Government Reaches Breaking point on HIV/AIDS Policy
The South African government has finally, it seems, sidelined controversial Health Minister Manto Tshabalala-Msimang in the fight against HIV/AIDS.
But it’s something that the media hasn’t reported widely (other than a front page article in the Saturday Star, and a few other reports here and there). Whether it’s been under-reported, or is something that the media has been right to be cynical about covering with fanfare is something that only time will tell.
It’s hard to pinpoint where the motivation for the about-turn came from, but it’s definitely long overdue. According to Sapa, the government believes that it has developed one of the best anti-AIDS programmes in the world (cough!), but has now promised Cabinet that it will improve the communication of this programme. This comes after Cabinet ministers voiced their concerns on how government was communicating its policy on HIV/AIDS, The Mail&Guardian, quoting an anonymous source, reported :
Cabinet ministers were not concerned with the government’s policy on HIV/AIDS, but on how it was being communicated.
The Cabinet ministers’ concerns were apparently heard and action has been taken: the Inter-Ministerial Committee (IMC) on HIV/AIDS has been revived and beefed up, with Deputy-President Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka at its head. This makes sense in that Mlambo-Ngcuka already heads the South African National AIDS Council (Sanac). Tshabalala-Msimang has been left out of the committee – what some media reports have referred to as her “gagging” on HIV/AIDS issues.
According to the Saturday Argus:
A split in the cabinet over the “embarrassing” and combative Health Minister Manto Tshabalala-Msimang led to her gagging this week.
Ironically, earlier this month, her director-general of health, Thami Mseleku, outrageously gagged the health department’s staff from commenting on HIV/AIDS.
Always ready to add her bit, Tshabalala-Msimang, in an interview with the SABC, denied claims she had been sidelined, pointing out she was still a part of Cabinet. The Mail&Guardian article quoted her as saying:
“The establishment of the IMC is not a new thing; we have had an IMC before. It probably wasn’t functioning as well as it should have functioned. I have always been part of the IMC so I welcome the establishment and reinforcement of the IMC.”
Although she has effectively been sidelined on this particular committee in any case, Tshabalala-Msimang is going nowhere. A number of ministers, including Social Development Minister Zola Skweyiya, have expressed concern that her abrasive personality has damaged government’s image on HIV/AIDS. It remains to be seen to what extent Mlambo-Ngcuka and her committee can repair that – while she’s still the health minister. - Itumeleng Makgobathe
September 16th, 2006 at 12:39 am
Perhaps Itumeleng Makgobathe would like to share his source on firstly, that the Deputy President will be heading up the Inter-ministerial Committee on HIV and AIDS, and secondly that the Health Minister will not be on the committee.
The Cabinet statement of 7 September clearly states that the Inter-ministerial Committee will be made up of ministers already on SANAC and then goes on to name them - QUOTE:
“the meeting decided that an Inter-Ministerial Committee (IMC) will be constituted to strengthen the implementation of the comprehensive HIV/AIDS programme, improve co-ordination and communication, and to monitor the implementation. This committee will consist of Ministers who are members of SANAC, which include the Ministries of Health, Education, Social Development, Presidency and Provincial and Local Government. ” END QUOTE
Maybe the reported “sidelining” of our Health Minister has been under reported because it never happened. One thing for sure - no one should trust anything that comes from unnamed sources - and no media should report on unverified information from a single source that doesn’t wish to be quoted. - Anita Allen - anita@theallens.co.za
September 18th, 2006 at 8:34 am
The mere fact that the committee is being headed by the Deputy President rather than Manto suggests the government is finally - and thankfully - losing faith in the minister’s abilities to effectively fight HIV/AIDS in South Africa. Let’s hope Phumzile does a better job - God knows, it would be hard to be less effective than Manto has been!
September 19th, 2006 at 7:32 pm
I hate to take sides with the government but I think their concerns must be addressed.
The West has failed to cure HIV/Aids and big pharmaceutical companies continue to reap good rewards, these companies are surely not ready to find a cure because this will cut into their profits.
The onus is on us Africansto find a cure and lets give the government a chance to find out something.
The time has come for us to look for alternatives, if lemons and beetroot cannot cure HIV, how different are they from ARVs, we have to take the challenge otherwise the West will continue to benefit at our expense.
It is time we think outside the box, otherwise we will remain at the mercy of big pharmaceutical companies.
September 21st, 2006 at 10:43 am
The interpretation of recent events in the AIDS saga, that the Minister of Health has been sidelined is shared by many. Since she has not been fired, and according to various statements it should be clear she heads up AIDS on behalf of the government. The ANC government, which according to stats about 66% of voters support.
