Yesterday I had a brief meeting with the veterinary opthalmologist we’ve been working with in our ongoing research into retinal dysplasia in Miniature Schnauzers.
During our conversation, he mentioned his frustration with a decision by the Canine Eye Registry Foundation. CERF tracks the incidence of eye defects in breeds of dogs. Board certified veterinary opthalmologists use formal diagnostic forms that are designed to be read by computers and fed into the CERF database, which forms the basis for breed clubs and geneticists to track the prevalence of genetic eye disease.
Well, that’s how it’s supposed to work.
The researcher has been working on a specific type of retinal defect – retinopathy – in a handful of breeds. With several peer-reviewed published papers in the library, CERF concluded that the defect should be added to the form, so that data collection can begin.
However, for reasons unexplained, CERF decided to place retinopathy into the grouping of retinal dysplasias.
That’s problematic. Retinopathy is clinically and genetically distinct from retinal dysplasia. Placing it under an inappropriate category not only limits the ability to track this unique defect, it also corrupts the data on retinal dysplasia. It makes as much sense as lumping in statistics on schizophrenia with data on brain tumours.
Last night I was doing some surfing, and stumbled upon a discussion from Dean’s World from last month, titled HIV Skepticism, about the “sloppiness” of the research linking HIV to AIDS. It’s interesting reading, and even if you disagree with the premise (advanced in the book Inventing The AIDS Virus by Dr. Peter H. Duesberg), there are compelling arguments that conventional wisdom about “AIDS” may be as much politics and scientific group think, as it is scientific fact.
Dean Esmay has been interested in this for a few years;
Either Peter Duesberg was a monstrous liar or, by the mid-1990s at least, no one had ever demonstrated with any scientific rigor that HIV caused AIDS–and people had only come to believe it by a combination of well-meaning panic to stop a horrible disease, bureaucratic bumbling, pettypoliticking, and greed. No there was no conspiracy, but there was certainly a massive interlocking of government SNAFUs, scientists with huge conflicts of interest, a breakdown of the peer review process, and people in charge of that process who now had vested personal interests in maintaining the status quo.
Or: Duesberg was full of it. There really didn’t seem much alternative explanation. The man was too careful, too meticulous, and provided too much documentation. He had to be taken seriously, if only to prove him wrong.
Or so I thought.
Instead, there seemed a virtual press blackout on the book. Most of the reviews in the mainstream press were short, snotty, and condescending. It was clear that they weren’t interested in arguing with Duesberg, and when they didn’t sniff at him like rancid garbage they ridiculed him, and mocked anyone who wanted to take him seriously.
I began to feel like I was either wildly paranoid or this was a dizzyingly frightening look at just how the confluence of billions of dollars of government money, journalistic laziness and incompetence, and petty politicking had polluted medical science, science reporting, and public health policy.
In December, Dean contacted the author of a more recent book on Duesberg’s work – Oncogenes, Aneuploidy, and AIDS: A Scientific Life and Times of Peter H. Duesberg, one George L. Gabor Miklos, PhD.
Quoting the review in Nature Biotechnology, itself, worth reading in its entirety;
Oncogenes, Aneuploidy and AIDS should be compulsory reading for those concerned with`what the U.S. (and other Western) governments are buying when they spend public money on cancer and`AIDS research. It should also be compulsory for pharmaceutical and biotech executives, since most of`their potential targets for solid tumors are irrelevant entities that continue to clog drug development`pipelines.
Finally, it should be read by anyone who is interested in the way scientific theories develop and are`shaped by historical circumstances.
Miklos had this to say, in personal correspondance with Dean;
Bottom line; Duesberg is correct on both counts…on the basis of DATA…not hysteria. Your readers can be as angry as they like, but they should save their anger until after they have evaluated`clinical DATA…and then they should direct their anger at their own medical profession.
The scientific data do not support the hypothesis that the HIV virus causes AIDS.
If you have Kaposi sarcoma and you have antibodies to the HIV virus, the CDC says you`have AIDS…by definition!
If you are diagnosed with Kaposi sarcoma and you don’t have antibodies to HIV, then you don’t have AIDS…you have Kaposi sarcoma!….go figure!
Tell me Dean, if you are diagnosed with blue ears and you have antibodies to the HIV virus, the CDC would say that you have AIDS….if you don’t have antibodies to the HIV virus you would have blue ear disease….what a joke. Your own CDC essentially defines any disease where you have antibodies to HIV in your system as AIDS. If you have malaria and and you have antibodies to the HIV virus, the CDC would you have AIDS…by definition! So AIDS equals malaria…this is clinically stupid.
You ought to ask your readers.”What is AIDS?”…DEFINE IT!
Does it all seem too far out in left field to merit a look? Is it possible that the entire scientific community is basing its assumptions – and research – on AIDS on sloppy research, unsupported by the data?
Before answering that, go back to the top of my post, and re-read the portion about how the world’s most authoritative body on canine eye disease is collecting data on retinopathy.
(HIV Skepticism at Deans World)
If there is anything to this, it may tie in with some research I have done on heart disease. I ran into the name of a Dr. Ravnskov. A published scientist with extensive knowledge of internal medicine and nephrology, this Swede seems to me to blow a lot of holes in the prevalent notion that “high” cholestorol levels in the blood lead to heart disease. The link is http://www.heart-disease-bypass-surgery.com/data/articles/36.htm#author
Kate,
I haven’t read anything regarding HIV-skepticism in some time, the last being an essay in The Atlantic some time in the 90’s.
