Is HIV in Our Genes?
             Now there's a Question Worth Asking
            A small minority of researchers think that HIV may not be a 
            foreign body that causes AIDS after being introduced in a human. Rather, 
            the virus may be produced by our own bodies when our genetic material 
            is broken down by other toxins.
              
            By Nicholas Regush, ABCNEWS.com 
              (1999) 
            SURPRISE IS a word used too often 
            by scientists and physicians, as in, "The results really surprised 
            me." When I hear this in interviews, I wonder, "Why is this 
            researcher so surprised? Did he not consider the wider possibilities 
            of the available science? Did she not read the two decades' worth 
            of alternative thinking on this subject?" Not all surprises are 
            signs of incomplete scientific homework, but often expressions of 
            surprise in science are a dead giveaway that Joe or Sally have been 
            sucking on their fingers rather than tracking where their fingers 
            may be pointing. 
             
            At some time -- perhaps in just a few years -- the science on 
              AIDS may finally begin to write off the theory that HIV is a virus 
              that attacks people like a bullet from hell. In fact, what we call 
              HIV could be a product of the body's own genetic material. 
              
            Imagine the process this way: Each one of us carries 
              genetic remnants of ancient infections in our genome. These remnants 
              are usually referred to as human endogenous retroviruses or HERVs. 
              
              
            It's now recognized that HERVs are likely involved 
              in a number of biological processes, including the way cells in 
              the body differentiate. Preliminary evidence also shows that HERVs 
              may be involved in some disease processes that affect the body's 
              immune system. 
              
               
            HIV Could Be Harmless 
            There is also evidence that HERVs can be activated 
              by a variety of factors such as chemicals, radiation, and viruses 
              to form particles, some of which might be infectious. In other words, 
              if cells get damaged by toxic insults, HERVs may awaken from their 
              ancient slumber. HIV may well be a byproduct of that type of cellular 
              damage. 
              
            If this turns out to be the case, should it be a 
              surprise? No. A careful scrutiny of the substantial HERV literature 
              suggests this is a distinct possibility. It would only be a surprise 
              because AIDS researchers have become so fixated on one theory of 
              what HIV is. 
              
            Let's take this to the next step. If HIV is indeed 
              produced inside our bodies, does this automatically mean it is the 
              cause of AIDS? No, we shouldn't assume anything of the sort. It 
              may well be that a human-produced "HIV" is pretty much 
              harmless. 
              
            The HIV antibody test might simply be picking up 
              on human-produced "HIV" material. In this case, a positive 
              test would mean that cells of the body had been sufficiently damaged 
              to generate a reaction. A positive test would be a marker of disease 
              -- not necessarily that "HIV" is the cause of AIDS. 
              
              Consider -- and Debate -- All Theories 
              
            As I indicated in last week's column, there are 
              a variety of theories about how AIDS might develop, theories foolishly 
              ignored by the scientific mainstream. These are theories that should 
              be widely debated. 
              Would it surprise me if HIV turns out to be human-produced and relatively 
              harmless genetic material? No, it would not. 
              
            And should AIDS scientists be surprised if a breakthrough 
              in this direction occurs? No, they should not -- certainly not if 
              they have diligently read the wide variety of scientific opinion 
              that focuses on AIDS.  
             Back