Now you can run around toyi-toyiing, or you can believe in the hallowed halls of inner ANC pow-wows, and the little chats on golf courses, boards of the world order, and even a gentle whisky with friends.
AIDS has become a frontier in this country by which one can judge followers of the lunatic left, center and right. Scientific minds have clashed on this frontier. You either understand this clash or you don’t. Be honest, with yourself. Are you informed scientifically? Do you understand the technicalities of the isolation of viruses debate? Do you understand the implications?
In another thread I showed yet again, that the US National Institutes of Allergic and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) fact sheet: The Evidence that HIV causes AIDS” contains no references to seminal research in which HIV was isolated in terms of the only standard recognised. The NIAID fact sheet describes the standard known as Koch’s Postulates as “the litmus test to establish the cause of an infectious disease”. Then it fulfils only the First Principle - and then only by changing the postulate that the pathogen must be found in every case of the disease.
If this comes as news to you, I hope it is good news. Anyone who read that thread, has been informed. As a reporter try to find sources who will give you answers you seek and is prepared to go on the record. For the others - you are on your own on this one.
The current direction of government AIDS policy, is Cabinet inspired. Despite the moaning millies, who insist on bleating outside of meetings but refuse to go on record, the center is holding in Cabinet. Dare I add, at last!
So now we have our Deputy President as AIDS spokesperson of the People. In opposition, if you like, we have Manto Tshabalala-Msimang MD, spokesperson of the government on all health issues, including AIDS. Two great sisters of the struggle.
I look forward to the further interaction of these actors on the AIDS stage.
In a twist to the saga yesterday, the Deputy-President addressed the Cosatu Congress. She spent a lot of time speaking about AIDS and the need to complete a five-year plan by December 2006. This could only be achieved by unity - not betrayal and disrespect of struggle leaders.
Another speaker at the congress, wearing a red HIV-positive T-shirt, asked for the Health Minister’s axing. Thankfully Cosatu pulled back from that precipitous action - which did not escape the Health Minister, who issued a pithy comment on its discussions on AIDS - and the speaker who called for her axing. She made it quite clear in her final comment that her department would continue to lead endeavours to realise all rights for all citizens as outlined in the 2003 Comprehensive Plan on HIV and AIDS.
So much for being sidelined.
Don’t forget, on Tuesday the Health Minister issued results of a report on maternal mortalities - and had some startling things to say on health professional negligence and AIDS as major causes of mortalities, which mercifully are dropping compared to previous years.
What I really liked, was that it was her deputy, Nozizwe Madlala-Routledge, who issued the statement on TAC’s invitation to a “people’s parliament”. I think she told them their parliament was unsuitable; they should come in from the streets; and join others in forums “in government and civil society that can be used to unite on the common ground and air our differences responsibly and respectfully as we all seek to address this scourge that has affected us all. We must all refrain from demonising one another or to personalise the debate.” - Anita Allen anita@theallens.co.za
September 21st, 2006 at 7:55 pm
It seems to me that Anita has “hit the nail on the head” with this statement:
“…As a reporter try to find sources who will give you answers you seek and is prepared to go on the record. …”
It is very clear that Anita Allen has consistently looked for people who are willing to go on record stating that they have “scientific” doubts that HIV is the cause of AIDS, and she has been very successful in finding them.
However, when searching for the truth, one should not first decide what the truth is, and then go find people willing to publicly agree with that position.
Anita is very clearly not “scientifically informed” nor capable of understanding that there is no single standard recognised for virus isolation. Infectious molecular clones of retroviruses are a common “stndard” but they are by no means the only standard. The methods which the Perth Group claim are the standard are in fact a fictional construct invented by them, specifically to be impossible for any lentivirus. For example, one of the Perth Group requirements is that all particles appear identical under electron microscopy, which means that the viruses have to be sperical and not conical (as lentiviruses are) or pleomoprphic (as filoviruses and many other viruses are). Just because the Perth Group is willing to go on record as stating that HIV has never been properly isolated, does not mean that the truth is that HIV has never been properly isolated. No virus has ever been isolated exactly as describe by the Perth Group’s fictional rules. The papers which the Perth Group claims laid out the rules [1,2] did not in fact state anything about rules, nor did they “isolate” a single virus. Both papers discussed the lack of ability of this method to seperate a mixture of 3 retroviruses. The tumor virus cultures they were working with back in 1973, before cloning could be easily used to seperate the 3 virus types, were know to be composed of the tumor virus itself which could not propogate, the “helper virus” needed to passage the tumore virus, and hybrids containing one tumor virus genome and one helper virus genome. As late as 1978, the exact nature of these tumor/helper virus mixtures was still being explored [3]. By 1980, infectious molecular clones could be produced in Lambda phages, and sequenced [4] to finally explain exactly why the sarcoma viruses are defective and require a helper virus.
