Re: Re: Re: Questions for Peter Flegg 28 September 2004
Previous Rapid Response Next Rapid Response Top
Nicholas Bennett,
Infectious Disease Postdoc/Clinician
Department of Pediatrics, University Hospital, Syracuse NY

Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Re: Re: Questions for Peter Flegg

One quote:

"ANTIMALARIAL ANTIBODY DOES NOT INFLUENCE THE SEROLOGICAL POSITIVITY FOR HIV INFECTION" [1]

There are others, of course. This is just one example of the mistruths that laymen such as Mr Russel are accepting as fact. This is exceedingly dangerous misinformation.

I have not seen or heard of any studies showing that TB increases the risk of HIV seropositivity either: the "rediagnosis of old diseases" story is a bit tired after all these years. I cannot even find a decent Perth Group argument implicating TB as causing positive antibody tests.

All the disease that make up AIDS are normally rare, or far more serious in AIDS patients than normal (eg oesophageal candidiasis, pulmonary KS). This is what was new about HIV infection, and is a concept that seems extraordinarily hard for some people to grasp. It's the "ID" bit of AIDS.

I'm terribly amused that Mr Russel would say that "historically this is blatantly untrue" as if I would lie about data that can be verified using information in the public domain! I'm sorry to say that it is not I who has been doing the lying, but those who have written what Mr Russel has come to believe.

Field's virology lays out the timelines: Volume 2 p 1941-1942 for HTLV-I and p 1971-1972 for HIV-1/HIV-2.

Refs

1. Chattopadhya et al J Commun Dis 1991 Sep;23(3):195-8 "Antimalarial antibody in relation to seroreactivity for HIV infection in sera from blood donors."

2. Field's

Competing interests: None declared