Polio vaccines and the origin of AIDS

HIV Denial in the COVID Era

Though scientific consensus regarding HIV causation of AIDS was reached decades ago, denial of this conclusion remains. The popularity of such denial has waxed and waned over the years, ebbing as evidence supporting HIV causation mounted, building again as the internet facilitated connection between denial groups and the general public, and waning following media attention to the death of a prominent denier and her child and data showing the cost of human life in South Africa. Decades removed from these phenomena, HIV denial is experiencing another resurgence, coupled to mounting distrust of public health, pharmaceutical companies, and mainstream medicine. This paper examines the history and current state of HIV denial in the context of the COVID pandemic and its consequences. An understanding of the effect of this phenomenon and evidence-based ways to counter it are lacking. Community-based interventions and motivational interviewing may serve to contain such misinformation in high-risk communities.

The politics of a scientific meeting: the origin-of-AIDS debate at the Royal Society

The Royal Society of London held a scientific meeting in September 2000 focusing on two theories of the origin of AIDS: one, that it occurred through "natural transfer" of immunodeficiency virus from monkeys or chimpanzees to humans; and the other, that it occurred through iatrogenic transfer via contaminated polio vaccines used in Africa in the late 1950s. This meeting was the culmination of years of public contention over the polio-vaccine theory. Several dimensions of the politics of science are revealed by analysis of this issue, including the power of scientific editors, the use of the mass media, decisions regarding selection of speakers and organization of the meeting, and epistemological assumptions made by participants.

The origins of acquired immune deficiency syndrome viruses: where and when?

In the absence of direct epidemiological evidence, molecular evolutionary studies of primate lentiviruses provide the most definitive information about the origins of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-1 and HIV-2. Related lentiviruses have been found infecting numerous species of primates in sub-Saharan Africa. The only species naturally infected with viruses closely related to HIV-2 is the sooty mangabey (Cercocebus atys) from western Africa, the region where HIV-2 is known to be endemic. Similarly, the only viruses very closely related to HIV-1 have been isolated from chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), and in particular those from western equatorial Africa, again coinciding with the region that appears to be the hearth of the HIV-1 pandemic. HIV-1 and HIV-2 have each arisen several times: in the case of HIV-1, the three groups (M, N and O) are the result of independent cross-species transmission events. Consistent with the phylogenetic position of a 'fossil' virus from 1959, molecular clock analyses using realistic models of HIV-1 sequence evolution place the last common ancestor of the M group prior to 1940, and several lines of evidence indicate that the jump from chimpanzees to humans occurred before then. Both the inferred geographical origin of HIV-1 and the timing of the cross-species transmission are inconsistent with the suggestion that oral polio vaccines, putatively contaminated with viruses from chimpanzees in eastern equatorial Africa in the late 1950s, could be responsible for the origin of acquired immune deficiency syndrome.

Bridging the gap: human diploid cell strains and the origin of AIDS

Recent descriptions of the first human and chimpanzee cases of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1)-related retroviral infections dating from 1959 have stirred interest in the origin of AIDS. Although the theory of a chimpanzee origin of HIV-1 with cross-species transfer to man has now gained popularity, a more likely scenario is that chimps and humans were infected by an HIV-1 precursor virus derived from a contaminated poliovaccine. The reason for the rapidity and ease of cross-species transfer of this precursor virus has not been elucidated. We hypothesize that the poliovaccine was passaged in a human diploid cell strain. This simple manipulation allowed the retrovirus to adapt to human tissues and may have spawned the AIDS pandemic.

The African polio vaccine-acquired immune deficiency syndrome connection

Seroepidemiological, clinical and molecular findings suggest that the acquired immune deficiency syndrome virus human immunodeficiency virus-1 was introduced into the human species at the time (late 1950s) and in the geographic area (Zaire) in which millions of Africans were vaccinated with attenuated poliomyelitis virus strains that were produced in kidney tissue obtained from monkeys. Since monkeys not only harbor viruses that are remarkably similar to and genetically related to human immunodeficiency virus-1, but also served as tissue donors for the African polio vaccine, it is reasonable to suspect that a then non-detectable monkey virus with human-1-like properties was unknowingly co-cultured with the attenuated poliovirus virus and subsequently administered to the vaccinees. The possibility of such a polio vaccine-acquired immune deficiency syndrome connection is a reminder of the unpredictable danger of artifically crossing natural species-barriers in biomedical laboratories.

Util-izing animals

Biomedical experimentation on animals is justified, researchers say, because of its enormous benefits to human beings. Sure, animals suffer and die, but that is morally insignificant since the benefits of research incalculably outweigh the evils. Although this utilitarian claim appears straightforward and relatively uncontroversial, it is neither straightforward nor uncontroversial. This defence of animal experimentation is likely to succeed only by rejecting three widely held moral presumptions. We identify these assumptions and explain their relevance to the justification of animal experimentation. We argue that, even if non-human animals have considerably less moral worth than humans, experimentation is justified only if the benefits are overwhelming. By building on and expanding on arguments offered in earlier papers, we show that researchers cannot substantiate their claims on behalf of animal research. We conclude that there is currently no acceptable utilitarian defence of animal experimentation. Moreover, it is unlikely that there could be one. Since most apologists of animal experimentation rely on utilitarian justifications of their practice, it appears that biomedical experimentation on animals is not morally justified.