Seeds of Doom - Chapter 4

Seeds of Doom // Prologue // Chapter 1 // Chapter 2 // Chapter 3 // Chapter 4 // Chapter 5 // Chapter 6 // Chapter 7

Chapter 4: Suppression of Dissent

In 1987 an independent researcher named Louis Pascal happened to formulate the same theory on the origin of AIDS: polio vaccines, SV40, experiments in the Congo and all the rest.

He wrote an article and sent it to 13 biologists and researchers in the field of AIDS. No reaction. Then he sent the manuscript to 3 scientific journals. One refused it with no explanation, another refused it because it considered the theory implausible, and the third did not answer.

Pascal had a different article accepted by an African magazine, but unfortunately it went out of business before it appeared. Pascal also wrote a big new article for a medical ethics journal, but they refused to publish it because it was too long.

This long article was finally published in December 1991 by an Australian university after more than 4 years, and then only because a professor named Brian Martin thought that Pascal had been the victim of what he termed “suppression of dissent” – the censure or blocking of an uncomfortable idea by a power group, in this case the scientific community.

Why were Pascal’s ideas not accepted? Was it because they are threatening for the image of medicine and medical research? Or was it because Pascal was not a professional researcher, not affiliated with any institution? Because if you don’t have a piece of paper saying who you are you don’t count?

No, it was because Pascal’s articles are not written in the dry concise style required by scientific journals. He is too passionate. It’s his fault; he should have stuck to the rules.

But in the end it was published. …500 copies? Nobody even noticed it. But a few months later when Curtis’ article appeared in Rolling Stone it was a different story. Rolling Stone has a circulation of hundreds of thousands of copies. So what was the reaction of the scientific world to the theory?

One scientific journal in particular took the trouble to follow the case. Not just any journal, one of the most prestigious in the world – you know it already – Science: “Debate on AIDS origin: Rolling Stone weighs in”. Curtis’ theory was just another of a long line of “wild speculations”.

Now, in a scientific debate whom do you believe? Rolling Stone, a rock mag, or Science, one of the most famous scientific journals in the world? No! Try to think with your own head and read the article! Science did not furnish any proof to refute the theory; it merely stated that the "experts" considered it implausible.

Curtis disagreed with them and wrote to Science contesting the criticism and restating his position. His letter was published by Science in May 1992 and only then did Hilary Koprowski respond:

“As a scientist, I did not intend to debate Tom Curtis when he presented his hypothesis about the origin of AIDS in Rolling Stone. The publication of his letter in Science… however, transferred the debate from the lay press to a highly respected scientific journal….”.

Got it? According to Koprowski’s reasoning, a theory can only be discussed if it is presented in a scientific journal. So, my ideas, your ideas, unless they appear in a scientific journal, don’t count.

Of course scientific journals can’t just publish anything. All submissions are subject to quality control. And that’s the curious thing, precisely because Koprowski’s letter is full of errors and inaccuracies – even the notes are out of sync – and none of the facts he presents actually refute the theory.

Curtis once again disagreed and wrote to Science pointing out the errors in Koprowski’s letter. And how did they react? They didn’t publish his letter! We can accept that, in order to have merit, a theory must appear in a scientific journal. But if they don’t publish all our arguments, how can it be discussed?

But that wasn’t all. Immediately following publication of the article in Rolling Stone, the Wistar Institute, with whose support Koprowski had organized the vaccinations in the Congo, called together a panel of experts to evaluate the relevance of the theory. After 6 months the findings of the group were presented at a press conference:

“…we consider the probability of the AIDS epidemic having been started by the inadvertent inoculation of an unknown HIV precursor into African children during the 1957 poliovirus vaccine trials to be extremely low.” They didn’t say “impossible”, just “improbable”. Why?

The report cited the OHTA’s (he jokes again with a martial attack) test, where it was noticed that the virus had already disappeared during the first steps of vaccine production. But that study said nothing about the old method of vaccine production.

Then the oral route is not an efficient way of infecting with SIV or HIV. It is possible, however, that some of the vaccinated individuals had sores, wounds or blisters in their oral cavity, thus increasing the chances of infection. In addition, there is evidence that the virus can be transmitted from mother to newborn via breast-milk, or through oral sex. How many of the vaccinees were teething infants or kids, who bit their tongues in fear or anxiety?

It’s known that infants under 30 days were given 15 times the normal dose, to be sure that they were effectively immunized. The Wistar expert panel’s report ended with the following warning:

“In closing, we feel compelled to mention that the current controversy highlights the problems and difficulties associated with using monkey tissue for production of vaccines administered to humans. To this day, live-attenuated poliovirus vaccine is produced in the United States and in most other countries using primary African green monkey kidney cells. (…) There may well be other monkey viruses that have not yet been discovered that could possibly contaminate vaccine lots.”

Them, too? It’s already the fourth time that somebody warns against the use of monkey kidney tissue cultures in the vaccine production: Koprowski in 1960, Lecatsas, Ohta, and now the Wistar Institute panel. And still today the majority of polio vaccines are produced using monkey kidneys, when there are nowadays alternative methods of production, which are safer. Questions of interests? Don’t change the subject…

Basically, the panel of experts gave just one piece of evidence, which challenged the theory. The Manchester sailor.