No defective oncovirus derived from a lentivirus has yet been discovered, all of these oncoviruses have been derived from simple retroviruses (containing just Gag Pol and Env genes) and not from the complex retroviruses such as the lentiviruses which contain several regulatory genes (vif, tat, rev, nef etc) in addition to the Gag Pol and Env genes. Thus, material banding at 1.16 g/ml in sucrose density gradients of the supernatants of cultrues of lentiviruses is does not contain a mixture of 2 different viruses as the sarcoma virus cultures did. There is only one genomic form present, and since the early 1980s it has become very much easier to generate infectious molecular clones from that single genomic form.
As I stated in that other blog comment thread that Anita referred to; it is perfectly understandable and acceptable that Anita or anyone else who has never set foot in a virology lab to not understand the methods used. It is not so understandable why such a person would consider themselves experts on virology who should be advising the South African Government on AIDS policies.
REFERENCES:
1: Sinoussi, F., Mendiola, L. & Chermann, J. C., 1973. Purification and partial differentiation of the particles of murine sarcoma virus (M. MSV) according to their sedimentation rates in sucrose density gradients. Spectra 4:237-243.
2: Toplin, I., 1973. Tumor Virus Purification using Zonal Rotors. Spectra No. 4:225-235.
3: Maisel J, Bender W, Hu S, Duesberg PH, Davidson N.
Structure of 50 to 70S RNA from Moloney sarcoma viruses.
J Virol. 1978 Jan;25(1):384-94.
PMID: 202749
4: Sherr CJ, Fedele LA, Oskarsson M, Maizel J, Woude GV.
Molecular cloning of Snyder-Theilen feline leukemia and sarcoma viruses: comparative studies of feline sarcoma virus with its natural helper virus and with Moloney murine sarcoma virus.
J Virol. 1980 Apr;34(1):200-12.
PMID: 6246254
September 22nd, 2006 at 9:15 am
We, in South Africa, have been asked to address the message and refrain from killing the messenger. So, to Dr Foley, our virtual friend from Los Alamos I say yet again:
Just pick the references in the NIAID factsheet which achieved this “one genomic form” which other scientists with real credentials, who work in laboratories dealing with genomes of all kinds say is jumping to conclusions in the absence of a clear picture.
This against mounting evidence from multiple sources that the book of virology needs an overhaul - and your genebanks face major reprogramming. Anita Allen anita@theallens.co.za
September 22nd, 2006 at 7:24 pm
The message we are addressing is that a group of people were invited to come to South Africa to become the Presidential AIDS Adivisory Panel. Roughly half of those people had the opinion, which they called a “scientific hypothesis” (or something like that), that HIV has not been shown to cause AIDS. Some say HIV has been isolated but is harmless, others say HIV has never been isolated. Some say drugs cause AIDS, some say malnutrition causes AIDS, some say glucocorticoid abuse causes AIDS, some say there is no such thing as AIDS, etc… None of them had any solid data to support their hypotheses. Roughly the other half of the panel was in agreement that HIV has been properly shown to be the cause of AIDS.
I am simply trying to clear up some of this confusion, by explaining that several hundred different isolates of HIV-1 M group viruses, several dozen more closely related lentiviruses (HIV-1 O group, HIV-2, SIV-SMM, SIV-MAC, SIV-AGM, etc.) and several more distantly related lentiviruses (FIV-housecat, FIV-lion, FIV-cougar, BIV, EIAV, Visna, CAEV, etc.) have in fact been properly isolated and studied in great detail. The several thousand virology researchers, physicians and epidemiologists who signed the Durban Declaration just prior to the Durban World AIDS Conference do in fact know what they are talking about.
In order to pretend that HIV might not be the cause of AIDS, people need to pretend that viruses don’t exist, or that all of virology has gone off the rails, as Anita says. Part of that farce is pretending that there were 2 papers published in 1973 that set in stone some rules that all have to be followed to claim that a virus has been isolated. Once you pretend that the virus has not been isolated you can then pretend that maybe the serological tests for that virus are not valid, and go on to build a case that maybe HIV does not cause AIDS.
The Perth Group, which claims that this pair of 1973 publications is the holy grail of virology is indeed composed of people with credentials, they just don’t happen to be virology credentials. But that, as Anita points out is attacking the messenger rather than the message. I did not want to get into that, I only wanted to encourage people to dig to the bottom of this; read the two papers and talk to the authors of those papers, instead of blindly accepting Anita’s or the Perth Group’s misinterpretation of those papers, or my interpretation of them.
