States Hiv Causes Aids example essay topic

"Science is nothing but perception" -- -Plato -- - In the first part of my discussion on the HIV / AIDS controversy, I discussed some of the reasons some people were unwilling to believe that HIV causes AIDS. I did not focus on the scientific community nor did I explain how the science handles data that conflicts with accepted scientific theory. This essay will explore these themes. It will concentrate on the scientific establishment and how it formulates its theories and the HIV / AIDS controversy within that context. Specifically, it will examine how shifts in current theories happen and how this is relevant to the HIV / AIDS situation. WHAT IS THE HIV / AIDS CONTROVERSY?

The HIV / AIDS controversy centers around the premise that in spite of the seemingly overwhelming evidence that HIV causes AIDS, there is an impressive audience of scientists who contend that HIV does not cause AIDS. The grounds these scientists give for refuting HIV's role in AIDS are quite persuasive. These grounds range from innocuous banter to claims that HIV is harmless. In order for a scientific revolution to take place, as will be discussed later, only empirical evidence is acceptable as grounds for change. To determine weather or not enough evidence exists to constitute a controversy, I had to research the role of the HIV virus. In my research I found one article that claims Gallo, the co-founder of the HIV virus, never proves that HIV isolation is possible let alone that it has a specific role in the AIDS virus.

It states, "The data and arguments that have been presented by Gallo and his colleagues do not constitute proof of HIV isolation or an unambiguous role for HIV in the pathogenesis of AIDS". (Gallo Article, P. 11) The article further states", while the HIV antibody tests are useful prognostic markers in the high risk groups, their use as diagnostic and epidemiological tools for HIV infection is questionable". (Gallo Article, P. 11) This is important, because if isolation of HIV is dubious, then all of the research efforts connected with and an AIDS treatment and cure are fruitless. Another important question to ask is if this information is correct, how will the scientific community handle it? Will the community choose to ignore the proof as trivial or will it find some way to explain it so that it can be incorporated into entrenched existing theories? THE SCIENTISTS BEHIND THE CONTROVERSY One person who feels that the HIV / AIDS connection needs to be questioned is Kary Mullis.

He won the Nobel prize for his invention of the polymerase chain reaction. His main complaint regarding the HIV / AIDS hypothesis is that he can not find valid proof which states HIV causes AIDS. He states, "I started looking at the scientific literature, and I began to notice that nobody ever quoted a scientific paper to back up the notion that HIV causes AIDS". (California Monthly, p. 20). Mullis claims that even in 1994, he has yet to discover one paper to support the theory that HIV causes AIDS. During part of an interview he claims, "People keep asking me 'You mean you don't believe that HIV causes AIDS?' and I say, Whether I believe it or not is irrelevant!

I have no scientific evidence for it". (California Monthly, P. 20) Later in the article he claims that people who have AIDS and do not have HIV die from the AIDS treatment. He states, "there's the fact that most people who have HIV don't ever get AIDS, although people who have HIV and no symptoms and take AZT die. There's no doubt about that... they die from the poison AZT not from AIDS. (California monthly p. 21) The significance of Mullis's claims is that they represent problems with the current theory associated with HIV and AIDS.

From this information it is understandable how the HIV / AIDS controversy became established in the scientific community. Mullis is not saying that there is no HIV / AIDS connection, he would just like to see the proof. He also believes that if HIV is indicated as a cause, it may not work alone. He is not alone in this assumption. As an article in Science states, "Many researchers who once believed all the damage caused by HIV could be explained by the virus's direct killing of cells now think indirect mechanisms must also be at work". (Science, Vol. 260, p. 1254).

Mullis also believes AZT is not the miracle it was once thought to be. This view is also gaining wider acceptance in the scientific community. Science magazine states, "AZT... was once assumed to be helpful for infected people... new data suggest the drug is probably of little help to that group". Another example of a noted scientist refuting the HIV / AIDS claim is Dr. Robert E. Willner. To prove his point that HIV "absolutely does not cause AIDS", Dr. Willner injected himself with HIV positive blood.

I do not know how Dr. Willner is doing today. He claims that "the HIV / AIDS hypothesis was based on the fact that only 40% of AIDS cases were confirmed by the Centers for Disease Control to have antibodies to HIV and not the virus itself... This means that 60 to 93% of all AIDS patients... were HIV negative". (Sumeria, Medical Doctor interview, p. 3) He also contends that HIV is harmless and that there is not one reference paper that proves HIV causes AIDS. Willner points out that HIV is rarely found in T-cells. These are the cells that when destroyed lead to AIDS.

