Talking About Stuff, with Mike and Christiana

People who've been reading for a while know that I've posted a few times about an ongoing debate where some scientists and others are insisting that HIV does not in fact cause AIDS. I came across the debate on Dean's World, and in his most recent post on the subject, he also asserts that HIV does not cause AIDS.

Prior to hearing about this debate, it had never occurred to me to even question the connection, and so in reading about it, I began to do just that. Question it, and do more research. Now, it's a sufficiently complicated subject as to be near-impossible for a lay-person to penetrate, even a relatively informed lay-person like myself. Still, in all my reading, I have come to the following conclusions:

There is a causal relationship between the HIV virus and AIDS. It may not be the only factor, and in fact, I'm inclined to think that there are perhaps multiple co-factors required for the virus to actually develop into AIDS. What these cofactors are remains in the realm of speculation at this point.

That said, I still think there are a number of sketchy things going on in the administration of medications, and the diagnostic criteria being used in Africa. I suspect that there are a lot of people in Africa who are being diagnosed as AIDS patients when they are in fact suffering immune suppression due to malnutrition and other aggravating factors, such as malaria.

So after floating a bit, I have settled once more on the HIV=AIDS side, though certainly closer to the fence than before. Furthermore, I definitely plan to continue following the debate and viewing news reports on the subject with a more skeptical eye. I think the research that I've done on the subject while pursuing this issue has been very valuable and I'm glad that the debate prodded me into doing it.

Russian Scientists Develop Tablet to Prolong drunkenness

If you take a tablet you need less alcohol to stay drunk, the scientists were quoted by the paper as saying. “RU-21 Red prolongs drunkenness and enhances intoxication,” the company co-founder, Emil Chiabery, born in the ex-Soviet republic of Georgia said.

As my regular readers will know, I've been following a debate recently over at Dean's world, where the host there has taken the position that HIV does not cause AIDS. I've posted about it here and here.

Basically, I think that the issue is too complicated for me to reach a definitive conclusion, but what I have seen does convince me that the issue is not nearly as settled as I thought it was. The idea that a desperate scientific could seize upon the first offered cause that came along, and then explain away the ever-increasing number of things that poke holes in the theory by simply saying that the virus is "unusual." No one wants to even acknowledge the possibility that the theory is wrong because of all the time and money and effort that would have been expended in the wrong direction, and because of the extremely high stakes involved.

It's not that I'm saying that is what has happened, as much as I can see how it could happen.

Anyway, there's a news story out about a new strain of HIV that is resistant to three of the four primary anti-HIV drugs and progresses to AIDS in months instead of years. There are two different reports of it that I have read so far. The NYTimes report, and one on Bloomberg.com.

Now, if this new strain turns out to be legitimate, then it might just definitively answer the HIV=AIDS question in a demonstrable way. However, these reports are not enough to do it.
First of all, it's important to note that this is just one guy. Statistically, a sample size of one tells you exactly nothing. This guy could have all sorts of other things going on that make his story completely anecdotal. Basically, one case provides enough justification to look for more cases, but by itself, it doesn't necessarily mean anything to anyone beyond this one guy and his doctors. If, in the next year or so, we start seeing more of this sort of thing and it's the same new strain and everyone who gets the strain reacts this way, now that would really say something.

In the meantime however, a couple of things in the articles I read sent up warning flags for me.

First, in the Bloomberg article, I saw this:

Frieden said the one drug the HIV strain isn't resistant to is Enfuvirtide, sold under the trade name Fuzeon, developed by Trimeris Inc. of Durham, North Carolina, and Roche Holding AG of Switzerland. The problem, Frieden and other physicians said, is that this drug is most effective when used in a ``cocktail'' with other retrovirus drugs such as nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors, non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors and protease inhibitors.

Trimeris stock closed at $13.60, up 86 cents or 6.75 percent, in composite trading on the Nasdaq, the biggest single- day percentage gain since Sept. 10, when it rose 11.49 percent, and down $4.63 from $17.93 a year ago. Roche shares traded at 123.2 Swiss Francs, up 0.5 francs, in composite trading in Zurich, down six Swiss Francs from a year ago.

The news ``is probably positive for Trimeris,'' said Sharon Seiler, a biotech analyst with New York-based Punk, Ziegel & Co., which she said owns no shares in the company, though it does act as a market maker. Fuzeon's required twice-daily injections and the need to mix the solution for 20 minutes ``have been significant impediments to the drug's sales'' in two years on the market, she said.

Did you see that? News of a scary new strain of HIV benefited a specific pharmaceutical company which manufactures one of the less-popular anti-HIV drugs. More on this at the end, but first let me point out something in the NY Times article:

At the news conference in Lower Manhattan, Dr. Frieden was joined by nearly a dozen AIDS experts and community leaders. Several participants said they were experiencing the same worried feeling they had more than two decades ago, when AIDS first appeared and there was no treatment.

... SNIP...

Health officials have been worried for some time that city residents, particularly gay men, are growing lax in their attitudes about sex practices, lulled into complacency by the success of antiviral drugs. In the past four years, the number of new syphilis cases in the city has slowly increased, with gay men accounting for most of them. Only 45 percent of gay men surveyed by the Health Department in 2003 said they used a condom during sex.

An estimated 88,000 New Yorkers have H.I.V./AIDS, and health officials estimate that another 20,000 people are infected but do not know their status. The officials urged all New Yorkers who are sexually active to check on their H.I.V. status.

