus that was later =
>identified in humans as HIV-1. All that was needed to seed the AIDS =
>epidemic was a few contaminated batches. </FONT></P>
>
><P><FONT SIZE=3D2>If Hooper is right, it would mean 14 million people
>=
>have so far died and 33 million been infected because of a =
>well-intentioned--and ultimately successful--attempt to stem the tide
>=
>of polio. That's some tragic irony. But discomfort is no reason to =
>ignore the possibility. </FONT></P>
>
><P><FONT SIZE=3D2>When the vaccine theory of AIDS first surfaced, =
>scientists could be justifiably dismissive. The word then was that the
>=
>kidney cells used to make the polio vaccines came from macaque
>monkeys, =
>not chimps. Also, scientists believed that the first recognisable case
>=
>of AIDS involved a British seaman whose travels were over before the =
>vaccinations began. </FONT></P>
>
><P><FONT SIZE=3D2>We now know that this was not a genuine HIV =
>infection. More importantly, Hooper provides the first evidence that =
>chimp kidneys may have been used to culture the vaccine and he =
>identifies a geographic match between the vaccine trial sites and what
>=
>are now regarded as the first known cases of HIV infection, including
>=
>the earliest in 1959. </FONT></P>
>
><P><FONT SIZE=3D2>But if the vaccine theory has become less obviously
>=
>far-fetched, it still has problems. For example, the vaccine was also
>=
>tested on thousands of individuals in Poland but there's no evidence
>of =
>early HIV infection there. Secondly, different subspecies carry =
>different forms of the chimp virus and, if current research is
>correct, =
>the subspecies of chimp from the Congo whose kidneys might have been =
>used is the "wrong" one: it harbours only a distant relative
>=
>of HIV-1. </FONT></P>
>
><P><FONT SIZE=3D2>And if vaccine trials were responsible for HIV-1 in
>=
>central Africa, where does that leave HIV-2, the sister virus that =
>emerged in West Africa? HIV-2 seems to have "jumped" species
>=
>from the sooty mangabey in at least four separate incidents. Were =
>vaccines involved in these leaps too? Or did HIV-1 need help to jump =
>species even though HIV-2 didn't? Either version requires excessive =
>special pleading. Especially since biologists who have studied =
>different strains of HIV-1 are confident that they began to diverge =
>from a single viral ancestor no later than 1940. </FONT></P>
>
><P><FONT SIZE=3D2>But even if there is only the tiniest chance that =
>Hooper is right, the implications of his theory demand that it should
>=
>be investigated. The obvious next step is to test the remaining frozen
>=
>stocks of the vaccine for the presence of the chimp virus. Of course,
>=
>negative results will not resolve the controversy, because other =
>batches, now used up or lost, might have been contaminated. But this
>is =
>no excuse for doing nothing. </FONT></P>
>
><P><FONT SIZE=3D2>So far, few of the players have shown any sense of =
>urgency. An expert committee that looked into the vaccine theory in =
>1992 called for tests on the remaining stocks and an end to using =
>monkey tissues to make vaccines. Well, the stocks have still not been
>=
>tested, and although most manufacturers have switched to using human =
>cells to culture the vaccine, some still have not. Production methods
>=
>are far more stringent than they were 40 years ago. But the fact is =
>that any vaccines cultured in monkey tissues could still carry a risk
>=
>of unknown primate viruses. </FONT></P>
>
><P><FONT SIZE=3D2>For this and other reasons, it is now up to the WHO
>=
>to try to answer Hooper's questions as quickly as possible. A refusal
>=
>to test the leftover vaccine stocks will simply fuel conspiracy =
>theories everywhere. </FONT></P>
>
><P><FONT SIZE=3D2>[end]</FONT>
></P>
>
><P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Carl</FONT>
></P>
>
></BODY>
></HTML>
>------_=_NextPart_001_01BF0527.317E87A4--
___________________________________________________________________ Get the Internet just the way you want it. Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month! Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.