이름:궁금남 2002/6/3(월)

(2)   최근 자료을 올렸습니다. 이런 이야기는 쉽게 찾아 볼 수 있지만 ... 2002 5/2 By Etienne de Harven, MD Etienne de Harven, MD, is Professor Emeritus of Pathology, University of Toronto 1) HIV purification. Nobody has ever succeeded in purifying HIV (5). Centrifugation in sucrose gradients at the 1.16 gm/ml density is a classical approach to the purification of all the well-known animal retroviruses. Unfortunately, numerous cell debris do sediment at that very same density. Consequently, without a rigorous control by transmission electron microscopy, identifying material sedimenting at that density with "purified" retroviruses is a very dangerous scientific mystification. The very same criticism must be addressed to Temin (6) and Baltimore (7) who, independently, recognized a reverse transcriptase (RT) acivity in "retroviral" samples the purity of which had not been verified, therefore making it impossible to exclude an RT activity originating from cell debris or from mycoplasma fragments. 2) Identification of HIV molecular "markers". In absence of any HIV purification, numerous molecules are currently used as surrogate "markers" supposedly demonstrating the presence of HIV: protein (p24), enzyme (RT), or short sequences of nucleic acid. But HIV should have been purified first in order to demonstrate convincingly that these molecules, considered as HIV "markers", were indeed, specifically, of retroviral origin. This purification having never been achieved, it remains impossible to demonstrate the retroviral specificity of these molecular "markers" because similar molecules are abundantly present in cell debris which contaminate all the samples falsely regarded as "purified" retroviruses, simply because they originate from sucrose gradients at the 1.16 gm/ml density. All "markers" being non-specific, it was no big surprise to learn that tests for the so-called "seropositivity " (Elisa and Western Blot), being based on the very same markers were not specific either, as clearly and originally demonstrated by Eleni Papadopulos, Val Turner and the Australian group of researchers at Perth (8), Australia, as early as 1993, in a paper published in Nature/Bio-Technology, a paper which has been (most conveniently!) ignored by the AIDS establishment. 3) The Elisa test being non-specific, it was no surprise to learn that many medical conditions, without any connection with HIV/AIDS, often give "HIV +" responses (9). For example, cases of tuberculosis (10), malaria, leprosy (11), multiple vaccinations, anti-flu vaccination, multiple blood transfusions, various hepatitis, and꿶regnancy, the percentage of "HIV +" is far from being negligible. More than 43 % of cases of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) are seropositive. Obviously, the Elisa test is positive in individuals who have a high level of circulating antibodies, but these antibodies have probably nothing to do with HIV. Even more confusing is the fact that in the Elisa test the blood sample has to be diluted 400 times! And, as demonstrated recently in a laboratory of the New York area (12), if samples are not diluted everybody is seropositive if we have to believe this Elisa test which is being sold, at great $$$$ profit worldwide, and the results of which continue to terrorize an entire generation. Testing for p24 is apparently not more informative. In a study of 77 cases of biliary cirrhosis, 35 % were found p24 +(13). Still, p24 is currently regarded as highly HIV specific, so specific as for being frequently used as evidence for successful HIV "isolation"?Are you prepared to accept that biliary cirrhosis is HIV induced? Don뭪 you think that HIV is a useful scapegoat? Moreover, the discussion on cross-reactivities is made more complex by the fact that 43 % of dogs have been found positive for p 24 (14). 4) For patients with a positive reaction to the Elisa test, a Western Blot (WB) test is usually requested for "confirmation". However, the WB test using the same antigens as Elisa, a better specificity was hardly to be expected (15). Moreover, an international agreement on the interpretation of WB results has never been reached, and aliquots of the same blood sample may give a positive result in Europe and a negative one in the US! Incidentally, the WB test is not accepted in England for reasons of inadequate specificity?but accepted in Scotland and throughout Europe! 5) Viral load. Measuring the so-called "viral load" by Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) technology represents a third test, extensively used in the clinical follow-up of AIDS patients. The reliability of "viral load" PCR results is raising many questions, however. a) Karry Mullis, who invented the PCR method, strongly disagrees on its use to measure the number of HIV particles in the peripheral blood. b) Moreover, measuring the so-called "viral load" implies a quantitative estimation of the number of HIV particles in the peripheral blood. To transmit the alleged HIV infection, intact HIV particles must be present in the blood. The presence of alleged HIV molecular "markers" (genomic or proteinic in nature) is unable to explain infectivity, unless intact viral envelopes protect these retroviral molecules. c) Intact, enveloped retroviral particles can readily be identified with the transmission electron microscope (TEM). Unfortunately, nobody ever succeeded in demonstrating one single HIV particle, by TEM, in AIDS patient blood, even when patients are selected for having an alleged high viral load "measured" by PCR (16). d) Finally, using molecular probes allegedly hybridizing specifically with an exogenous HIV provirus does not take into consideration the presence of a sizable amount of endogenous retroviral sequences in the human genome. Sequencing the human genome has indeed demonstrated that an appreciable percentage of our genome consists of DNA sequences having very close homology with the alleged HIV genome (17). 