A critical analysis of the HIV-T4-cell-AIDS hypothesis

AIDS in Africa: distinguishing fact and fiction

The data widely purporting to show the existence and heterosexual transmission in Africa of a new syndrome caused by a retrovirus which induces immune deficiency are critically evaluated. It is concluded that both acquired immune deficiency (AID) and the symptoms and diseases which constitute the clinical syndrome (S) are of long standing in Africa, affect both sexes equally and are caused directly and indirectly by factors other than human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). Seropositivity to HIV in Africans usually represents no more than cross-reactivity caused by an abundance of antibodies induced by the numerous infectious and parasitic diseases which are endemic in Africa. The apparently high prevalence of 'AIDS' and 'HIV' seropositives is therefore not surprising and is not proof of heterosexual transmission of either HIV or AIDS.

A critique of the Montagnier evidence for the HIV/AIDS hypothesis

In 1983 Luc Montagnier and his colleagues claimed to have discovered a novel retrovirus presently known as human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). By 1984 HIV was almost universally accepted to be the cause of AIDS. However, 20 years later, HIV cannot account for the phenomena for which the retroviral hypothesis was proposed, namely, Kaposi's sarcoma, decrease in T4 lymphocytes and thus the opportunistic infections in AIDS patients which were assumed to be the direct results of this decrease. Agents other than HIV to which patients belonging to the AIDS risk groups are exposed cause decrease in T4 cells. Neither have the main predictions of the HIV hypothesis been fulfilled. HIV seropositivity in the developed countries still remains restricted to the original high risk groups, no HIV vaccine exists, and no successful animal model has been developed. In this communication, we critically analyse the evidence which in 1983 was claimed to prove the existence of HIV. The phenomena which Montagnier and his colleagues considered proof for the existence of HIV are detection of reverse transcriptase activity; the presence of retrovirus-like particles in the culture; immunological reactivity between proteins from the culture supernatant which, in sucrose density gradients, banded at the density of 1.16 g/ml ("purified virus") and antibodies in a patient's (BRU) serum. Reverse transcriptase activity can be found in viruses other than retroviruses and in all normal cells. Reverse transcription can be brought about not only by the enzyme reverse transcriptase but also by normal, cellular DNA polymerases. Retrovirus-like particles are ubiquitous in cultures not infected with retroviruses, especially in conditions employed by Montagnier et al. From the reaction between proteins in the "purified virus" and antibodies in the patient serum Montagnier concluded that the proteins were HIV proteins and the antibodies were HIV antibodies. Since all antibodies are polyspecific, from such a reaction it is not possible to define the origin of even one reactant let alone both. Even if this were possible, since Montagnier's "purified virus" did not contain particles with the "morphology typical of retroviruses", the proteins cannot be retroviral. We conclude that, these phenomena are non-specific to retroviruses and thus cannot be considered proof for the existence of a unique retrovirus HIV.

A critical analysis of the pharmacology of AZT and its use in AIDS

The triphosphorylated form of the nucleoside analogue 3'-azido-3'-deoxythymidine (Zidovudine, AZT) is claimed to interrupt the HIV replication cycle by a selective inhibition of viral reverse transcriptase, thereby preventing the formation of new proviral DNA in permissive, uninfected cells. Given that initial HIV infection of an individual instigates abundant HIV replication from inception until death, and that the life of infected T-cells is only several days, the administration of AZT should lead both in vitro and in vivo (i) to decreased formation of proviral DNA; and thus (ii) to decreased frequencies of 'HIV isolation' (detection of p24 or reverse transcription or both) in stimulated cultures/cocultures of T-cells from seropositive individuals; (iii) to decreased synthesis of HIV p24 and RNA ('antigenaemia', 'plasma viraemia', 'viral load') ultimately resulting in low or absent levels of all three parameters; and (iv) to a perfect and direct correlation between all these parameters. A critical analysis of the presently available data shows that no such evidence exists, an outcome not unexpected given the pharmacological data on AZT. HIV experts all agree that only the triphosphorylated form of AZT (AZTTP) and not the unphosphorylated form administered to patients, nor its mono- or diphosphate, is the active agent. Furthermore, the mechanism of action is the ability of AZTTP to halt the formation of HIV-DNA (chain termination). However, although this claim was posited from the outset, AZT underwent clinical trials and was introduced as a specific anti-HIV drug many years before there were any data proving that the cells of patients are able to triphosphorylate the parent compound to a level considered sufficient for its putative pharmacological action. Notwithstanding, from the evidence published since 1991 it has become apparent that no such phosphorylation takes place and thus AZT cannot possess an anti-HIV effect. However, the scientific literature does elucidate: (i) a number of biochemical mechanisms which predicate the likelihood of widespread, serious toxicity from use of this drug; (ii) in vitro data proving that AZT has significant antibacterial and antiviral properties which confound interpretation of its effects when administered to patients. Based on all these data it is difficult if not impossible to explain why AZT was introduced and still remains the most widely recommended and used anti-HIV drug.

Factor VIII, HIV and AIDS in haemophiliacs: an analysis of their relationship

In this review, the association between the Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) and haemophilia has been carefully examined, especially the data that have been interpreted as indicating transmission of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) to the recipients of purportedly contaminated factor VIII preparations. In our view, the published data do not prove the hypothesis that such transmission occurs, and therefore HIV cannot account for AIDS in haemophiliacs.