AIDS OPV hypothesis, theory or fact?

December 24, 2006 1:01 PM

Did the white man accidentally give the black man AIDS? The free 90 minute documentary, entitled "The Origins of AIDS" (yes, that is Philip Glass composing in the background), based on the now out-of-print book The River, by Edward Hooper, gives the most complete and convincing case supporting the OPV AIDS hypothesis, which claims that the oral polio vaccine made in the Belgian Congo in the late 1950's by Hilary Koprowski, is responsible for the transfer of the SIV virus in chimps to the HIV virus in humans, potentially leaving the natural transfer/bushmeat hypothesis in the dust. But has the OPV AIDS hypothesis already been disproved? Maybe I'm naive to still think the relationship between the distribution/administration of the vaccine and incidence of infection of HIV in Africa (see minute 32:00 in the documentary) can't be coincidental. View Ed Hooper's site for other essays and updates on his book.
posted by mgkaelen (19 comments total)

"...Maybe I'm naive to still think the relationship between the distribution/administration of the vaccine and incidence of infection of HIV in Africa (see minute 32:00 in the documentary) can't be coincidental. ..."
posted by mgkaelen at 4:01 PM EST

Naive wouldn't be the word I'd use. I'd use racist. Really, mgkaelen, of what possible interest is it how HIV might possibly have been introduced to the human population, unless you want to blame someone?

Blame cures no one, prevents no future transmission, and unless provable to a legal certianty, which this theory will never be, provides no reparations.
posted by paulsc at 1:17 PM on December 24, 2006

Ugh, you got crazy on my metafilter.
posted by scodger at 1:17 PM on December 24, 2006

Maybe not...

However, in February 2000 the Wistar Institute in Philadelphia (one of the original places that developed the Chat vaccine) announced that it had discovered in its stores a phial of polio vaccine that had been used as part of the program. The vaccine was subsequently analysed and in April 2001 it was announced4 that no trace had been found of either HIV or chimpanzee SIV. A second analysis5 confirmed that only macaque monkey kidney cells, which cannot be infected with SIV or HIV, were used to make Chat. While this is just one phial of many, most have taken its existence to mean that the OPV vaccine theory is not possible.

posted by PenDevil at 1:22 PM on December 24, 2006

Perhaps you should adjust your tinfoil condom.
posted by srboisvert at 1:31 PM on December 24, 2006 [1 favorite]

Maybe I'm naive to still think the relationship ... can't be coincidental.

Maybe you're naive?
posted by frogan at 1:31 PM on December 24, 2006

Blame cures no one, prevents no future transmission, and unless provable to a legal certianty, which this theory will never be, provides no reparations.

Agreed, but it's not like there isn't a certain segment of the society that tacitly blames Africans (and the Gays) for AIDS and its transmission. A finding that Western scientists inadertantly caused this transmission and not the sexual practices of disfavored groups could at the very least remove some of that stigma and could even be used to pressure drug corporations into relaxing some of their IP claims in the face of a tragedy.

I've never really bought into the OPV claim myself, but I respect those who seek the truth through scientific inquiry and I don't find such a practice worthless.
posted by allen.spaulding at 1:32 PM on December 24, 2006

"...Maybe I'm naive to still think the relationship between the distribution/administration of the vaccine and incidence of infection of HIV in Africa (see minute 32:00 in the documentary) can't be coincidental. ..."

Yes. It's called a logical fallacy, specifically the "correlation does not equal causation" fallacy. You learn it in your first week of any good sociology or epidemiology program. I can show you a thousand things that correlate with the distribution of the earliest HIV clusters in Africa, including the distribution of language families, dietary practices, sexual practices, and traditional medical practices of all sorts. I can probably also discover other epidemilogical vectors that share the same distribution. Your "naive" reasoning is very dangerous in its pretense to common sense. It's how most conspiracy theories are shilled. Bad FPP, full of your opinions disguised with disclaimers, disseminating bullshit information.
posted by spitbull at 1:33 PM on December 24, 2006