Willner states, "HIV is rarely found in T-cells (1 virus per 10,000 to 100,000,000 cells) and when it is found it is doing absolutely nothing. In cases of full blown AIDS... the virus is extremely difficult to find; and in 50 percent of the cases it cannot be found at all". (Sumeria, Medical Doctor interview, p. 3) This is in direct opposition to how Gallo reported the HIV virus behaved. Willner believes HIV to be a dead piece of tissue that normally exist in our bodies. In order for the HIV / AIDS theory to be valid, he claims that the body would kill the virus before it ever had a chance to reproduce. He states, "T- lymphocytes (our white blood defensive cells) reproduce 500 times faster that the HIV virus is supposedly reproduced.

This simply means that even if the HIV / AIDS hypothesis were correct it is impossible for HIV to ever win the battle". (Sumeria, Medical Doctor interview, p. 6) I am not a scientist and do not fully understand all the technical jargon. However, if Willner's conviction that HIV does not cause AIDS is correct, he might be able to force the scientific community to rethink the entrenched HIV / AIDS axiom. These are just two examples of respected scientists questioning an accepted scientific theory. The third and probably the most notable critic of the HIV / AIDS controversy is Peter Duesberg. A respected virologist and cancer researcher who in 1985 was awarded the prestigious Outstanding Investigator Grant, Duesberg claims that "factors such as illicit drug use and AZT... actually cause the disease" (Science, Vol. 266, p. 1642).

He also claims that "HIV is nothing more than a benign passenger virus... and that there are uncertainties about the pathogenesis -- the precise way HIV causes disease and death -- [and that] there isn't yet a cure or a vaccine". (Science, Vol. 266 p. 1643). He uses these arguments to promote suspicion regarding the HIV / AIDS connection. He contends that drugs, specifically nitrite inhalants and injectable drugs are the potential culprits that cause AIDS.

Another factor that Duesberg feels is responsible for AIDS is contaminated factor V. He believes that when hemophilia patients receive blood transfusion, the blood "is frequently contaminated with foreign proteins from blood donors... and suggests that these contaminants cause the immunodeficiency seen in AIDS... He contends that hemophiliacs infected with HIV are simple the ones who have received the most factor VII -- with accompanying contaminants". (Science Vol. 266 P. 1645). Finally, he claims that HIV fails the Koch's postulate, the test that proves a disease is cause by a specific microbe and points to the fact that many people are HIV positive and have lived over ten years without developing AIDS or AIDS related diseases. Like Mullis and Willner, Duesberg states that "there is not even one study in the vast AIDS literature that shows an HIV positive group of 20 to 50 year old people who do not use drugs and do not have congenital disease, ... have more AIDS than an HIV negative control group".

(Science Vol. 266, P. 1647). These were Duesberg's claims in 1994. Below is his response to an article from June of 1995 which shows he is still not convinced that HIV causes AIDS in spite of this new evidence. Duesberg and Bialy respond to the current issues surrounding the AIDS debate as presented by Wei et al and Ho et al, and claim that paradoxes still exist. First, Duesberg and Bialy refute the argument that retrovirus's kill their hosts. The article states, "retroviruses can only replicate as long as the host survives integration and remains able to express integrated viral genes.

Therefore a cytocidal retrovirus would be suicidal". (Duesberg and Bialy, P. 2) Duesberg and Bialy claim that the papers have resolved the confusion by shifting a paradigm. Duesberg and Bialy state, "According to Maddox, T-cells 'that harbor the virus will be killed... not by HIV -- but by the immune system". (Duesberg and Bialy, p. 2). They claim that this creates a bigger paradox than what they had in the first place. He claims, "However, if T-cell killing via anti-viral immunity were the cause of AIDS, we would have a bigger HIV-AIDS paradox than before, Since only 1 in 500 T-cells are ever infected, and most o these cells contain latent HIV not making viral proteins, only less than 1 in 500 could ever be killed by anti-viral immunity".

(Duesberg and Bialy p. 3) The next issue they address has to do with the low incidence of HIV infected cells. They believe that the erratic ranges of HIV proliferation prove that HIV is a passenger virus rather than the cause of AIDS. They also believe that their passenger virus theory explains why such a long time span exists from HIV infection to full blown AIDS. As has already been mentioned, the estimated time for AIDS to appear is ten years. Duesberg and Bialy claim, "the hypothesis that HIV is a passenger virus provides a consistent explanation for the unpredictable time interval between HIV infection and AIDS". (Duesberg and Bialy, p. 5) In conclusion, the article claims that the report was selective.

