Timothy Ray Brown the "patient in Berlin Photo: Peter Rigaud The Vienna Review: The April 28, 1984, in a press conference in Washington DC stated that the human immunodeficiency virus was caused by a pathogen responsible for AIDS.
Secretary of Health and Human Services Margaret Heckler, announced it publicly with the man who claimed to have discovered the virus, Dr. Robert Gallo.
Heckler also said he hoped the vaccine became available in the next two years, and a diagnostic test capable of identifying the virus in the next six months at the disposal of the people.
In The Health Department and Human Services (DHHS) U.S. were already working on a patent for this test, a patent that could make the department more than $ 100 million per year for decades, including Gallo would receive a considerable amount.
Since then, what is called HIV / AIDS, has called the biggest epidemic of our time, has claimed millions of lives and have spent billions of dollars in research funds.
In the 20 years that has elapsed, our understanding of this syndrome and the battle against this epidemic has progressed very slowly despite the intense research and has received massive funding this commitment which brings together efforts and resources for what some see as an unnecessary risk.
In the first decade of the epidemic, more money was spent on HIV / AIDS in the NASA project to reach the moon.
However, in 2007, Timothy Ray Brown, known as the "Berlin patient," received a transplant of stem cells to fight against acute myeloid leukemia, a cancer of the immune system. Cancer was the way in which AIDS strung to this victim. By late 2010, Brown was cured of cancer and there is no trace of HIV in the.
This development is seen as an exciting breakthrough in the fight against AIDS promising, sort of as a pat on the shoulder for stem cell research. However, the medical and scientific community said that despite being an interesting test there was nothing to celebrate because he had been a particular treatment, difficult to explain and of course it should continue to maintain safer sex.
Most importantly, Brown's recovery is due to a particular feature of the genetic makeup of individual donante.El whose bone marrow had been used is one of a small percentage of Europeans are immune to HIV. The bone marrow provides much of the blood produced by the body components, including CD4 T cells.
This cell is responsible for identifying infections, is the specific objective of VIH.Sin But in those individuals considered immune CD4 T cells are not affected when exposed to virus.Timothy Brown seems to have acquired the same donor's immunity . Since the beginning of this treatment, has suspended the use of HIV drugs and now, three years later, is completely free of the virus.
However, the treatment is considered unique for this patient and not a feasible solution to the global HIV / AIDS. It's expensive, dangerous, and difficult to find enough people with immunity, willing to donate bone marrow the millions affected worldwide, it seems unlikely.
At this point, it is impossible to say whether the treatment was responsible for 100% recovery. Some believe that has nothing to do with the genetic makeup of donor stem cells, or even AIDS, in general, has nothing to do with the human immunodeficiency virus.
This idea may seem sensational and irresponsible to the official connection is between HIV and AIDS, but it has been customary in some scientific circles for over 25 years. This is a silenced opinion as its advocates claim, by organizations like the Center for Disease Control (CDC), National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the DHHS, as well as pharmaceutical and medical industry.
In fact, the discussion originated shortly after Dr. Gallo became public his statement in 1984 when he was accused of scientific misconduct.
Among other things, stated that HIV was responsible for AIDS, but their trials and experimental methods were not available for review until ten days later. So no one in the scientific community had the opportunity to check and criticize the results or his claim before he was out on the stock. It seemed as if a hypothesis of a sudden, without an analysis that would ensure deep, pushing to this conclusion.
However, the U.S. government and the medical establishment as a major policy implemented along with a huge financial investment - and thus is born the AIDS industry.
Gallo results, published in Science vol. 224, May 4, 1984, caused the medical community outrage at the Pasteur Institute in France: Dr. Luc Montagnier said he had sent six months before a sample of the same virus that Dr. Gallo had presented. Won an international suit against HHS for "scientific misconduct" on the basis that Gallo had pirated Montagnier's discovery. The issue was resolved diplomatically between the U.S. Chairmanof Ronald Reagan and French Prime Minister Jacques Chirac, in a deal that ensured the equitable sharing of benefits obtained from the antibody test kits to detect LAV virus.Se changed the terms, as it was called the virus in France and HTLV III, referring to the U.S. for an international equivalent: HIV.
However, this was not the only problem that arose with the delayed publication of the results of Gallo.Sólo in 44 of the 93 patients tested were found to have HIV, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and Gallo himself became since increasing the target of suspicion and criticism.
is important to note that even though all patients had tested positive for HIV, like any other scientific hypothesis, correlation does not imply causalidad.Considerandose this observation especially true if the correlation is less than 50%.
One of the leading voices of the opposition movement against the HIV = AIDS hypothesis is Dr. Peter Duesberg, a renowned virologist with a PhD in chemistry, now at the University of California at Berkley.Él and other dissidents formed a partnership of skeptics who - for reasons of understanding and concise - Is known as the Group (the Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of HIV-AIDS Hypothesis /). These scientists have put their reputation on the line to raise some fundamental questions. While not questioning the existence of AIDS, but the means by which it acquires, said there is still no strong evidence that HIV causes AIDS.
Its mission is summarized in a sentence of four letters subject in leading scientific journals in 1991. The paper acknowledges that the data linking HIV-AIDS were not enough in time to be tested for HIV / AIDS hypothesis. Then the Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of HIV-AIDS Hypothesis called independent studies carried out with the intention of objectifying the validity or reject the hypothesis of HIV / SIDA.En that time, all publications refused to publish the application, an action that suggests complicity if not conspiracy.
work of dissidents, of course, must undergo the same scrutiny as critican.No no room for the view when it comes to testing. The Group offers a multitude of possible causative agents of AIDS, none of which, however, successfully tested and reviewed by peers. Apart from this, the questions and criticisms have been and are valid, but even if raised, have never been answered.
At the International AIDS Conference 1990, held in San Francisco, Dr. Luc Montagnier, who years later was awarded a Nobel Prize for the discovery, surprise with a story that could be considered against their own interest, said the HIV can be benigno.Pero lawmakers paid no attention and continued to discuss new anti-retroviral drugs.
skepticism may seem damaging, and possibly a distraction to the real search for a cure, but the reasons for dissent are many, be discussed in detail in a later article.
Timothy Brown's case could redefine the dialogue and push the debate for one position.
In the next edition, The Vienna Review hopes to have evidence placed on different sides of the controversy, and the opinion of Dr. Gero Hütter, the doctor who cured Timothy Ray Brown.
Source: The Vienna Review
0 comments:
Post a Comment