Some of the people on the Presidential AIDS Advisory panel told blatant lies to the South African Government. Some knew they were lying and other simply did not understand. Apparently that was all legal, because nobody made requirements that the panel members tell the truth. All water under the bridge at this point, and it is time to move on.
September 23rd, 2006 at 9:51 am
Clearly, Dr Foley is still having trouble with switching from killing the messenger to focusing on the message.
He claims “several hundred different isolates of HIV-1 M group viruses, several dozen more closely related lentiviruses (HIV-1 O group, HIV-2, SIV-SMM, SIV-MAC, SIV-AGM, etc.) and several more distantly related lentiviruses (FIV-housecat, FIV-lion, FIV-cougar, BIV, EIAV, Visna, CAEV, etc.) have in fact been properly isolated and studied in great detail.” END QUOTE.
Fine. Then he should have no trouble choosing where this was achieved from among the references in the NIAID fact sheet which HE gave as the overwhelming and unambiguous evidence of the HIV cause of AIDS.
What exactly is being isolated by which ever criteria you use - the 1973 Perth Group, the Durban Declaration, or the February 2003 NIAID Fact Sheet - is contested. Foley just endlessly it seems postpones the moment of posting those seminal references among hundreds he now claims exist.
It’s because I am not pretending that I say (yet again): just post the references - and make sure they are from the NIAID FACT Sheet, because the entire health and Human Services of the US policy is based on this. While here in South Africa, it seems that Themba Maseko, CEO of Government Communications, has stated that HIV and AIDS policy is based on the “belief” that HIV causes AIDS. So now it’s a religion is it? I must suspend my disbelief, deny all the evidence I have for how wrong the assumption is, shut up, join the believers and assumers - and bow down in faith that the majority is on the right road.
Never.
In the presidential panel the great minds clashed on the record and under video cameras. It was members of the Foley/Los Alamos group which made confidentiality a prerequisite to participation. The rest were quite prepared to have live TV present.
And remember the Interim Report of the Presidential AIDS Advisory Panel is interim because it wasn’t final. It was the summing-up report of the Chief Moderator Dr Khotso Mokhele, president of the National Research Foundation. Every word composed by him, to the best of his abilities as a graduate of Harvard, doctorate in microbiology and leading science administrator. It was a great achievement, by an honest man.
Pity his recommendations on the isolation thing have not yet been fulfilled, though Foley claims it has been achieved hundreds of times. Then when I ask for more than anecdotal evidence - data in published research which is quoted on the NIAIAD Fact Sheet titled: “Evidence for HIV causes AIDS” , at least 5000 words from Foley by now, but no references. And this from a fact sheet which he said contained exhaustive and overwhelming evidence. - Anita Allen anita@theallens.co.za
September 25th, 2006 at 5:24 pm
If Anita would stop playing with her hamster dance web sites, and actually read Jay Levy’s textbook or the asic research upon which _HIV and the Pathogenesis of AIDS_ is based, she might learn something. I never claimed that the NIAID “factsheet” contained any overwhelming evidence, I only said that I predicted if I listed http://www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/evidhiv.htm (which is not the factsheet, the factsheet is: http://www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/hivinf.htm ) among several other sites where one can begin to research HIV and AIDS, Anita would come up with some excuse as to why none of them were good enough for her.
Although Anita pretends to want me to be her personal tutor, this is not my job. I can lead her to papers such as:
Rodriguez MA, Chen Y, Craigo JK, Chatterjee R, Ratner D, Tatsumi M, Roy P, Neogi D, Gupta P.
Construction and characterization of an infectious molecular clone of HIV-1 subtype A of Indian origin.
Virology. 2006 Feb 20;345(2):328-36. Epub 2005 Nov 9.
PMID: 16289184
van Harmelen J, Wood R, Lambrick M, Rybicki EP, Williamson AL, Williamson C.
An association between HIV-1 subtypes and mode of transmission in Cape Town, South Africa.
AIDS. 1997 Jan;11(1):81-7.
PMID: 9110079
Schrofelbauer B, Senger T, Manning G, Landau NR.
Mutational alteration of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 Vif allows for functional interaction with nonhuman primate APOBEC3G.
J Virol. 2006 Jun;80(12):5984-91.
PMID: 16731937
Virology 2003 Mar 15;307(2):328-40
Analysis of the functional relationship between V3 loop and gp120 context with regard to human immunodeficiency virus coreceptor usage using naturally selected sequences and different viral backbones.