And by the way, I am quite sure there are significant genetic patterns -- including possible mutations for or against resistances to particular pathogens -- that share the same distribution. All diseaes originate somewhere, and many in poor parts of the world where, coincidentally, large-scale immunization programs may well be part of the epidemiological picture. It's idiocy like this that led so many people to believe (they still do) that vaccines cause autism and cell phones cause brain cancer.
posted by spitbull at 1:36 PM on December 24, 2006

you're naive all right. thank you for that racially charged lead sentence there! the white man was trying to eliminate the black man's polio, after having successfully eliminated his smallpox, still working on his malaria, etc., etc. cross your fingers that we don't get the black man's ebola.
posted by bruce at 1:41 PM on December 24, 2006

First, the racist thing: the theory itself doesn't seem to be, necessarily. What makes me wonder, mgkaelen, is the downright silly way you've phrased your post. Using terms like "the white man" and "the black man" to mean certain select members of those races is inflammatory at best, racist at worst.

Second, the tin-foil-hat crap. I can see why you didn't want to put actual scientific articles in this post, but there are plenty out there. Like, oh, maybe this one?
posted by koeselitz at 1:46 PM on December 24, 2006

The US government made HIV much later than that. Look: they're denying it. What more proof do you need?
posted by imperium at 1:51 PM on December 24, 2006

paulsc writes "Really, mgkaelen, of what possible interest is it how HIV might possibly have been introduced to the human population, unless you want to blame someone?"

Because understanding method of introduction could quite possibly give clues as to eradication? If we know where the virus came from (which we seem to), and what changes it underwent along the way, that gives us a very good idea of avenues to explore to get rid of it.

That being said, the OPV theory seems like it's probably a pile of horseshit.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 1:53 PM on December 24, 2006

I recall reading the 1992 article "The Origin of AIDS" by Tom Curtis in Rolling Stone in which he forwarded the OPV AIDS hypothesis. Rolling Stone later printed a retraction of the article in response to legal threats by Koprowski. It was this article that spurred Hooper to research the topic and write his book, 'The River.'
posted by ericb at 1:53 PM on December 24, 2006

"... I respect those who seek the truth through scientific inquiry ..."
posted by allen.spaulding at 4:32 PM EST on December 24

I do, too, allen.spaulding, but scientific inquiry is generally value neutral at the least, and value free at best. The linked articles don't even begin to approach that standard of dis-interested fact finding. They're polemics at best, and therefore, pointless.

If the facts of origin of HIV were to be unambiguously discovered as the product of some bio-lab mistake, and that provided new theraputic insight, I'd be all for investigating this until doomsday. But the source materials for tracking AIDS case 0 may no longer even exist, since it appears now that at least some cases of what we now recognize as AIDS may have been presenting as early as 1959, but it may be that only those where the symptoms were both remarkable and unambiguously present without secondary complications or explanations, were preserved for future analysis. HIV's "origin" is lost to us now, and "investigations" such as those linked in this FPP are despicable.

I honestly hope matt or jessamyn excercises some editorial policy on this thread, soon. And I'm not one to wish for such.
posted by paulsc at 1:55 PM on December 24, 2006

It's idiocy like this that led so many people to believe (they still do) that vaccines cause autism and cell phones cause brain cancer.

Or could it be because they don't like social situations and their mobiles are turned off so they never hear the scientific results?
posted by srboisvert at 1:59 PM on December 24, 2006

scientific inquiry is generally value neutral at the least

Well, *there's* a simplistic statement. Read much philosophy of science? Values underpin the whole process of scientific inquiry; it's disingenuous at best to pretend otherwise.

Not nearly as disingenuous as the framing of this post, but still.
posted by mediareport at 2:02 PM on December 24, 2006

Wow, paulsc, discussing this issue is despicable? There is no clear consensus, and much of the science is speculative. I just read about a theory that infections started in the 1930s, but it was based on computer extrapolations, nothing more.

Let's discuss it, not that we're going to come to any conclusions. But debate and informed discussion can't hurt. Can they?
posted by imperium at 2:04 PM on December 24, 2006

BTW -- the AVERT webpage (to which PenDevil links above) -- 'The Origins of HIV and The First Cases of AIDS' (along with References/Other Sources) -- provides a succinct summary of various theories regarding the disease and early instances of HIV in humans (1959, 1976 and 1976).
posted by ericb at 2:04 PM on December 24, 2006

batshitinsane?
posted by Artw at 2:05 PM on December 24, 2006