They point out variety of issues which questions the validity the paper. (The article is included with this essay and is worth a read.) At the end of the article Duesberg and Bialy state with respect to the report, "It seems to us that the 'new developments' of Wei et al and Ho et al are a Mayday of AIDS virologists -- rather than a virologic al mayhem" (Duesberg and Bialy p. 6) DO FACTS EXIST TO SUPPORT THESE CLAIMS? Basically, scientists who subscribe to the argument that HIV does not cause AIDS focus on inconsistencies prevalent in the HIV / AIDS research. As already mentioned, Mullis has been unable to find a single document that proves HIV causes AIDS. Willner and Duesberg believe that AZT, drug use and a predisposition to diseases as culprits behind the epidemiology of AIDS.

There exists other inconsistencies cited by critics. For example, the fact that not all people infected with HIV develop aids. Only 30 to 50 percent of persons who test positive go on to develop AIDS within seven years. Some HIV positive people live ten years or longer without developing any complications or the AIDS disease. (Nash, P. 42).

Another inconsistency cited that undercuts the HIV / AIDS connection is the problem with the current use of CD 4 cells as markers for the disease. Science magazine states, .".. immune system cells known as CD 4's was until recently considered the chief 'surrogate marker' for evaluating AIDS therapies. Now its value as a marker is in question". (Science, Vol. 260 p. 1254) It appears that the CD 4 cells do not always indicate the health of an infected individual.

Another problem with the disease is that HIV can produce an innocuous or flawed strain of HIV. This mutated strain exhibits a defective negative factor gene that renders the virus harmless. The importance of this discovery is that it provides another angle about the HIV virus. HIV is a complex disease, and there exists inherent difficulties when trying to find a cure. (Nash. P. 42) Willner not only believes that other factors contribute to HIV but he even goes so far as to call into question Gallo's original HIV results. He contends that "Every statistic, every valid scientific observation and even the test of time now proves Gallo wrong".

(Sumeria P. 7). He also believes that nearly 500 of the world's top scientists are now challenging the HIV / AIDS connection. As is apparent, a substantial number of well-respected scientists contend that the HIV / AIDS issue warrants reevaluation. Even if these claims are true, I have not been able to find any specific study or proof that proves these statements. These claims, while compelling in nature, do not provide justifiable evidence to support the HIV / AIDS controversy.

The question is whether this group of scientists will be able to effectively overthrow the dominant scientific paradigm that says HIV causes AIDS by supplying supportable evidence. IS IT POSSIBLE FOR THESE PEOPLE TO CHANGE THE SCIENTIFIC WORLD VIEW? To understand how scientific theories change, one needs to look at Thomas Kuhn's philosophical essay, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Kuhn is a philosopher interested in how scientific theories are formulated, attacked, defended and ultimately replaced with a new theory.

Kuhn calls the currently accepted scientific theory a "paradigm". According to Kuhn, contrary to what most lay people think, the fashioning of scientific theories is not inductive but rather deductive. Scientists do not establish theories after neutrally and objectively analyzing data; rather, based upon initial impressions and scattered observation, scientists construct an elaborate theoretical superstructure and then fit subsequently accumulated data into that superstructure. For Kuhn, science is less an objective search for the truth than it is an attempt to justify a certain theoretical interpretation of scientific data. What is interesting about Kuhn's theory of scientific paradigms is its implications for how scientific theories are superseded and replaced by competing theories. There is a natural conservative tendency in science, a tendency seen in the scientific establishment's attempt to maintain dominant theoretical paradigms in the face of discordant scientific data.

Invariably, anomalies arise which are difficult to fit into the accepted theoretical paradigm. Kuhn says that anomalous data are either ignored or explained away when they are threatening to the dominant paradigm. Kuhn believes that "In the development of any science, the first received paradigm is usually felt to account quite successfully for most of the observation and experiments easily accessible to that science's practitioners... That professionalization leads, on the one hand to an immense restriction of the scientists' vision and to a considerable resistance to paradigm change. The science has become increasingly rigid". (Kuhn P. 64) It is only when these anomalies accumulate that their force is fully recognized and then entire paradigm becomes untenable.

