The uncertain path of scientific progress

James Farmelant farmelantj at juno.com
Wed Sep 22 12:03:02 PDT 1999

Previous message: East Timor, Kosovo, and Kuwait
Next message: The uncertain path of scientific progress
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Search LBO-Talk Archives

Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author
Sort by: Reverse Sort

Presumably possible reason for the reported reluctance for testing the remaining frozen stocks of polio vaccine is the possible legal ramifications if Hooper's hypothesis was to be confirmed. One can easily imagine lawsuits demanding literally billions of dollars in damages being filed by AIDS victims. And no doubt many African governments would also be filing lawsuits to compensate for the devastation that AIDS has caused in their countries. Under such circumstances some of the great pharmaceutical houses could be driven into bankruptcy under the pressure of lawsuits not to speak of any of the other parties that were involved in either the development or the testing of the polio vaccines.

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>
>
>[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
>
>
></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.

Previous message: East Timor, Kosovo, and Kuwait
Next message: The uncertain path of scientific progress
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

More information about the lbo-talk mailing list