That really does not matter except you could have gotten training by
participating in those activities. If you wish, I would like to help you.
Keep reading. You are very motivated in this subject and I find that
refreshing.
-----------------------------------------------------
Scientific papers are divided into the sections following:
I. Purpose
II. Introduction/Background
III. Methods and Materials
IV. Data/Results Section
and
V. The Results and/or Discussion (Where the data is discussed and where
future research direction is speculated on based on the data and the
experience of the authors.) Most of your quotes are from this section (and
rightly so, on your part).
------------------------------------------------------
(I will use you post as an example because you seem very intrigued with this
subject.)
The (Gallo et al's) discussion section speculates on future research
possibilities based on his data and research experience. That is what the
discussion section of a scientific paper is for. The introduction section
is
1. Gallo et al. says "IF" HTLV plays a role at all and NOT that HTLV
actually _does_ play a role.
Do you see difference? You read "IF" as "DOES." . . . "Our results, [ if
] they do reflect an etiologic role for HTLV in AIDS, suggest a possible
mechanism of disease induction."
2. He says HTLV-like virus and does NOT say HTLV-I (or HTLV-II, HTLV-III or
HTLV-V). Do you see the difference between a class of viruses and a specific
virus? This is normal in microbiology. So, you should be careful what you
"read-into" the discussion section. Scientists usually should use hedge
words to minimize any misinterpretation by the scientific community.
You read "HTLV" as "HTLV-I". . . So, you misread the virus class as a
specific virus. "Our results, if they do reflect an etiologic role for [
HTLV ] in AIDS, suggest
a possible mechanism of disease induction."
Also notice they (Gallo et al) was the words "suggest" and "possible." Again
they are not sure and are making very sure trained scientists know they are
not sure. There will be no doubts, with trained scientists, that Gallo et al
are not suggesting that they have discovered a virus or a mechanism causing
AIDS.
This is significant because in the popular press (and layman's language)
"suggest" and "possible" are considered as powerful hedge words (or
speculation words) as in a scientific paper. This is where you will have to
"put on your scientist cap" and learn how to read the scientific papers
differently than a layman's news report. This is an important area. You
will see this again and again and may not be sure how to interpret the
author's scientific dialect.
3. There is also nothing in the (Gallo et al) purpose about proving HTLV-I
causes AIDS; Only that they (Gallo et al) wanted to test if a retrovirus of
some kind involved in the AIDS. And they know that is all their research
suggests: "We have been testing the hypothesis that AIDS is caused by a
human retrovirus.."
This does NOT say that they did anything more than try to find a retroviral
cause of AIDS. It was a very proper thing to do since at the time (the early
1980's) nobody knew what was going on with the cause of AIDS.
4. "that the viral genome of HTLV was found to be integrated into peripheral
blood lymphocyte DNA in 2 of 33 AIDS patients tested thus far may
reflect an etiologic association..."
This set off bells in scientists in France (and around the world) where they
were looking at different research directions to go to in. Secretly, they
already had started the peer review with their own paper (also published in
_Science_ ) and they were probably very happy when Gallo et al vindicated
their own speculations about a viral cause of AIDS independently.
Because 33 AIDS patients were positive for retrovirus (HTLV-like) this was
very strong evidence an HTLV class virus is involved. However, since the
HTLV retroviruses are so close in genone it was hard for them (Gallo's group)
to tell them apart; or if the HTLV class viruses were incidental or an actual
cause, hence the hedge words used in the discussion section of the paper.
Again HTLV-I is NOT the only virus suspected by the authors. In fact,
because they were so unsure (and careful not to be called wrong by peer
review) they did NOT single out HTLV-I as the only possible cause. They
invited further research by others to find a new virus, possibly related to
the HTLV class of viruses. And, they _were_ careful, they were apparently
RIGHT! (at least for one of the causes of AIDS) But Gallo's group was NOT
sure at the time this article was published and they did not get credit for
the viral discovery of AIDS at the time. The Pasteur Institute beat him to
it. Yet, Gallo got the credit after all, partly because they were lead in
the right direction by the Pasteur Institute's virology group paper and
getting viral samples from France group.
5. "Since HTLV is endemic in southern Japan, the apparent lack of epidemic
AIDS in this region may argue against a causative role for HTLV in AIDS.