Anyway, having known and worked with some of the top HIV-AIDS clinicians in this part of the world, the news that HIV is not related or the causal agent of AIDS would be news indeed.
I will read about Dr. Duesberg and his research findings and get back to you.
Kate,
Quick update.
Just after reviewing Dr. Duesberg’s website, my impression of his views is not favorable.
Not.
More later.
Just so it’s clear – I have no opinion. Just found the discussion interesting and thought it might invite some good commentary.
The commenter you cite, Miklos, is incorrect. It is not true that the CDC defines “any disease” as being a part of AIDS. The specific example he/she names, malaria (an infection caused by the parasite Plasmodium), is NOT on the list of “AIDS-defining conditions”. The Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta define a patient as having AIDS when two specific criteria are met:
(1) Laboratory evidence of HIV infection (e.g. finding antibodies to the HIVirus and finding protein from HIV in the blood)
AND
(2) Presence of an AIDS-defining condition.
Please see here for lists of AIDS-defining conditions.
I would be happy to answer any questions about this topic by email. My email address in on my website.
Oncogenes, Aneuploidy, and AIDS: A Scientific Life and Times of Peter H. Duesberg, one George L. Gabor Miklos, PhD.
…
Miklos is not a commentor, but the author of the second book cited. Go read the review of the book. Beyond the HIV – AIDS debate, it’s pretty compelling stuff.
I have read the review. Miklos is not the author of the book you cite, “Oncogenes, Aneuploidy, and AIDS”. He is instead the reviewer in Nature Biotechnology. The author of the book is Harvey Bialy. I don’t intend to dispute the content of the book, because I have not read it. I meant to correct the error(s) contained in the personal correspondence between Miklos and Dean, cited above.
Miklos states that the CDC believes “AIDS equals malaria” and concludes that “this is stupid”. In fact, as far as I know, malaria is not one of the AIDS-defining conditions. I have never heard anyone imply that AIDS equals malaria, or even that AIDS equals Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia (one of the many many opportunistic infections which AIDS patients are at high risk of). The point about AIDS which Miklos appears to miss in the personal correspondence you cite is this: AIDS is a disease which primarily causes suppression of cell-mediated immunity. There are therefore a number of infectious agents which AIDS patients cannot fight off like a healthy person could. These agents include things like Human Herpesvirus-8, which is the causative agent behind Kaposi’s Sarcoma. There are other patients who can get opportunistic infections: e.g. patients who are immunosuppressed from a bone marrow transplant regimen. Merely having the infection does not mean you have AIDS. You must have evidence of the HIVirus AND also have one of these infections.
For all that Miklos seems intent on pointing out errors that the Establishment has made in its rush to pharmacologic profit, he is remarkably casual about the facts.
I do not believe that merely being on the “wrong” side of the Establishment means Miklos and Bialy are actually wrong. I am on the wrong side of the Establishment myself occasionally (see Warming, Global). But in choosing to oppose what legions of other scientists have done, Bialy and Miklos are obliged to be very respectful of both the facts and their opponents’ opinions. Having not read Bialy’s book, naturally I have to be cautious myself. But Miklos plays so fast and loose with easily verifiable facts that I am not optimistic about the book he praises.
Thanks for pointing that out – I misred Dean’s post. The global warming debate was one that was in the back of my mind, as well as other similar episodes in medical history – the conventional wisdom about ulcers held out for years against the notion that they could be due to bacterial infection.
Kate,
I spent some time reading about Dr. Duesberg and corresponded some with Dean Esmay (that correspondence has now ended).
I have not read Dr. Duesberg’s book, only citations from it and some comments to it.
What I have seen is entirely unconvincing of anything to suggest that HIV-1 is unrelated to AIDS.
In fact, there is nothing that I have found that explains away any of the central canon of HIV/AIDS literature.
And yes, the comments of Miklos are incorrect. Malaria is not AIDS. HIV serpositivity, low CD4 counts, and unusual or uncommon infections together make the sydrome. To claim that the CDC has not “defined” AIDS, is well, silly (or absurd, take your pick).
The research with regard to HIV is anything, but sloppy. In neurology, for example, it is now being understood how HIV crosses the blood-brain-barrier as well as some of the factors that increase or decrease that.
Similarly, the ways in which HIV-1 interacts with not just lymphoctes (their primary targets) but a whole host of other tissues is being uncovered. From HIV’s replication, repair, mutations, etc. all of this and more is being investigated.
Far be it from me to tell people what to believe or what ideas to investigate.
To each his own.
Kate,
You and your readers might find this interesting.
HIV Skepticism
It took about four seconds to find this article searching google for “hiv skepticism”.
Dean Esmay’s site came up with the first three or so hits, then came this article from skeptic.com.
I thought to research the idea of HIV skepticism, but after reading this, I realized there was no point.
Duesberg was debunked in print 10 years ago.
Sigh.
The original thread at Dean’s generated hundreds of comments. That made me curious about it (especially in context of the conversation I had with our opthalmologist that same morning) so I thought it might be an interesting topic to toss out here, and it has been. Thanks for the input.