Basic Epidemiology 4

Msg# : 824 Wed 28 Jun 89 9:21p
From : Robert Lee
To : All
Subject: Basic Epidemiology.4
Status :

Given information in the previous sections, i.e., Basic Epidemiology, we see the following:
1) Basic epidemiology requires that any disease be traced to it origin

using the scientific method, i.e., testing of any/all hypotheses warranted by initial observations.
2) Dr. J. Seale’s report of infectious leukemias developed in monkey

colonies in various laboratories by artifical means. 3) Historic knowledge of the relationship of leukemias and immunodeficiencies

existing since at least the early 1960s. Additional investigation of the historic literature quickly shows that interest and knowledge going back to theearly 1940s.

Epidemiological scientific method dictates that the hypothesis of HIV-1 as a hum-created trans-species infectious leukemia be tested as origin for HIV-1.

Has this been done? No. Is it being considered? No. Are there any published studies in the United States which seriously examines even the history of trans-species human-created infectious leukemias? No. Will any journals in the U.S. publish any epiy studies of this nature? No.

Now clearly there is something very wrong with the practice of the scientific method in HIV-1 epidemiology. To not even test this hypothesis and publish results of these tests is a flagrant violation of science by science itself. Paradoxically, there have been no attempts to locate HIV-1-altered DNA in skeletal remains, monkey remains, or preserved insects so as to establish empirically solid evidence for an historic existence of HIV-1 or even SIV. Earliest record of HIV-1 antigens in humans are dated 1959; earliest SIV antigens in monkeys 1961. Suggestions of HIV as a longstanding isolated infection are based on estimates of gene evolution — subjective data. Where is the empiricism so definitely required in HIV epidemiology? Again, there is something very wrong with epidemiological science in the case of HIV. Obviously the scientist in this discipline are not unaware of how to conduct science. Therefore, this failure strongly suggests we are not dealing with errors of omission.