Bagnarelli P, Fiorelli L, Vecchi M, Monachetti A, Menzo S, Clementi M.
Istituto di Microbiologia, Universita di Ancona, Ancona, Italy.
ABSTRACT:
The human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) gp120 V3 loop plays a predominant role in chemokine receptor usage; however, other linear and nonlinear gp120 domains are involved in this step of the HIV-1 replication cycle. At present, the functional relationship between V3 and these domains with regard to coreceptor usage is unclear. To gain insights into the nature of this relationship in naturally selected viral variants, we developed a recombinant strategy based on two different gp120 backbones derived from CXCR4 (X4)- and CCR5 (R5)-tropic viral strains, respectively. Using this recombinant model system, we evaluated the phenotype patterns conferred to chimeric viruses by exogenous V3 loops from reference molecular clones and samples from infected subjects. In 13 of 17 recombinants (76%), a comparable phenotype was observed independently of the gp120 backbone, whereas in a minority of the recombinant viruses (4/17, 24%) viral infectivity depended on the gp120 context. No case of differential tropism using identical V3 sequence in the two gp120 contexts was observed. Site-directed mutagenesis experiments were performed to evaluate the phenotypic impact of specific V3 motifs. The data indicate that while the interaction of HIV-1 with chemokine receptors is driven by V3 loop and influenced by its evolutionary potential, the gp120 context plays a role in influencing the replication competence of the variants, suggesting that compensatory mutations occurring at sites other than V3 are necessary in some cases.
PMID: 12667802
but I can’t make her read or comprehend them. I cannot even get her to accept the idea that hundreds of papers like these represent more than “anecdotal evidence”.
September 25th, 2006 at 11:13 pm
Dr Foley gave the reference http://www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/evidhiv.htm It states at the top it’s a fact sheet. He was asked to choose from among the numerous references in the fact sheet, those which fulfilled the fact sheet’s own criteria 2 and 3. He has failed to do so.
Now he offers references from - 2006; 2003, 1997 - and none of them qualify - and he well knows it.
How is it possible that Robert Gallo and partners across the world, including Luc Montagnier, could be on the wrong track, along with everyone who co-signs with them? Such as the 82 that signed Treatment Action Campaign’s Open Letter to President Mbeki calling for Health Minister Manto Tshabalala-Msimang MD’s firing. There was Robin Weiss and David Baltimore along with 11 South Africans - down from the 5000 of the Durban Declaration issued in 2000. If you remember the president’s spokesperson stated to SAPA that “it would find a comfortable place in the dustbin”.
So while Prof Ed Rybicki is among the 11 South Africans, neither his wife Prof Lisa Williamson, nor her sister Carolyn Williamson signed (all co-authors of the 1997 mode of HIV transmission study quoted by Foley in his latest post).
All are involved in HIV vaccine research. But none of them, nor the 82 who signed TAC’s Open :Letter, has published a paper or set of papers establishing viral isolation. Not Montagnier who seems to be playing all sides in this one. Certainly not not Gallo. Not Weiss who somehow managed to make quite a nest egg out of HIV test patents after his lab samples were contaminated with Luc’s. Nor Baltimore, Nobel Prize winner with Howard Temin for discovery of RT, proposed as HIV specific and now known to be ubiquitous. They were wrong on that. Arguably, so were the Nobel Committee - and there’s been other mistakes but no one hands back a Nobel Prize.
Were they wrong in 2004, when TAC was nominated for the Peace Prize to give it to Kenya’s Wangari Mathi, who besides her global-warming solution, outspokenly supports the view that HIV was a laboratory artifact?
Why the long delay on conferring a Nobel Prize on the scientist(s) who “discovered” HIV? Maybe, like Dr Foley, the committee just can’t find any references to published papers. - Anita Allen anita@theallens.co.za
September 26th, 2006 at 5:06 pm
Anita asks: “How is it possible that Robert Gallo and partners across the world, including Luc Montagnier, could be on the wrong track, along with everyone who co-signs with them?”
The answer of course is that they are not on the wrong track. It has just never occurred to Anita to do a little research to find the truth. Instead she starts with a conviction that AIDS cannot be caused by HIV, and then looks for anyone who is willing to go on record supporting that idea, even if they tell lies to do so.
The Durban Declaration was passed around by e-mail for about 3 or 4 days to collect the 5,000 signatures. I have no information about who was offered the chance to sign on for firing Manto Tshabalala-Msimang. Do you know for sure that the Williamson’s were offered the chance, and refused to sign?
