Questioning the HIV-AIDS Hypothesis: 30 Years of Dissent*
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
UNPUBLISHED MANUSCRIPT, OCTOBER 2019 COPYRIGHT © 2014 GOODSON _________________________________ Questioning the HIV-AIDS Hypothesis: 30 Years of Dissent* Patricia Goodson, Ph.D. Department of Health & Kinesiology, Texas A&M University, USA1 ABSTRACT Since 1984, when the hypothesis that HIV-causes-AIDS was announced, many scholars have questioned the premise and offered alternative explanations. Thirty years later, competing propositions as well as questioning of the mainstream hypothesis persist, often supported by prominent scientists. This article synthesizes the most salient questions raised, alongside theories proposing non-viral causes for AIDS. The synthesis is organized according to four categories of data believed to support the HIV-AIDS hypothesis: retroviral molecular markers; transmission electron microscopy (EM) images of retroviral particles; efficacy of antiretroviral drugs; and epidemiological data. Despite three decades of concerted investments in the mainstream hypothesis, the lingering questions and challenges synthesized herein offer public health professionals an opportunity to reflect on their assumptions and practices regarding HIV/AIDS. KEY WORDS: HIV, AIDS, dissent, causation, multifactorial causality ___________________________ * ARTICLE PROVENANCE Submitted to Frontiers in Public Health: 03 July 2014 Accepted by Frontiers in Public Health: 07 September 2014 Investigated by Frontiers due to complaints: 26 September 2014 Investigation Outcome – moved to Opinion category, added invited commentaries, and attached publishers’ statement: 11 February 2015 Notified by Frontiers of retraction decision: 26 July 2019 Retracted: 29 October 2019 - https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2019.00334/full Authors Note: See Page 1 MEDICAL DISCLAIMER: The content of this article is provided for educational purposes only; it is not intended as a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. 1 4243 TAMU, College Station TX 77845. Email: [email protected] UNPUBLISHED MANUSCRIPT, OCTOBER 2019 COPYRIGHT © 2014 GOODSON _________________________________ AUTHOR’S NOTE OF DISAGREEMENT WITH RETRACTION “Questioning the HIV-AIDS Hypothesis: 30 Years of Dissent” synthesizes the arguments and evidence previously published in the professional/scientific literature, authored by several reputable scholars questioning the premise that HIV causes AIDS. The central thesis in this review asserts: “far from being condemned to extinction, competing explanations for, and thorough questioning of the mainstream premise persist” 30 years after the original HIV-causes-AIDS hypothesis was proposed. After conducting a thorough investigation upon the article’s publication in 2014, reviewers and editors alike admitted to the review’s “utility … as a historical summary of dissenting theories of AIDS” (Frontiers Retraction Statement). Despite this assessment and the concomitant re-classifying of the article as an “Opinion”, editors now have concluded their efforts were both “misguided and ineffectual” (Frontiers Retraction Statement) and are retracting the article. Although the Official Statement from the editors accurately reflects the issues, I respectfully disagree with the decision to retract the article for the following reasons: (a) The article is a historic review of arguments and data previously published in both scientific journals and widely circulated books. In itself, the article lacks the power to constitute a “potential public health risk” (Frontiers Retraction Statement), given it is merely presenting already-available information. (b) Attempts to regulate access to information appear contrary to the spirit driving Open Access publishing. (c) Debates, grounded in evidence published in the professional/scientific literature, constitute the very essence of science and knowledge development. Retraction of information that elicits or contributes to such debates represents the antithesis of the scientific method. UNPUBLISHED MANUSCRIPT, OCTOBER 2019 COPYRIGHT © 2014 GOODSON _________________________________ represents a central task for public health “The HIV/AIDS hypothesis is one hell of a professionals; a vital step to ensure their (our) mistake”, wrote Kary Mullis in 1996 (1, p. xiv). practice continually grounds itself in the most Mullis—Nobel Laureate in Chemistry, 1993—and rigorous ethical standards (3). other distinguished scientists have claimed the HIV- causes-AIDS hypothesis is false, unproductive, and HIV causes AIDS: How valid are the data? unethical. They have done so since 1984, when the In 1984, Margaret Heckler (then Secretary of hypothesis was proposed. Thirty years after the Department of Health and Human Services) countless