While adamant he is not an
Aids denialist, Peter John still believes it’s healthy
to question the received wisdoms about HIV and Aids
Many
of us are avid readers of any news relating to HIV and Aids, ferreting
through stories for anything that offers hope.
Often the news is bad; or is it? A recent sketchy report suggested the body
stores a ‘reservoir’ of HIV which can never be eliminated.
Yet a participant in a recent clinical trial on treatment interruptions is
reported ‘cured’. The virus apparently wiped out.
Both cannot be true. Whenever I read a ‘new’ report I check its
sources. Invariably these are based on others which are, in turn, based on
others ad infinitum. Frequently the fundamental research involved has long
since been overtaken.
The conclusions to these news stories were preceded by the magic word, ‘if’.
The sheer volume of repetitive, regurgitated material makes it unwise to accept
any report based purely on others.
Those who treat us have been trained in the prevailing hypotheses. Very few
indulge in independent thought or research. It would be unrealistic to expect
them to. Hence our questions elicit the
standard, learned, responses which may be misleading. Inventors are rarely
scientists. Scientists rarely invent. The process of ‘science’.
where a conclusion has to be expressed, afterwards proved, is not likely to
generate light.
When I first started treatment I was given no promises. I was simply prescribed
a form of HAART hopefully to stem further decline. I am trained in logic and
soon determined the whole pseudo-science attached to my illness was flawed
and it was unlikely my practitioners were any better placed than I to deliver
a likely prognosis. I was right.
In the early days, information concerning Aids was suppressed and only when
the news leaked out and it became apparent this was not going to be restricted
to the gay community did the search for a culprit become urgent. Remarkably
soon after the beginning of public panic, a ‘virus’ was discovered.
Panic over; since a cause is discovered, a cure will eventually follow. But
it did not. Means of keeping the virus in check arose and the pharmaceutical
industry made a fortune. With the virus in check, the cure is no longer urgent.
What if the culprit is not a virus? The evidence is, at best, vague. There
are alternative hypotheses.
One group will now leap to accuse me of being an Aids ‘denialist’.
I am not. I am a sceptic. That is the healthy option. Some hang desperately
onto the HIV theory and that is indeed denial. They refuse to contemplate
the possibility there may be some other cause and it is comforting to cling
to what appears certain. Anyone from the medical profession, who postulates
an alternative hypothesis, is pounced on and suffers draconian, punitive measures.
The list of wrecked careers is growing. Why? Surely science advances only
by being challenged and subjected to question.
Do I support the conspiracy theorists? No. There are certainly minor conspiracies
aimed at protecting financial interests but these are no different to any
other area of activity.
The protectionist activities of the pharmaceutical and scientific interests
may skew the direction of research which may well hinder objective research
into cause and cure.
Their own information states there is no evidence that an HIV antibody test
indicates the presence of any virus and viral load counts deliver notoriously
unreliable results.
It may well be that HIV is the cause of Aids. It is unlikely to be the sole
cause. It may well be that eliminating some other agent would effectively
enable the body to recover. Our best hope lies there. In the meantime our
best friends are caution, scepticism and, at times denial and cynicism. I
denied I was going to die. I survived. I was sceptical when I was told my
immune system would not recover. It did. I am cautious before accepting treatments.
I am cynical about those who resort to name-calling rather than debate.
