I am continuing to look at the RFK, Jr.'s presentation about "the doubts that exist" as to whether HIV causes AIDS. In the previous entry, I looked at a number of miscellaneous topics in Chapter Five and focused heavily on RFK's arguments about Koch's postulates from 1890.
Going through Kennedy's arguments is a frustrating task. He commits a sin that is commonly referred to as a Gish gallop. This is a means of arguing by throwing a hundred things out regardless of quality and expect the debater to waste time disputing minutiae. If the debater doesn't do this, he claims victory by saying that there was so much the debater did not address.
As I've documented time and again, Kennedy often presents bat-shit crazy or wholly contrived arguments. I have undertaken many hours dissecting Kennedy's lies. There are many more I neglect. This should not be my life's work. He should be responsible for his own honesty. In a just world, he would correct himself.
As noted in my last entry, Kennedy claims to be agnostic as to whether HIV causes AIDS. He does however, spend 65 pages presenting arguments that it doesn't, and dedicates no space to the arguments that it does. This is typical of his fake evenhandedness.
In this section I'm going to go briefly over Kennedy's criticism of tests to determine whether someone has an HIV infection and then dive into Duesberg's alternative view of what causes AIDS.
On page 190, Kennedy says, "The most significant diagnostic tools doctors use to determine if someone is infected with HIV, and therefore, whether they have AIDS are:
1. HIV antibody test.
2. PCR viral load tests.
3. Helper cell counts. (CD4 cells)"
This is poorly worded. Infected with HIV does not mean the patient has AIDS as I discussed in the previous post. CD4 counts do not diagnose whether someone has HIV. They correspond to immunological status. And his list doesn't include tools that researchers use such as p24 antigen, culturing, full virus sequencing, or in some instances, electron microscopy.
General Comment on Diagnostic Tests
First, let's consider a general matter about tests. No test is perfect. The television show "House," devoted whole episodes to trying to diagnose through testing and exam. There are four possible outcomes to any disease test. First is a true positive. That means the test shows someone has the disease and, indeed, that person does have the disease. Then there is the true negative. That means the test shows someone does not have the disease, and, indeed, that person does not. Then there are the unwanted outcomes. False positive. In this case the test shows someone does have the disease when that person doesn't. Finally, there is false negative. In this case, the test says the person does not have they disease when they actually do.
The obvious idea behind a test is to have the true positives and true negatives vastly predominate. For a specific test for tuberculosis, false positives can range from 1-2% to higher, depending on the patient's circumstance and the study. This doesn't mean that Mycobacterium tuberculosis doesn't cause tuberculosis or that the test is useless. With science, uncertainty in any given approach goes with the territory. That's why the lawyers add provisos with the tests: this is not a definitive diagnosis. They don't want the test manufacturers to get sued.
There have been lawsuits from people falsely diagnosed as having HIV. To avoid these, the diagnostic exam companies add a disclaimer. This disclaimer results in something good (we do have tests) and something bad (the companies have less incentive to better their tests). As I said, no test is perfect.
Kennedy cites such lawyerly provisos to dismiss HIV tests as being useless and meaningless. Page 192, "Do not use this kit as the sole basis for detecting HIV infection."
HIV Antibody Tests
Kennedy's first complaint is about the HIV antibody test. He throws out head-scratching arguments. "HIV antibody tests were not actually designed to specially to detect HIV." (page 191) Of course not. They detect antibodies. I have already commented on Kennedy's bizarro comment "High antibody level indicated that a person had already successfully battled against infection and was now protected from the disease." Such an argument says that every battle against diseases is successful.
Kennedy includes this statement on how antibody tests are made which should make researchers laugh. (Page 190) ". . . the inventor must isolate the target virus and expose it to human cells in a petri dish, which then generate the specific antibodies responsive to that virus."
Kennedy says that "Gallo's antibody test also reacts to people with fever, pregnant women, and people who have overcome a tuberculosis infection." (page 190) Why Kennedy is still talking about Gallo's 1980s antibody test is one problem, but the notion of what percent of tests have false reactions is dealt with pretty well in this explanatory article. It depends on how prevalent the true local infection in HIV is. If you almost never have a true HIV infection locally, then many positive reactions are likely to be false. If it is common, then the likelihood of a false positive is diminished. That's the nature of disease testing. The source gives a 94.5% true positive rating for men who have sex with men in the United Kingdom.
My ongoing frustration with Kennedy is that a mature and interesting discussion of these matters is both possible and informative.
PCR Testing
On page 185, Kennedy starts a rant on PCR, a general method used to detect all sorts of illnesses and causative agents. He continues this in several spots, including page 190 and 191, with a subchapter titled "PCR Testing Deficiencies." His mind does jump around.
