| ||||||
 |  |
|  | | | |
| Farber | It has been claimed that HIV somehow causes cell death even when it is not present by remote programmed “suicidal” mechanisms |
| Gallo | Footnote 13 contains multiple scientific errors and perpetuates several misconceptions about HIV and AIDS that are commonly listed on AIDS denialist web sites. Farber writes "It has been claimed that HIV somehow causes cell death even when it is not present by remote programmed 'suicidal' mechanisms". It is difficult to discern what Farber is trying to say here, because as written, the sentence makes no scientific sense whatsoever. Perhaps the most plausible interpretation of Farber's train of thought is that she is alluding to the death of CD4+ T-cells by a mechanism known as apoptosis (sometimes called "programmed cell death") during HIV infection. The underlying science here is complex, and specialist reviews on viral pathogenesis should be consulted for a fuller picture. 72 , 73 , 74 We provide a detailed explanation as an endnote. 75 |
| RA | In adopting a puzzled pose towards Farber's clearly worded sentence, Gallo et al. are the ones who give an appearance of scientific ignorance, especially when they claim it makes no sense to them “whatsoever”. Of course, they know very well what Farber means. Her description of “cell death” by “programmed ‘suicidal’ mechanisms” is actually a standard definition of apoptosis. For example, a recent textbook in immunology [1] defines it this way, “Apoptosis (programmed cell death): Cell death occurring under physiological conditions that is controlled by the dying cell itself (i.e. ‘cell suicide’).” An article on apoptosis by three immunologists was titled, “Cell suicide in health and disease” [2]. The textbooks point out that apoptosis is essential for normal homeostasis. AIDS researchers have invoked such homeostatic mechanisms in trying to explain how HIV, which is usually present in less than one in a thousand T-cells, can cause T-cell decline. It has long been known, however, that apoptosis occurs mainly in the uninfected bystander cells, rather than in HIV-infected cells [3]. Various theories have been put forth to explain how HIV, though absent, can have such indirect, “remote” effects on uninfected cells. Surveying these theories, a major HIV theoretician recently concluded, “The pathogenic and physiologic processes leading to AIDS remain a conundrum” [4]. Such indirect, “remote control” explanations are needed, however, for mainstream virologists have long concluded that “direct HIV cytopathicity cannot account for CD4 decline in AIDS” [5]. |
| Refs. |
|