Although AIDS, Inc. wants us to imagine it is a cohesive, well-oiled operation dedicated to the single-minded purpose of saving untold millions of lives, nothing could be further from the truth. As I have learned, HIV/AIDS research is as rife with turf wars and petty jealousies as any other area of competitive investigation.
A publication in Science in the spring of 2005, by a group of investigators led by Barton F Haynes of Duke University ignited a deep turf war among AIDS immunologists that most do not know even exists. The paper provided evidence to suggest that the components of the Holy Grail of HIV vaccine research (i.e., a collection of “broadly neutralizing” antibodies) were perhaps toxic to normal constituents of the human body. This article was accompanied by a commentary from Gary Nabel, who suggested the autoreactivity of these antibodies was responsible for the lack of success that investigators have had with inducing these molecules through vaccination.
The scientific response to this publication has been concealed, and is not particularly enlightening. But the political response has been considerable, resulting in a makeover of the B-cell sect of the AIDS church, as grants were awarded to individuals associated with Haynes, and others, who had been long standing members of the church, found their own not only did not get automatically renewed, but they did not receive any of the new (and tighter) money.
Who are these unlucky losers? A close friend of mine informed me that Dennis Burton (Scripps), an opponent of the Haynes hypothesis, who has been making a decent living with his friend John Moore since 1999 with whom he shares his “broadly neutralizing”, expensive monoclonals so that the geniuses at Cornell can paint the privates of Macaques, was more than a little annoyed at his exclusion from the recently wasted Bill Gates money. In fact, friends of mine in his lab blame it all on Moore.
This turnaround wreaks of irony, as those who have now been defunded are the same ones who have muted the rethinking AIDS movement for years. While the suppression of these Cardinals of the AIDS Inquisition personally gives me considerable joy, it is also deeply disturbing for the following reason, which adds another level of irony and one that personally gives me no joy at all.
Recent conversations with three prominent B-cell immunologists in the HIV/AIDS field revealed a shared, primary sentiment among them and the other researchers they mentioned at the turn of events of the past year or so. And the common feelings were anger and disgust. They were, however, not directed at the failure of the latest hope in the battle against HIV. Not at all. They were directed towards Haynes and the reduction of funding that resulted from his taken much too seriously for their tastes, hypothesis.
To me it matters not which side of this argument AIDS Inc. decrees as right. If they decide these antibodies are too toxic to use for therapy or vaccine, patients will continue to be treated with toxic "antiretroviral" chemicals. If they decide to implement vaccines or therapies that include the use of these antibodies, patients may be protected from “developing AIDS from HIV infection”, but still need immunosuppressive drugs to control the autoimmune diseases that could result from the vaccine itself.
While this last option is patently absurd, I guarantee that it is receiving serious consideration in the upside-down universe of AIDS (Acronym Indicating Disastrous Science).
Grad. Student studies B-cell immunology at a well known university
that is not in Australia.
Comments