In response to Professor Duesberg's Intoxication hypothesis of AIDS
Having looked at the Prof. Duesberg's postulate, I have the following comments to make:
He advances that " AIDS is the result of chemical intoxication and malnutrition". He suggests that "HIV is a latent virus without pathological bearing".
Professor Duesberg says that people who had prior ant-viral vaccination should not contract other viral infection.To me this only applies to closely related viruses like herpes and chicken pox. In fact, vaccination against common cold is worthless because strains keep on changing.This is currently the case with HIV/AIDS.
Professor Duesberg asserts that in the diagnosis of HIV we currently look for antibodies which supposedly should be protective. He points out that viral strands are built in vitro by chain polymerization and are erroneously referred to as viral load.The antibodies are only partially protective for HIV because in viral infections the body depends on T lymphocytes for protection and less on the antibodies. Chain polymerization is a standard technique for identifying viruses, for magnification purposes.
Professor Duesberg et al. say that infectious epidemics rise, peak and then fall but habitual intoxication rises and stays and this is the case with AIDS. He rightly says that infectious epidemics disappear because immunity develops over time ( self- limitation) This is true for other infections but because HIV affects T cells which primarily should limit its viability, this self-limitation does not seem possible with HIV. HIV divides rapidly after infection, it is then expressed by transient clinical symptoms, followed by antibodies formation which confers some immunity and leads to latency. Malnutrition and chemical intoxication will shorten this latency and this partly explains why some people once infected succumb very fast. People who can avoid intoxication, stressful lifestyles and have adequate sleep and good nutrition will be able to live longer with the virus. I therefore advocate good nutrittion, immune boosting, alongside anti-retrovirals as a better strategy to deal with HIV/AIDS.
Professor Duesberg also says that Anti-retroviral drugs are toxic and are responsible for AIDS and deaths. Anti-retrovirals, especially the old generation like AZT, were synthesized initially to fight cancer cells by preventing rapid division of body cells in cancer. It was believed that they could help prevent the HIV from using the human cell to grow.The newer anti-retrovirals are more selective for the virus and are less toxic. Unfortunately, in Africa the older generation antiretrovirals are still being widely used because they are cheaper. The old generation antiretrovirals are less selective and more toxic and since treatment adherence is usually poor with them, resistance easily develops; necessitating the need to switch to more expensive second generation mix which many cannot afford.
I conclude that Prof. Druesberg's postulate is untenable in the light of current knowledge. His article was published in 2003 and I believe that Prof. Duesberg et al. must have abandoned their hypothesis.
Dr. Oliver Verbe Birnso
Comments
Post a Comment