A/N: Below is my first essay for the online course on AIDS that I am taking. It is my attempt to squeeze in the everything in my head in only 600 words. I am sharing this with you because, although not the best, I am proud of it. This one is dedicated to the friends who inspire me to pursue bigger and better things. Don't worry. I promise to do better on my next essay.
 |
| Photo from worlddomination.com |
Among
the many AIDS denialist theories, molecular biology professor Peter Duesberg’s
is possibly the most popular, if not the most controversial. In 1998 study, Duesberg
zeroed in on drug use and anti-retroviral drug therapy as the catalysts of
AIDS. He showed that majority of those with AIDS in the United States and
Europe were recreational drug users. Another similarity was the use
anti-retroviral drugs (ARVs).[i] Of
course, other men and women of science did not take these propositions sitting
down. On Duesberg’s website is a quote from a great scientist, Albert Einstein:
“The important thing is to never stop
questioning.” Those who were unconvinced by the Duesberg Hypothesis did
just that.
In
his study, Duesberg pointed out that in the early 1980s, those who were
diagnosed with AIDS were also mostly homosexual men with multiple sex partners,
and who used recreational drugs as aphrodisiac or psychoactive stimulants, some
of which introduced to the body intravenously. This was one of the reasons why
he pointed to drugs as a cause of AIDS.i Closely
associated with the onset of AIDS is the decline in the CD4 cells, which are
damaged when the virus replicates. This drop is an important basis in
diagnosing if a person has developed AIDS. The study Does Drug Cause AIDS?,
published in Nature in 1993, showed
that the CD4 count of those who were seronegative or HIV-negative individuals regardless
of drug use had relatively stable CD4 count. Furthermore, this entire group’s
CD4 level stayed well above the normal value (600-1,200 cells per cubic
millimiter[ii])
from 1986 to 1990. In contrast, regardless of drug use, CD4 cell count of those
who were seropositive (positive for HIV) declined significantly. It is
interesting to note that the
discrepancies in the CD4 decline of those subgroups
with varying drug use were only very slight.[iii] As
the seronegative drug users do not experience a collapse in their immune
system, these statistics strongly suggest that drug use does not affect the
progression of the infection. This conclusion was further strengthened by a
study entitled Recreational Drug Use and T Lymphocyte Subpopulations in HIV-uninfected
and HIV-infected Men, published in 2008, which looked at the
correlation of CD4 and CD8 count with drug use in men who have sex with men
(MSM). Here researchers “found no clinically meaningful
associations between use of marijuana, cocaine, poppers, or amphetamines and
CD4 and CD8 T cell counts, percentages, or rates of change in either
HIV-uninfected or -infected men.”[iv] These studies are very strong evidence against
the Duesberg Hypothesis.
Another
controversial clause in the denialist’s claims is that anti-retroviral drugs are
the actual cause of AIDS. Antiretroviral drugs act to inhibit viral
replication, preventing the increase in concentration of HIV in the system. It was observed in a study conducted by Division of Infectious Diseases and Hospital
Epidemiology, University of Zurich, in 1999 that 6.6% out of 2,675 HIV patients on highly active
antiretroviral therapy (HAART) achieved and maintained undetectable viral
loads. Viral load is, of course, correlated with the progression of
disease. Several studies also correlated ARV use to
significantly slowing down the progression of the disease. In the clinical
trial called BW002, Azidothymidine efficacy was compared with placebo in 282
patients with AIDS or late signs of HIV
infection. In the trial, only one of the 145 patients treated with the drug
died whereas 19 out of 137 patients treated with placebo died within six
months.[v]
Properly questioned
and dissected, it seems that the Duesberg hypothesis cannot to stand the test
of science.
No comments:
Post a Comment