So, what does PCR do? Every organism has genetic material that is specific to its species. In straightforward PCR (and there are many variants), you use a pair of segments of DNA (called primers) to amplify copies of a region of the genetic material of a specific organism. That genetic region represents a "DNA fingerprint" of the organism. PCR is also used in forensics to provide a sequence of genetic information that is unique to a particular human and which is considered definitive in criminal cases.
On page 191, Kennedy says, "The Polymerase Chain Reaction (sic) PCR technique does not measure the actual, live virus in the body . . ." No, PCR doesn't measures "live" viruses. No one says viruses are "alive" by the standard definition of life, anyway. Perhaps he means to say "viable virus," or "infectious virus," but I shouldn't have to write his book for him.
Done right, PCR proves the presence of a specific organism's genetic material.
As I said, PCR can be thought of as genetic fingerprinting much in the same way the genetic fingerprint of a criminal can prove the source of biological material. Blood on a glove. Semen in a rape kit. In the case of HIV, it is the genetic signature of the virus. Can something go wrong? I know of a case where the police mislabeled the blood samples and arrested a man because his voluntary DNA sample matched another tube of blood with his voluntary DNA sample. PCR can't overcome that. Contamination in the lab can screw up results. Otherwise, done right, PCR tests are a standard means for identifying the presence of a wide variety of infectious organisms, and can be used to detect mutations that exist in genetic diseases. PCR is one of the great inventions of the last half-century.
On pages 190-1, Kennedy cites Kary Mullis, the inventor of PCR to say, "Quantitative PCR is an oxymoron. PCR is intended to identify substances qualitatively, but by its very nature is unsuited for estimating numbers." Sorry, Dr. Mullis, yes (duh) PCR can be quantitative. There is an entire field called real-time PCR. It can be used for many diseases and is a standard means of measuring gene expression. Searching the Library of Medicine online, the phrase "real-time PCR" brings in over 100,000 papers. ("Quantitative PCR" as a search term brings in 48,000 results, although many of those are bound to overlap with the previous search.) Quantitative PCR has a very straightforward means of testing amounts in comparison to standardized controls of known quantities.
 |
| There are different varieties of PCR which cover many different diseases including those that quantify gene products, disease organisms, and HIV. |
Kennedy repeatedly says that PCR can only amplify viral fragments. While this is usually all that is necessary, this is a review of papers that look at full genome length amplification.
CD4 Tests
Kennedy devotes only one short paragraph to discussing CD4 tests (page 192). He argues that CD4 counts are merely a surrogate marker and "The problem is the use of a surrogate endpoint, which is notoriously im- precise (sic)." I mostly agree. Surrogates are imprecise. That doesn't make them useless. My own experience with those with very low CD4 counts from patients is that they were at the end stage disease process. This was before 1995 and the arrival of powerful HIV therapy. Much fewer HIV patients have collapsed immune systems these days.
Duesberg's Theory About What Causes AIDS and Kennedy's Homophobia.
On page 181, Kennedy writes: "In July 1981, CDC reported a unique outbreak of immune deficiency-related health problems in a group of highly promiscuous gay men in Los Angeles, New York, and San Francisco."
The above is an example of RFK, Jr.'s book includes a number of anti-gay snide remarks. Homosexuals are highly promiscuous! As he says, cited further below, they are all drug users.
The July 3, 1981 MMWR publication (actually the second report of the phenomenon which would become known as AIDS) nowhere describes the cohort as "highly promiscuous." They are referred to as homosexual and the degree of their sexual behavior is not mentioned. The actual July 1981 report.
On page 222, RFK gets around to commenting on the actual first report of what came to be known as AIDS from June of 1981. Kennedy states "The first AIDS cases were five gay men—all unknown to one another—diagnosed with a rare (PCP) pneumonia and Kaposi's sarcoma, a form of cancer that previously only afflicted elderly men." The actual June 1981 report.
I clench my teeth here. Why can't Kennedy get anything right? None of the first five cases had Kaposi's sarcoma.
Further down the paragraph on page 222, he references Dr. Michael Gottlieb (co-author of the first report, and, in part, a discoverer of AIDS) and goes on to say, "The men were all promiscuous party enthusiasts in the "fast lane" gay lifestyle" and "They daily had multiple anonymous sexual partners—upward of a thousand per year—and contracted most of the sexually transmitted diseases like syphilis, gonorrhea, and hepatitis B."
What does the Gottlieb's MMWR paper say? "The five did not have comparable histories of sexually transmitted diseases" and "Two of the five reported having frequent homosexual contacts with various partners."
While Gottlieb did not say what Kennedy claimed, he did, however, in an interview, trash Duesberg and spoke of his own early work on AZT. (Warning: the link has auto-starting videos of the interview, so you might want to mute your computer if you merely want to read.)