The dominant paradigm is rejected and a new theoretical paradigm is posited in its place, usually based upon a more reasoned explanation of data anomalous within the context of the old paradigm. A new scientific paradigm is thus created, which evolves and is eventually discarded in the same manner. Kuhn states, "That awareness of anomaly opens a period in which conceptual categories are adjusted until the initially anomalous has become the anticipated. At this point the discovery has been completed". (Kuhn, P. 64) In other words, Kuhn argues that science is not a steady accumulation of knowledge but is rather a process of relatively stable periods of knowledge advancement and revolutionary periods during which the entire paradigm shifts or changes DO THE CONFLICTS CONSTITUTE CHANGE?

The anomalies which lie at the heart of Duesberg, Mullis and Willner objections to the HIV / AIDS theory are emblematic of the circumstances promoting change which Kuhn refers to in his book. Duesberg is challenging the current HIV paradigm by claiming that not all HIV positive people have AIDS, stating that retroviruses are harmless, and the AZT and drug use cause the disease. These claims illustrate some of the inconsistencies with the HIV / AIDS hypothesis. These inconsistencies create an unstable scientific atmosphere; and change is inevitable. Duesberg, Mullis and Willner are hoping that the current HIV theory will be modified as more and more conflicting evidence is presented. As stated before, once enough discordant evidence is compiled the HIV paradigm will have to be replaced.

There does exist a problem with Duesberg in that, as the article in Science points out, some of his contentions regarding HIV and AIDS are dubious. Thus, Duesberg's argument loses its steam and appears poorly constructed. For example, Science magazine states, "AZT and Illicit drugs, which Duesberg argues can cause AIDS, don't cause the immune deficiency characteristic of that disease". (Science, Vol. 266 P. 1642). With respect to scientific change, however, Kuhn's belief is that the changes will take place providing the evidence is based on factual information. Based upon this statement, in spite of the problems with the first Duesberg article, the fact that he is still writing against the HIV theory shows there is room for improvement.

CONCLUSIONS? Provided the above information is accurate and scientifically provable, I believe Kuhn would agree there exists enough inconsistencies within the HIV / AIDS theory to justify a controversy. I believe, however, that the circumstances surrounding these inconsistencies are dubious. I am not convinced that scientific proof exists which proves that the HIV virus does not cause AIDS. To help me reach this decision, I called the Duke Infectious Disease Center (Duke Aids Research and Treatment Center).

I spoke with Robert Dodge, a clinician at the center and asked him if he was aware of any anomalies concerning the HIV / AIDS connection. He was surprised to find that I had chosen this angle in my paper since he was absolutely positive that HIV directly and consistently causes AIDS. He was unable to come up with a single anomaly that contradicts this assertion. On the other hand, the point that there is a controversy shows that it may be time for the scientific community to re-focus its sights. As the Duesberg and Bialy article states, "Perhaps even science reporter begin to wonder how much further the virus-AIDS hypothesis can be stretched to explain it most obvious failure and inconsistencies" (Duesberg and Bialy, p. 6) Thus, the scientific community is on the eve of a HIV / AIDS revolution. The controversy is the first step.

Hopefully this will lead to further research, more anomalies and eventually a new paradigm. SELECTED

Bibliography

Adler, Mortimer J. The Great Ideas: A Lexicon of the Western Thought. New York: MacMillan Publishing Company, Copy right 1992, by Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. Special Issue AIDS the unanswered questions. Science. 28 May, 1993, Vol.
260, pages 1209-1396. Cohen, Jon The Duesberg Phenomenon. Science. 9, December, 1994, Vol.
266, pages 1642-1649. Kuhn, Thomas S. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1962 & 1970.
Nash, Madeleine. An Aids Mystery Solved. Time. November 20, 1995, Pages 42 -43.
Sc hoch, Russell. A Conversation with Kary Mullis. California Monthly. September 1994.
Pages 15-21. Wiener, Philip P. (Editor in Chief). Dictionary of the History of Ideas. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, Publishers, 1974.
INTERNET ARTICLES ATTACHED FOR REFERENCE: Has Gallo Proven the Role of HIV in AIDS? http// web Medical Doctor Puts His Life on the Line to Prove the HIV Virus Does Not Cause AIDS SUMERIA Duesberg, Peter H. and Harvey Bialy Responding To "Duesberg and the New View of HIV" SUMERIA, June 27, 1995.