6) Many HIV pictures, taken with the electron microscope, are found in magazines, newspapers, and scientific literature. All these pictures originated from complex, laboratory cell cultures. They never originated directly from one single AIDS patient. These mixed co-cultures included frequently human lymphocytes isolated from umbilical cord blood. And still, it is known since the early observations by Sandra Panem in 1978 that human placenta (19), as well as some embryonic cells (18) contain large numbers of endogenous retrovirus. It would be most surprising if lymphocytes from umbilical cord blood were not, similarly, carriers of endogenous retrovirus. This would provide an explanation for the presence of retroviral particles, resembling the alleged HIV, in some co-cultures highly stimulated by various factors (PHA, IL2,? and observed with the electron microscope. 7) AIDS alleged heterosexual transmission In a prospective study started in California in 1990, Padian et al. studied 175 serodiscordant couples (one partner seropositive, the other negative) during 6 years (20). They did not observe one single case of seroconversion of the negative partner. I am not aware of one single publication that would contradict Padian뭩 work. Moreover, the hypothetical heterosexual transmission of AIDS had been predicted as the likely cause of a dramatic AIDS epidemic in North America as well as in Europe. All these catastrophic predictions have, with the passage of time, been proven wrong. Gordon Stewart, from the University of Glasgow, initially analyzed epidemiological data and demonstrated that an actual AIDS epidemic has never been observed (21, 22). Virtual epidemics have, however, been reported. But they have all been "invented" with several redefinitions of AIDS; redefinitions imposed by Atlanta뭩 CDCs, as well as by Geneva뭩 WHO. The fact that there is no heterosexual transmission of AIDS should not, however, be interpreted as justifying any tolerant attitude vis-?vis un-protected sex practices. On the contrary, safe sex remains essential for the prevention of classic venereal diseases (STDs) as well as for the avoidance of unwanted pregnancies. 8) Mortality of seropositive hemophiliacs in the UK The key reference is the paper by Darby et al., which appeared in Nature in 1995 (23). The study covered more than 6.000 hemophiliacs, between 1977 and 1991. The annual mortality rate was remarkably stable until 1985, around 8/1000. However, starting in 1986, the death toll rose sharply (x10), reaching 81/1000 in 91-92. Most importantly, it is precisely in 86-87 that AZT started to be given to seropositive patients at the extremely toxic dosage of 1.5, even 1.8 gm/day. Surprisingly, the authors interpreted their observations solely on the basis of deadly HIV infections, without ever alluding to an alternative interpretation based on the extreme toxicity of AZT (24). 9) The effects of tri-therapy Two recent papers published in the Journal of Infectious Diseases demonstrate remarkable effects of the anti-proteases used in HAART. The anti-proteases are apparently highly active against Candida albicans (25) as well as against Pneumocystis carinii (26), two micro-organisms responsible for severe opportunistic infections in the majority of progressing AIDS cases. Consequently, the sometimes striking, transient clinical improvement observed in AIDS patients treated with HAART could possibly have an alternative interpretation, the improvements resulting from the effects of the drugs on Candida and/or on Pneumocystis, and having nothing to do with possible anti-retroviral effects against the alleged HIV. In conclusion, it appears that the public at large, the patients, and the practising physicians are not well informed. When it comes to HIV/AIDS, their information is neither complete nor objective. Efforts towards a better information, independent from any dogma, independent from any unproven hypothesis, and independent from the interference of profit dominated pharmaceutical industries, should receive the highest priority. This will imply opening up a large international debate which is long overdue. This debate, based on scientific facts and not on "consensus", should receive the most objective media coverage, exempt from any dogma and from any passion, and totally protected against any censorship. Engaging in such a debate will not require any money; it will require a lot of courage. This debate will offer a considerable opportunity to improve conditions for prevention and treatment of AIDS worldwide. Its effectiveness will be far greater than that offered by the accumulation of billions of dollars, wasted in the purchase of highly toxic antiretroviral drugs, drugs prescribed on the basis of a 20 years old hypothesis which has still never been proven, and on the basis of serological tests which totally lack specificity.