It is rather trivial to do a PubMed search and find that Carolyn Williamson has in fact published papers on HIV isolation:
Williamson C, Morris L, Maughan MF, Ping LH, Dryga SA, Thomas R, Reap EA, Cilliers T, van Harmelen J, Pascual A, Ramjee G, Gray G, Johnston R, Karim SA, Swanstrom R.
Characterization and selection of HIV-1 subtype C isolates for use in vaccine development.
AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses. 2003 Feb;19(2):133-44.
PMID: 12639249
Bures R, Morris L, Williamson C, Ramjee G, Deers M, Fiscus SA, Abdool-Karim S, Montefiori DC.
Regional clustering of shared neutralization determinants on primary isolates of clade C human immunodeficiency virus type 1 from South Africa.
J Virol. 2002 Mar;76(5):2233-44.
PMID: 11836401
van Harmelen J, Williamson C, Kim B, Morris L, Carr J, Karim SS, McCutchan F.
Characterization of full-length HIV type 1 subtype C sequences from South Africa.
AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses. 2001 Nov 1;17(16):1527-31.
PMID: 11709097
Carolyn’s sister Anna-Lisa is not as involved in HIV research, her work is on human papilloma viruses:
Varsani A, Williamson AL, Jaffer MA, Rybicki EP.
A deletion and point mutation study of the human papillomavirus type 16 major capsid gene.
Virus Res. 2006 Aug 26;
PMID: 16938363
Varsani A, van der Walt E, Heath L, Rybicki EP, Williamson AL, Martin DP. Evidence of ancient papillomavirus recombination.
J Gen Virol. 2006 Sep;87(Pt 9):2527-31.
PMID: 16894190
I wonder if Anita denies all evidence of existence of papilloma viruses?
September 27th, 2006 at 1:33 am
Anita, can you move your fingers on the keyboard without telling a lie? It took about 3 seconds with GOOGLE to find out that Wangari Maathai does not think HIV is a lab artifact:
http://democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/03/08/1444212
“…
AMY GOODMAN: Do you feel many feel that it is a biological agent that was unleashed to destroy black people in Africa?
WANGARI MAATHAI: I don’t know of anyone who really believes that. I don’t know of anyone who believes that. Most of us don’t know. And part of the responsibility that we have is to educate people so that they are not given misinformation, and there is a lot of misinformation that goes around about the disease, as you know.
…”
September 27th, 2006 at 12:16 pm
Like Wangari Maathi ( quoted above by Dr Foley) I, too, don’t know anyone who believes HIV is a biological agent that was unleashed to destroy black people in Africa.
But I wish Dr Wouter Basson would shed light on his research on HIV.
I wonder what Maathi’s reply would have been if she had been asked does she believe (or feel) HIV is an artifact of the laboratory process, that should have stayed in the laboratory till clarity emerged?
Anyway, any one can GOOGLE her and find out she is as puzzled as most of us. Us poor confused sods are the majority. And quite right, too. There is wholesale confusion in virology. It’s the Follies of this world who are in the minority with their insistence on closing down the book of virology - and write insulting letters to the President of South Africa telling him he is an idiot and so is his minister of health.
Gallo signed the Treatment Action Campaign Open Letter to the President as “MD, Professor and Director, Institute of Human Virology; Co-Discoverer of HIV as the cause of AIDS; Developer of the first HIV blood test. University of Maryland, USA”
Dr Foley shouldn’t then have trouble in referencing the paper where Gallo establishes HIV as the cause of AIDS. Because on that depends the reliability of his blood test and others based on his HIV “isolate”.
Gallo, of course, was invited to take part on the Presidential AIDS Advisory Panel. He declined. Now he enters via an open letter to the President of South Africa which states, a-la Foley, “To deny that HIV causes AIDS is farcical in the face of the scientific evidence”.
I’m not denying anything. Show me first who said whatever it is I am accused of denying.
HIV may cause AIDS, but what is HIV? What is AIDS, for that matter? But let’s stick to HIV for now - is it an infectious taxonomically distinct particle, which sets off a train of acute conditions leading to death? Is it a homogenate of pooled blood from AIDS humans injected into the brains of primates? Is it one of the many isolates derived from tedious cultures, and all the rest that goes into the process in vitro? Is it a chimera created as a result of contaminated polio vaccines cultured in various monkey renal cells? Is it a homologous entry on Los Alamos genebanks?
Of course, there’s always the good old Institutes for the Taxonomy of Viruses http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gpv/ICTVdb/ictv/index.htm - where only HIV-1 is listed - and it is the only species under genus lentivirus of the family Retroviridae so far listed. No Gallo HTLV (whatever the “L” stands for). Donald Burke (1) talks about 3 HIV species, and 17 different “clades” and the difficulties of managing this taxonomically.
