Re: Re: Re: Re: Questions for Christopher Noble & Nicholas Bennett 20 September 2004
Previous Rapid Response Next Rapid Response Top
Mark Bartlett,
CD Control
Canada

Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Questions for Christopher Noble & Nicholas Bennett

To Mr. C. Noble,

<<How should an infecious agant behave>>

Well, for starters, because we are supposedly talking about a new virus in an immunologically naive population and one that is supposedly sexually transmitted, I would expect far more infections in the hetrosexual population and for them to be more evenly dispersed among the sexes after all that is the chief way it is supposedly spreading. In the last few years, rates for other STDs have risen and that is a proxy for unprotected sex. It follows that we should be seeing higher numbers of HIV infections at least that seems reasonable to me.

One could argue that this is what is happening in Africa, but with the HIV test cross-reacting with so many of the infectious agents present there agents these people have virtually ALL equally been exposed to (i.e., both sexes) -- it supports the argument that these tests measures a state of the immune system OR the antigenic markers of other infections (or both), rather than the presence of a single infectious agent. The AIDS establishment says it is a slightly different virus that infects both sexes more readily; personally I do not buy that argument. I think it is the environment that is the same for both sexes that accounts for the difference.

I would not expect such a long latency period in an immunologically naive population.

I would expect it would be relatively easy to see the virus in high numbers in very sick, immunologically naive people.

I would expect HIV to manifest itself pathologically in its own unique way, not to be a collection of other well described infections. After all it is supposedly a new and unique virus. At the risk of appearing a little facetious, I would expect a little more originality from a new and unique virus.

It concerns me that those who continue to be most affected are those who usually have other high-risk behaviours (and whose immune systems are incessantly being challenged by other agents (infectious and otherwise) and are likely in a continuous pro-inflammatory state). The impact of these factors on the immune system and how the immune system reacts to this continual bombardment, need to be more fully explored and better understood.

Briefly, that is what I would expect to see. Of course, none of what I expect to see rules out HIV as an infectious agent, but the sum total of these factors has made me rethink my position and made me far less confident that HIV is truly the cause of AIDS.

If I were doling out grant money to explore what causes AIDS, Id be looking much more closely at some of these other factors and their impact on the immune system. Twenty-four years of research focused on the conventional HIV=AIDS paradigm have not really yielded a lot of results -- seems to me that perhaps something a little less conventional may be in order.

Competing interests: None declared