"Risky behavior may be even more dangerous now, since there is a chance of infection with a virus we may not be able to treat," said Dr. Jay Dobkin, director of the AIDS Program at Columbia University Medical Center.

So you see what's happening there? Because of the 'successes' of AIDS treatments, HIV is no longer seen as a death sentence to a lot of people. As a result, many of those people had started engaging in risky behavior again. But now there's a new boogeyman to get people scared again.

Now let me go on the record as saying that its a GOOD thing if more people are being careful and safe. Even if HIV was not an issue, there are plenty of other STD's and other reasons to not engage in reckless recreational drug use and promiscuous anonymous sex.

I'm not a believer in conspiracy theories; I don't think people are that organized. But if I were so inclined, I wouldn't have to stretch very far on this one. Imagine the following scenario: A lot of people make a lot of money and get a lot of respect and acclaim for being part of the search for a cure for AIDS. But the HIV=AIDS theory is starting to show some holes that are getting harder and harder to explain. The people who say HIV doesn't cause AIDS are starting to get harder to dismiss and ignore. Your funding sources are starting to get softer, because you've not been able to provide the results that you promised. So what would get the people back on your side? You invent a NEW strain of HIV that gets people scared again and sparks new interest in your research.

Now, I don't think that's what's happening. However, what might be happening is that people who are starting to be a little concerned for the above reasons might hear about this new strain and seize upon it, saying "You see? This proves I'm right!" Even though the anecdotal case is sketchy at best, there are a lot of people who are benefited if its true, so they are going to be more inclined to believe it.

Still, not all the AIDS researchers are going in that direction. Some of them are saying just what I have.

Dr. Robert C. Gallo, a co-discoverer of the AIDS virus and director of the Institute of Human Virology at the University of Maryland, was very skeptical of yesterday's announcement.

"My guess is that this is much ado about nothing," he said. "Though it's prudent to follow it, I don't think it's necessary to issue a warning or alert the press."

Dr. Gallo said that it was well known that some patients progressed from initial infection to AIDS very rapidly, but that it was usually because they were highly susceptible, not because the virus was virulent. He said that this case, in which the virus is drug-resistant and the progression rapid, was rare but not necessarily alarming.

Dr. John P. Moore, an AIDS researcher at Cornell University's Medical School, agreed.

"If there was a cluster of these, that would be different," he said. "But I wouldn't get bent out of shape about what is literally an anecdotal case right now."

So when you read the alarming headlines, just keep that in mind.

Also, this story has just been put up on Dean's World too, and while you're there, check out the book-style pdf version of one of the better discussion threads.

Google Maps is now in beta. Pretty slick, if you ask me, though it's a little slow if you only have dial-up. Here's a map of Morrisville, NC, where I live, for example. Note how you can scroll around on the map and the level of detail when you zoom in and out. Nifty.

Also, this company is really pushing hard to make space tourism a reality. Cool, although the talk about fatalities doesn't exactly strike me as the most persuasive point to make.

Those who have been reading here for a while, or who know me well, are aware that I am something of a skeptic on the subject of global warming. See, for example, my book review of Michael Crichton's "State of Fear". It's an interesting book with a lot of good points, but, unsurprisingly, it has its critics.

Once again, I'll summarize my opinion on the matter. The science is no where near as certain as we are frequently led to believe. The Earth may be warming, and human activity may or may not have anything to do with it. If it is warming, yes, that will probably be bad for some areas, but guess what? It will be good for other areas! Essentially, I think it would be a good thing for us to try and limit greenhouse gas emissions, but not at the cost of crippling the global economy on a bogus political punitive agreement like the Kyoto protocol. I won't get into the details of why Kyoto is so bogus here, but there is information all over. You can find more about it here andhere and here. And believe me, there is good reason why the US Senate voted Kyoto down 95 to 0.

Anyway, there are some recent news stories about global warming recently. First, NASA says recent temperature measurements confirm that the earth is warming and that 2004 was the 4th warmest year on record.

James Hansen of NASA GISS analyzed the data and said that the 2004 average temperature at Earth's surface around the world was 0.48 degrees Celsius or 0.86 Fahrenheit above the average temperature from1951 to 1980.

Globally, 1998 has proven to be the warmest year on record, with 2002 and 2003 coming in second and third, respectively. "There has been a strong warming trend over the past 30 years, a trend that has been shown to be due primarily to increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere," Hansen said.

The key element missing in this analysis is that it assumes that the warming trend must be related to human activity.

But examine this second article: Natural Climate Change May Be Larger Than Commonly Thought

The most widespread picture of climate variability in the last millennium suggests that only small changes occurred before the year 1900, and then a pronounced warming set in. The new results rather show an appreciable temperature swing between the 12th and 20th centuries, with a notable cold period around AD 1600. A large part of the 20th century had approximately the same temperature as the 11th and 12th centuries. Only the last 15 years appear to be warmer than any previous period of similar length.

The truth is that almost all of the predictions we hear about are based on climate computer models that have not up until now been able to predict known weather, or be run backwards to confirm previous trends. Does that make them useless? Of course, not, but it also means that maybe we shouldn't cripple our economy just in case they might be true. Jerry Pournelle, a prominent science fiction writer has written about this on his site too. Check out that link, because he has a great debate with a climate scientist there, and he also points out this story, where scientists suggest that CUTTING pollution could make global warming worse!

My newest issue of Scientific American has an article on the subject of climate change, but I haven't read it yet. I'll post about it once I have, but basically it just seems to me that it is a mistake to cripple the global economy when there is still so much uncertainty.