The HIV Party Line
Is It Time for AIDS Scientists to Open Some New Research
Doors?
Dogmatism will get HIV researchers nowhere. Some HIV/AIDS
researchers seem to have forgotten what scientific inquiry is all
about.
By Nicholas Regush ABCNEWS.com
(1999)
BEWARE THE scientist who believes that mainstream
research thinking on any public health issue is equivalent to truth.
Or the scientist who bullies or ridicules other scientists because
they oppose the prevailing view.
In fact, a scientist who is unwilling to entertain
the possibility that mainstream views are either flawed in some
way or even dead wrong is, in my view, simply not a scientist. This
is a person who has become what I would call a propagandist and
should not be trusted. This is a person who probably does not sufficiently
understand the history of science and how views are constantly changing
to correct errors and fill information gaps. Science is a work in
progress, not a grandstand for entrenched views and overstuffed
egos.
I have worked as a medical science reporter for
30 years. I began this career at age 22. I've interviewed thousands
of scientists for newspaper and magazine stories, radio and television
productions, and books. I've met many scientists who at least try
to keep an open and fair mind on scientific issues. I have also
met many propagandists who think they're scientists.
In all the time I've worked as a journalist, I've
never come across a nastier group of people to interview than those
propagandists who work in HIV research.
Dilemma for Moms-to-Be
Last week, I focused on how some HIV-positive pregnant
women didn't want to take the anti-HIV drug AZT and were opposed
to giving it to their newborns because they felt it was too toxic
and potentially lethal. I wrote about the strong-arm tactics used
against them to get them to comply with what many health authorities
believe should be standard medical practice. And I gave an example
of how HIV researchers can be shrill and condemning when their mainstream
views on AZT are scrutinized.
I also wrote that women who find themselves in these
circumstances should be properly informed of all of AZT's potential
risks, not just the drug's potential benefits. Well, here's the
latest documented risk: A small, preliminary study in this week's
Lancet demonstrates rather vividly that when AZT alone
or the combination of AZT and a similar drug (lamivudine) was given
to HIV-positive pregnant women, eight children developed dysfunction
in their mitochondria -- particles within cells that provide energy
to those cells. Five of these children, two of whom died, developed
neurological symptoms, and the three others had severe biological
or neurological abnormalities.
While this study is far from definitive, and its authors maintain
the need to continue treating HIV-positive pregnant women (none
of the children were HIV-positive), the data show that this issue
requires ongoing scientific debate in a public forum, not to mention
the careful consideration of the human rights and ethics involved.
I, for one, don't want to entrust the health of HIV-positive pregnant
women and their newborns to propagandists, which includes those
with alternative theories about HIV and AZT, who also think they've
nailed down the truth about AIDS.
Does HIV Cause AIDS?
I've been tracking a debate recently on the Web
amongst those who take issue with HIV being the cause of AIDS for
a variety of reasons, and while some of the exchanges have been
intriguing, others have been very unpleasant and closed-minded.
The issue of whether HIV is the cause of AIDS, is,
of course, crucial to the AZT issue. Some HIV-positive mothers have
come to believe HIV either is not, or may not be, the culprit. So
why would they want to take a toxic anti-HIV drug like AZT?
The HIV and AZT propagandists would answer that
the issue of what causes AIDS is closed. Absolutely closed. Proven
beyond a shadow of a doubt. And, unfortunately, this is the attitude
that has overwhelmed careful scientific consideration of the mainstream
thesis. I've lost count of how often scientists (not propagandists)
working in HIV research have told me that they have serious doubts
about whether HIV was the actual cause of AIDS. But because they
were receiving money for HIV research and that money was supporting
their graduate students, they preferred to remain mute on their
concerns about the HIV theory.
Bullet From Hell?
Since the early days of AIDS, scientists who question
HIV as the cause of AIDS have proposed numerous theories about how
the human immune system can be destroyed. Some suggest that street
drugs and drugs used to treat AIDS combine to cause immune breakdown.
Others contend that drugs are only one of many sustained toxic insults
that eventually cause the immune system to collapse. Some scientists
even argue that HIV is not some bullet from hell but may consist
of ancient genetic (and probably harmless) substances spewed out
of human cells when those cells have already been seriously damaged.
Others point at other microbes that may play a significant role
in AIDS.
For years, I've monitored this literature as well
as the voluminous number of scientific reports on HIV, and I have
from the start been extremely uneasy about the HIV theory, as I
continue to be today. I believe the science is badly flawed and
huge leaps have been taken to fill in gaps. This is also why I'm
very uneasy about AZT treatments for pregnant women and their newborns.
Next week, I'll spell out what I consider to be
the key points in HIV science that deserve careful open debate,
a debate that should be initiated without delay by Congress. Lives
are at stake, and AIDS science should not be abdicated to the likes
of HIV propagandists.
Back