In 1959, a young man of 26 from Manchester, who had been in the navy, died the victim of diverse organisms, which literally devoured his body. It was a horrible death and I would rather spare you the details. Everything pointed to a collapse of the immune system. The doctors in charge of the man were so shocked and perplexed that they decided to take samples of his organs to carry out tests, perhaps at some later date, in the light of new scientific knowledge.

When the AIDS discussion began in the 80s, the case was reviewed but the samples were not submitted to a double-blinded test until 1990. The result was unequivocal. All the check samples were seronegative, while in 4 out of 6 of the sailor’s samples the presence of HIV was detected. The young man was seropositive and died of AIDS.

But why should the Manchester sailor case have been such a crushing proof against the theory? Because he was in the navy and had apparently traveled in Africa between 1955 and 1957. But he had returned to England before the beginning of the Koprowski vaccinations in the Belgian Congo. So if the young man had become infected before 1957, that meant that HIV was already present in a human before the beginning of the vaccinations and therefore they had nothing to do with the AIDS epidemic.

Immediately after the press conference, Science published a very short editorial reporting that the panel of experts had demolished the OPV/AIDS hypothesis. No reservations. No doubts. Period.

Curtis was again in disagreement and wrote to Science protesting that the group of experts had disproved absolutely nothing. The Manchester sailor could very well have been infected by a companion after his return to England because the symptoms of disease had not appeared until the end of 1958 when several thousand people had already been vaccinated. It was also possible that the young man had taken part in another of Koprowski’s vaccinations, for example the one in Ireland in 1956. Moreover, a theory could not be refuted on the basis of one proof only.

The letter arrived at Science at the end of 1992. And what was their response?… No, wrong! They published it. And once more Koprowski replied, this time not in a letter but with a lawsuit against Curtis and Rolling Stone for “…the destruction of (his) professional and personal reputation, for mental and emotional suffering, and for …humiliation and embarrassment…”

But just a moment. Where are scientific theories supposed to be discussed - in specialist journals or in the courtroom? As someone later remarked, “Being burned alive as a heretic is admittedly worse than facing financial ruin, but except for the threat being different, we have seen this mode before.”

The lawsuit occupied Curtis full time for about a year but he was never brought to court. At the end of 1993 the lawyers of the two parties reached an agreement whereby Rolling Stone had to pay a symbolic amount of one dollar in compensation to Koprowski and print a “clarification” stating that the oral polio vaccine theory (OPV/AIDS hypothesis) was only “…one of several disputed and unproven theories…” on the origin of AIDS.

The clarification praised the figure of Koprowski as a scientist and regretted “…any damage to (his) reputation that may have been caused by the article…”. However, it did not actually retract Curtis’ article, nor did it mention having been published as part of a legal agreement.

The costs of the case amounted to $300,000 for Koprowski and $500,000 for Rolling Stone. But why was Koprowski satisfied with a mere clarification instead of the retraction of the article, and why did he not insist on a trial? Was it perhaps because, according to American law, the onus would have been on Koprowski to prove that his vaccine had not been responsible for the AIDS epidemic?

The lawsuit achieved one objective, however: it discouraged the lay press from publishing anything more on the theory. And Curtis’ career as a journalist? Seriously impaired. Science reported that Rolling Stone’s clarification had closed the case and that Koprowski felt relieved.

At this point the theory seemed disproved for all time. But was it really? As we have seen, the only real evidence to refute the theory was the case of the Manchester sailor. And in 1995 a stupendous revelation made its appearance, presented by David Ho.

Who is David Ho? What do you mean who is David Ho? David Ho is a brilliant researcher in the field of AIDS. And, he was also a member of the panel of experts at Wistar Institute. Well, after their report was drafted, Ho, who is a bit pedantic, wanted to know more about the virus of the Manchester sailor. As it appeared to have been the first case in the world, he thought it might provide important insight into the beginning of the AIDS epidemic.

He obtained the same samples, which had been double-blind tested in 1990. In his tests he also detected the presence of the virus, but although on one hand his results concurred with those of 1990, on the other, something did not convince him. So he had samples sent directly from the doctor who had been in charge of the sailor and carried out the tests again. His conclusions, published in 1995, were rather surprising to say the least.

The original samples were found to be seronegative, while those sent by the English laboratory had been seropositive. But the strain of the virus found in the latter belonged to a person who had probably died at the end of the 80s, and the samples themselves were discovered to be a mixture of tissue from at least 3 different people!

“…Either tissue samples were mixed up in a laboratory… or the samples were deliberately switched.” But who would have mixed up the samples? Well… it could have been an error. But then what was the real cause of death of the Manchester sailor? Maybe he was one of those rare cases in which the collapse of the immune system is the same as those infected with AIDS, but which are seronegative. Extremely rare cases.

And so, discussion of the theory went on. But who was left? Lecatsas hadn’t shown any further interest in it, Curtis had been eliminated by his lawsuit and Pascal… that was another mystery. No one had ever seen him. Of course Louis Pascal is a pseudonym. Louis Pasteur and Blaise Pascal: the great medical researcher and the great philosopher. Curtis, Martin and others had only communicated with him by letter but no one had ever met him in person. And in 1996… he disappeared completely.

What a story!