studies, resources, and attempts to cure announced a retrovirus was the “probable cause” of have been poured into the HIV-AIDS hypothesis, it the alarming immune system collapse emerging in may be fruitful to ask: What happened to those views the US since 1981(4). When scientists identified and voices that once disagreed? Have the past three antibodies to a retrovirus known as LAV, or HTLV-III, decades, with their scientific, technological, and in 48 persons (from a sample of 119, with and public health developments, been sufficient to without immune deficiency symptoms), the convince critics of the hypothesis’ value? Have these retrovirus became the culprit of what would be advances been able to silence the questioning? perceived as “the most urgent health problem facing Here I synthesize the main criticisms aimed the country” in recent history (5, p. 1; 6). at the HIV-AIDS hypothesis, alongside select The announcement intended to assure the unorthodox2 theories proposing non-viral cause(s) public: the mystery surrounding this apparently for AIDS, to argue: far from being condemned to contagious and decidedly fatal illness—later labeled extinction, competing explanations for, and thorough AIDS for acquired immune deficiency syndrome— questioning of the mainstream premise persist. was solved. The newly-identified virus—soon Perhaps better known by the lay public than by renamed HIV, for Human Immunodeficiency Virus— health professionals, many explanations are, in fact, was, almost certainly, responsible for debilitating attracting a growing number of sympathizers. To people’s immune system and making them support the argument, I employ historical research vulnerable to infections which, before AIDS, were and data synthesis methods. I utilize, as data, trade either rare or not particularly dangerous. Now, and professional publications in tandem with however, infections such as Kaposi’s Sarcoma and authoritative scientific sources. Pneumocistis Carinii Pneumonia had morphed into It is important to note that my purpose is not vicious killers (4, 7). By identifying the perpetrator, to review the state of the science regarding HIV/AIDS, scientists’ attention and government resources could nor to persuade readers to reject the mainstream then focus on treatment, cure, and vaccine hypothesis. Instead, I aim to expose readers to the development. persisting controversies, and to motivate them to Yet almost immediately, scientists who knew raise questions of their own. Ultimately, then, this a great deal about retroviruses and immunology article invites the public health workforce to reflect began to voice misgivings regarding the HIV-causes- on prevailing assumptions and practices regarding AIDS hypothesis, and to question it. They highlighted HIV-AIDS. Reflecting on assumptions and practices the difficulties, flaws, and contradictions they saw in 2 In this article, I will use the terms unorthodox, non-orthodox, orthodox or mainstream) dominates another – what Delborne calls non-mainstream and alternative, to refer collectively to those who “the epistemological tyranny of the intellectual majority” (2, p. disagree with the prevalent view, and to their propositions (despite 510). their variability). I will favor the term “unorthodox” for it carries the notion of intention or willful deviation from the norm and connotes a power differential in which one set of theories (the Page | 3 UNPUBLISHED MANUSCRIPT, OCTOBER 2019 COPYRIGHT © 2014 GOODSON _________________________________ the hypothesis, and offered alternative explanations. will probably mean that the individual has Many of the original misgivings have survived, and been infected at some time with HTLV- others have been raised, in the past three decades. III/LAV [the names originally used for HIV]. In this paper, therefore, I summarize some of Whether the person is currently infected or these difficulties, and present what critics propose as immune is not known, based on the serologic alternative causes of AIDS. I organize the challenges test alone” (13, p. 378). put forth by unorthodox scholars into four categories It is not only this simple argument— of data that support the HIV-AIDS hypothesis3: (1) antibodies suggest the immune system has retroviral molecular markers; (2) transmission controlled the invading agents—that unorthodox electron microscopy (EM) images of retroviral scientists have debated. The tests themselves remain particles; (3) efficacy of antiretroviral drugs; and (4) the target of critic’s intense scrutiny. For instance, in epidemiological data (8, 9). Because these data are 1996 Johnson reported 60-plus factors capable of proffered as solid evidence for HIV’s role in causing causing a false-positive result on tests for HIV AIDS, it is useful to examine how critics question the antibodies (either an ELISA or