It’s become so fuzzy, that different schools in different countries are setting up their own taxonomies in which whole families change and some recognise only one order and others three as taxonomically distinct.
Semiologists and nosologists, represented on the Presidential AIDS Advisory Panel by the Republic of Germany’s science laureate Dr Heinz Spranger, do not recognise HIV as a pathogen nor AIDS as a disease. He received the highest award of science in Germany, after he accepted to serve by invitation of President Mbeki on his panel. I actually phoned the Germany Embassy to check that it, too, considered it an honour for one of its scientists to serve on the President of South Africa’s panel.
Gallo and others like Judge Edwin Cameron can be foolish enough as to think the Presidential Panel was a shame and sham, but I don’t have that choice. I want the truth to come out whatever it takes amd where ever one can serve it is an honour, clearly.
(Incidentally, Spranger, and the school from which he comes and represents, means that the foundation of South African policy on HIV and AIDS “based on a premise of an internationally accepted assumption that HIV causes AIDS” is not international at all.)
The book on taxonomy of viruses is primitive to say the least. And now 82 scientists are insisting it must be closed, on their word for “it”, whatever “HIV” turns out to be and not to be. With “HIV” we have in addition a new taxonomic class enumerable “isolates”, including 106 genetically distinct variants in an asymptomatic AIDS patient (2) and more than 108 in a symptomatic one.(3) No wonder it is so easy for my fingers to find in a few minutes of googling thousands of guru’s debating and publishing research and discussing whether viruses in toto can be separated from other biological entities and into distinct biological entities.
It’s fascinating. I didn’t make all this up. There is much dispute. This is the reality.
The Deputy President of South Africa, Cosatu who listened to her, the Health Minister and the Deputy-Minister of Health have a united message - one I agree with - TAC and their supporters must join the suitable forums already set up and discuss improvements to the Comprehensive Plan on HIV and AIDS.
Somewhere in the plan there must be a sub-committee on aetiology, that Dr Foley/Los Alamos and Gallo et al can join and debate with their peers on research interpretations. The reigning doyen among Comprehensive Plan compilers would be Prof Barry Schoub, also a member of the Presidential Aids Advisory Panel, and Prof Carolyn Williamson, also a member of the Presidential Aids Advisory Panel and Prof Lyn Morris and Prof Saliem Kariem - all members of the panel.
I know research has been continuing - Foley gives some more of these from a single source and school of thinking. There is much much more from other sources and schools of thinking. I know the Health Minister agrees her department must take a lead in this, because I asked her on radio live and she answered work was continuing and there were unanswered questions and debate.
Just one of the problems seems to be a dearth of academics who read, to say nothing about politicians, and media commentators.
In the meantime, a deadline for the five-year plan on HIV and AIDS has been given by the Deputy President of South Africa - December 2006. I hope funding will be distributed so that traditional and naturapathic approaches are implemented in clinical trials, including the lemons, garlic, olive oil programme choice the minister punts. Look how quickly the TB bacillus mutates on contact with synthetic drugs. Will a little mutant bacteria emerge in this foolish race against evolution that culls the human race? Should my taxes really be going into taking the word of Prof Schoub, Robert Gallo et al, and now Dr Foley?
That’s my message from first hand experience of the AIDS debate now going back to 1999, backed by boxes and databases full of data, and a life time fascination with things scientific. - Anita Allen anita@theallens.co.za
1. Burke, DS. Recombination in HIV: An Important Viral Evolutionary Strategy. Emerging Infectious Diseases. Vol 3 No 3. July-September 1997. http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol3no3/burke.htm
2. Vartian JP, Meyerhans A, Henry M, et al. High-resolution structure of an HIV-1 quasispecies: Identification of novel coding sequences. AIDS 1992;6:1095-1098.
3. Wain-Hobson S. Virological mayhem. Nature 1995;373:102.
September 29th, 2006 at 2:36 pm
I wonder if Brian Foley and Anita Allen spend night and day planning to slam each other on this sight.
Brian please spend your energy on something more constructive than butting your head agaisnt the brivk wall that is Anita Allen. She isn’t likely to grow brains at this point.
Anita, please please please leave us alone!
September 29th, 2006 at 7:18 pm
I don’t do much planning to slam Anita. Anita is clearly very intelligent, she just does not understand virology, epidemiology or genetics.
If Anita were just another “AIDS dissident”, I would not spend energy here with her. However, because she has claimed to be the person who instigated the infamous South African Presidential AIDS Advisory Panel, I think it is important to understand how and why she came to beleive she was an AIDS expert, and how and why the government has been or has not been influenced by her and the people she invited to the panel.