GOTTLIEB: Disinformation and a false narrative did not originate recently. Peter Duesberg and his colleagues were ahead of the time in disseminating misinformation and a false narrative, for unclear motives. Duesburg and the AIDS deniers did a huge amount of damage and undoubtedly cost peoples' lives. [snip] Peter Duesberg is flat wrong. One has only to look at the success of ART in changing HIV from a death sentence to a manageable condition with projected longevity for young people that approximates what their lifespan would have been without HIV. The only thing different is the fact that they are treated with medication that addresses HIV specifically and not any other virus or factor in their lives. [emphasis mine]
GOTTLIEB: My message to them is to stop it.
The full paragraph and context of Kennedy's statement about Gottlieb and the promiscuous gays reads (Page 222). I include a commentary below this.
The first AIDS cases were
five gay men--all unknown to one another--diagnosed with a rare (PCP) pneumonia
and Kaposi's sarcoma, a form of cancer that had previously afflicted only
elderly men. Dr. Michael Gottlieb, a researcher searching California hospitals
for new diseases with unusual symptomology, is credited with the initial
discovery and its epidemiological context. (the following sentence, with
its repeat portion, is presented as it is in the book.) in Los
Angeles in 1981 by Dr. Michael Gottlieb, a researcher searching California
hospitals for new diseases with unusual symptomology. The men were all
promiscuous party enthusiasts in the "fast lane" gay lifestyle. They
were taking many different recreational drugs simultaneously and combining
drugs in excess of patterns among straight drug users. They frequented bars,
clubs, and bathhouses. They had multiple daily anonymous sexual
partners--upward of a thousand per year--and contracted most of the common
sexually transmitted diseases like syphilis, gonorrhea, and hepatitis B. They
were, therefore functionally addicted to a pharmacopoeia of antibiotic
prescription medications; "all of that created a situation where a
handful of gay men," say Mark Gabrish Conlan "were burning the candle
at both ends and putting a blowtorch to the middle. It's no wonder that after a
while, their immune systems started to collapse and they started getting sick
in these unusual ways that previously only been seen in older people whose
immune systems had deteriorated with age."
There is a lot to unpack there. Old people do not get immunodeficiency diseases in any way similar to those with AIDS. Kaposi's sarcoma was not just known in "elderly men." Outside of AIDS, it has a very specific genetic and regional occurrence. Dr. Gottlieb was not "searching California hospitals for new diseases." You would think from the above paragraph that Gottlieb, a respected AIDS researcher, was the one claiming these men were "in the fast lane." The transition to Conlan's words are not clear. Conlan is a journalist. Where Conlan's quote came from is unclear, it is not among Kennedy's citations.
Why does this matter? Kennedy puts forward the crackpot theory that it was through wild drug use that gay people destroyed their immune systems thus causing AIDS. This drug use was specifically tied to "poppers," which typically refers to amyl nitrite.
Kennedy (page 223) says that poppers "are very powerful oxidizing agents." They are moderately powerful oxidizing agents. They are used clinically for angina. He goes on to say they are "powerfully mutagenic and carcinogenic." They are not. And, "poppers are radically immunosuppressant in rodents." A study in humans show limited effects, reversible within a week.
If poppers cause AIDS, I wonder what the act of telling whoppers causes? Kennedy offers this one. Page 223, "Prior to 1987, every AIDS patient acknowledged heavy consumption of poppers."
Through 1987 there were 50,280 US cases of AIDS. That is remarkable that they all confessed to heavy consumption of poppers. Did they interview 5,000? Doubtful. And 100% confessed to using poppers? Including those who got AIDS from transfusions? Hemophiliacs? (My first work studied AIDS in children.) Of course, Kennedy's statement is completely made up.
AIDS is not a gay disease. In the year 2000, for the US, 41% of those living with AIDS were infected by male-to-male transmission. This number is slightly exaggerated. Bisexual men with AIDS are often pigeonholed as to getting HIV through gay contact.
More recently, among those newly diagnosed with HIV (2022), 67% were male homosexual or bisexual, 22% were heterosexual, and 7% were IV drug users. That is for the US and AIDS is a worldwide phenomenon.
Refusal to Debate.
On page 218, Kennedy begins a subchapter on the refusal to debate HIV deniers and Duesberg called Refusal to Debate. I personally have been attacked as someone who has promoted the deaths of hundreds of thousands because of my views which align with those of Fauci. Kennedy himself presents subchapters titled AZT As Culprit and Is AZT Mass Murder? I personally believe that when Duesberg influenced South Africa to deny HIV treatment due to personally pressing his case that HIV does not cause AIDS, he helped cause hundreds of thousands of deaths, a figure presented in this article in the Journal of Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome. I cannot debate such a person. I have no respect for the things that come out of his mouth.
I go on to look at Kennedy's sections on Kaposi's sarcoma and AZT in my next installment.
Martin Hill Ortiz is a professor of pharmacology and author of several novels.
 |
| The Missing Floor |
0 comments:
Post a Comment