Document:Preface to AIDS: The Failure of Contemporary Science

From AIDS Wiki

NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER NOTICE ON THIS PAGE, the material on this page is NOT available under the GNU Free Documentation License; in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, it is posted in the manner of bulletin boards in schools and workplaces, to encourage public education and citizen awareness, without profit or payment, for persons and entities engaging in non-profit research and educational activities and purposes only.

Oxford
December 1995

Last April, I was invited to give a talk at a Wednesday morning seminar held at the Kobler Clinic in London, a leading centre of Aids treatment and research. The title was 'HIV/Aids: Some Unanswered Questions'. The seminar room at the clinic, which forms part of the showpiece Chelsea and Westminster Hospital, was packed with an audience that included leading Aids physicians as well as research nurses, health counsellors and social workers. I was received coolly but courteously, and by the ned of the one-hour meeting I felt the mood was generally appreciative.

That may have been not so much because of the information I shared, as because I seemed less of a monster than some workers in the field had come to expect. Even one year previously, I could never have expected such an invitation. A series of articles I had written over a two-year period, reporting on a scientific challenge to the HIV theory of Aids, had brought prolonged, high-level and often passionate criticism, nationally and internationally.

The articles highlighted inadequacies in the theory that Aids, the most emotionally laden diagnosis of the times, was caused by a deadly new virus, HIV. While not offering any clear-cut alternative theory, the aticles featured claims by a small group of scientists that the disease was not behaving as would be expected if the cause really was a new microbe. The way the syndrome developed within individuals, and the pattern of spread within society, suggested its origins might be better explained by a variety of exceptionally risky circumstances in the lives of those affected, rather than by a single germ.

These reports were greeted with accusations of extreme irresponsibility. In the minds of many, HIV and Aids had been inextricably linked. To challenge HIV's role in the disease meant weakening public and personal resolve to fight the spread of Aids, thus imperilling thousands or millions of lives. In addition, to question HIV as an 'equal-opportunity' virus meant risking a damaging backlash on its victims. The criticism came from highly respected individuals and organisations within the worlds of politics and the media, charities and religion, as well as science, medicine and the gay community. It was a controversy unprecendented during my thrity years in newspaper journalism.

At times I felt very isolated. This had a positive side for me. It fuelled inquiries that carried me across several continents, and deep into the wonders of molecular biology, in order to meet and learn from a small group of generous-hearted individuals who had also found themselves at odds with mainstream science over HIV's role in Aids. The longer I have studied the issue, the more convinced I have become that these different viewpoints have much to offer in terms of hope for a more successful approach to Aids. I am grateful for having had the chance to study and write about these people. I have distilled their ideas and experiences as clearly as I could and shall be pleased if others can now give them a hearing.

There was a downside to the intense controversy. I sometimes fell into the trap of becoming over-reactive and self-righteous. Such reactions blunt one's sensitivity to the feelings of others. I was struck by the sincerity with which Dr. Brian Gazzard, a senior London Aids physician and researcher, spoke at the seminar of the hurt felt when treatment uncertainties and difficulties were attributed to drug company agendas. Although money has played a big part in sustaining the HIV story, I do not believe it was ever a primary motivation.

A gay man at the seminar asked how I would feel if I realised I had caused hundreds of thousands to die. Pretty bad, I said. When I added, defensively, that I didn't think a newspaper could have that kind of influence, many of those present disagreed.

But was the influence for better or for worse? It ought to be borne in mind, I said, that the HIV hypothesis itself might have cost thousands of lives. This caused puzzlement, and I was asked what I meant. If the theory was wrong, I said, the neglect of other ways of thinking or lines of research meant thousands had been denied information or treatment that might have saved them. For example, if anal sex, or drug use, played important roles in their own right, regardless of any new virus, then failure to address those behavioural aspects would have boosted the epidemic, and would still be doing so.

Although the 'safer sex' drives have had a valuable impact in the gay community, many HIV-positive gay men believe that since HIV is the cause of Aids and they are already infected, they have nonhting to lose by continuing to use drugs and to have unprotected sex with HIV-positive partners. To interpret an 'HIV' diagnosis in that way may be lethal. I believe similar serious mistakes have been made with harmful chemotherapeutic drugs targeted against HIV. Their long-term use would never have been contemplated if the HIV paradigm had not convinced doctors and patients there was no other rational choice.

Coming to terms with these mistakes is going to be difficult, but will eventually strengthen science and society. This book is not an exercise in trying to apportion blame. On the contrary, writing it has been a healing experience, in which the siege mentality that had started to trouble me gradually faded until I arrived back at a point of respect for all involved.

Hans Eysenck, the eminent psychologist, once defined neurosis as an inability to follow the carrot or the stick. He was referring to the difficulties wounded individuals encounter when they lose their ability to respond to life's signals (often because of having received too much stick and not enough carrot). Perhaps the same can apply to institutions as well. This book suggests that an institutional neurosis — a prolonged failure to respond appropriately to the emergency represented by Aids — has gripped the great body of human endeavour we call science for more than a decade. It is causing much suffering, and ought to be brought to an end.

© 1996 by Neville Hodgkinson