Although South African research on HIV and AIDS has always been very good by any standards, some members of the government, and some journalists in South Africa have become confused, to say the least. I am hoping to point out to journalists, here in this blog, the difference between researching a story to find the truth, and either reporting “both sides” without discussing which side has credible evidence to back up that side, or choosing a side and searching only for people willing to go on record to support that side even if they tell lies to do so.
I do not live in South Africa, so my reading of the news from South Africa is limitted to what I can get from the internet. I see a lot of “Manto bashing” and similar stories without any real substance to back them up. Hundreds of studies have been done to show the relative importance of various aspects of nutrition, from micronutrients and vitamins to protein and carbohydrate intake, in comparison to other factors such as taking antiretorvirals and avoiding overconsumption of alcohol.
It is my opinion that South Africans could greatly benefot for some in depth reporting on HIV and AIDS. There are social factors that are important in prevention of transmissions, such as imbalance of male and female power in relationships, age differences between males and females in relationships, and fidelity or commitment to a single partner. There are difficult choices to be made with regard to costs vs effectiveness of treatments and risks of side effects. If one drug costs a tenth as much as another drug but has twice the rate of adverse side effects, is it wise to take the cheaper drug to see if the side effects will develop? Are any of the side effects permanent, or are they nearly all reversed upon switching therapies? What percentage of these side effects are minimal and tollerable such as a tingling sensation in the fingertips, and what percentage are very serious such as liver damage? Most of these issues are well-discussed in the medical literature, but not even most doctors have the time and energy to fully research it all. Journalists play a very important role in society by researching and reporting on topics of importance. It is possible to distill and simplify biomedical research without mis-reporting on it. Calling HIV a “germ” is simple bu not inaccuate. Calling HIV a bacteria is inaccurate. Claiming that HIV has not been isolated is innacurate.
Perhaps there is good reporting on all aspects of HIV and AIDS in South Africa, and I am just not seeing it. Please forgive my ignorance if that is the case. I have not seen many reports spelling out what government and nongovernmental assistance programs are available to help people. What organizations are avialable, such as:
Health Systems Trust
http://www.hst.org.za/
The Institute for Democracy In Action South Africa:
http://www.idasa.org.za/
which has a whole section HIV, AIDS and the Media.
And how can people get involved in helping all of these organizations work better together? What are the blocks preventing services from reaching people? It is not always a lack of the service itself, sometimes it is a problem of access to the service.
October 6th, 2006 at 8:47 pm
An on-line video of AIDS and prevention of AIDS in Central America, South America and the Carribean has been prooduced for Science Magazine:
http://www.biocompare.com/video/science/aidsamericas/
It is interesting how different programs have dealt with HIV/AIDS in different ways.
Partners In Health http://www.pih.org/index.html has had huge successes in Haiti, and now has also set up several programs in Africa. They stress a whoistic approach which makes a lot of sense for many reasons. It makes little sense to test for and treat HIV without also testing and treating tuberculosis and dozens of other problems. Likewise, testing for and treating tuberculosis without also taking care of HIV is not a good idea.
Dr. Paul Farmer is a medical anthropologist and physician who co-founded Partners in Health. He has written several books, and several books have been written about him and his programs.
http://www.ucpress.edu/books/pages/9875/9875.auint.html
October 6th, 2006 at 10:17 pm
Words from Dr. Paul Farmer:
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol2no4/farmer.htm
AIDS has always been a strikingly patterned pandemic. Regardless of the message of public health slogans—”AIDS is for Everyone”—some are at high risk for HIV infection, while others, clearly, are at lower risk. Furthermore, although AIDS eventually causes death in almost all HIV-infected patients, the course of HIV disease varies. Disparities in the course of the disease have sparked the search for hundreds of cofactors, from Mycoplasma and ulcerating genital lesions to voodoo rites and psychological predisposition. However, not a single association has been compellingly shown to explain disparities in distribution or outcome of HIV disease. The only well-demonstrated cofactors are social inequalities, which have structured not only the contours of the AIDS pandemic, but also the course of the disease once a patient is infected (30-33). The advent of more effective antiviral agents promises to heighten those disparities even further: a three-drug regimen that includes a protease inhibitor will cost $12,000 to $16,000 a year (34).
==========
Dr. Farmer has made great contributions to lowering the costs of treatments (not just for HIV, but also for multi-drug resistant tuberculosis), so that these figures from 1996 are no longer applicable. But his other points about social inequalities and HIV epidemiology (which parallels the epidemiology of tuberculosis and many other transmissible diseases) unfortunately are still very accurate to this day.