However...people in southern Japan may have a greater resistance to
the T-cell suppressive effect of the virus."
So, they argue _against_ even the whole class of HTLV viruses as the cause of
AIDS. That does not support your premise that they were arguing only for the
HTLV class of what we now know as several viruses with similar genome.
Notice how each Gallo et al statement agrees with what I said in my previous
posts. Gallo gives a fair speculation and assessment of HTLV and a possible
reason for HTLV not being the cause. He should and does speculate on a
reason for the endemic virus resistance.
6. "Since HTLV is a T-cell tropic virus it can be linked hypothetically to
other
human T-cell disorders."
Gallo said "can be" not _is_ and not as a cause but as a speculation. Also
Gallo does not even say HTLV-I, but uses the correct HTLV class name for what
became HTLV-III and is (currently at least) called HIV.
7. "Since HTLV can also infect marmoset and other primate T-cells, should
this virus be established as the causative agent of AIDS, it may also be
possible to develop an animal model of the disease."
Very good and proper future research direction.
8. "Should this virus be established" is another speculation and not a
direct argument for the virus being established; only a future research
direction. That is what good scientists do when they are not yet sure or has
not felt that they have proved their point.
---------------------------------------------------------
I hope this helps you become more familiar with scientific paper
interpretation.
For further reading I suggest:
Kanare, Howard M. _Wrting the Scientific Notebook_ .1985, ACS (American
Chemical Society. ISBN 0-8412-0933-2
Maimon, Elain P. _Writing in the Arts and Sciences_ 1981. ISBN 0-316-54424-8,
page 276 "Review Paper in the Natural Sciences"
Gross Ronald. _The Independent Scholar's Handbook_ 1983. ISBN 0-89815-521-5
----------------------------------------------------------------
Some errors here:
1. "In 1982, Robert Gallo from the National Cancer Institute in the USA, put
forward the hypothesis that the cause of AIDS is a retrovirus."
No, it was 1983. You found that error yourself probably already by the
Science paper you posted.
2. One year later, Myron Essex and his colleagues found that AIDS patients
had
antibodies to the Human T-cell Leukemia virus Type-1 (HTLV-I), a virus
discovered by Gallo a few years earlier.
Misleading. HTLV-I was found in 1976 by Asher, Gibbs and Gajdusek.
3. At the same time, Gallo and his colleagues reported the isolation of
HTLV-I from AIDS patients
Misleading over simplification. Just the retrovirus HTLV-like genome class
of "gag" type vriuses were reported. He never specified HTLV-I.
4. and advocated a role for this retrovirus in the pathogenesis of AIDS."
As you saw he did not "advocate." He stated possibly future research
directions. (The popular press has invaded everywhere I guess).
>>[Papadopulos-Eleopulos, E., V.F. Turner, J.M. Papadimitriou, Has Gallo
proven the role of HIV in AIDS? Emergency Medicine 1993; 5:5-147.]
I don't think this was a peer reviewed publication. In any event, the
editor should have corrected the misleading statements.
Hinde sight is 20:20, so now many people are giving credit to Gallo, but I
don't. The Pasteur Institute did far more than Gallo IMO. Yet, they don't
even get "honerable mention" sometimes.
----------------------------------------------------------------
I liked Dr. Duesberg skeptisism. Duesberg had on the surface, some
interesting oints but what tiped me off was his unwillinness to look any new
data from 1990 forward and at the clinical significance of the CD4+ levels.
He also included non-AIDS defined patients in his "proof." This was not
science, nor speculation and seemed unfair to me. This is when I stopped
trusting him. It was a great disappointment for me because I was at the
University of Wisconsin when Temin was there and (I attended) lecturing on
roux sarcoma (the first retrovirus ever discovered) and (I don't know it you
know this but) Dr. Duesberg wrote a really nice paper on "my pet roux
sarcoma virus." I used to respect him. I hope I will again someday.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for digging up the paper, Pat.
Davin
Davin C. Enigl, (Sole Proprietorship) MEAS
President-Microbiologist
Microbiology Consulting, Hazard Analysis and
Critical Control Points (HACCP), CGMP, and Validations
for the Food, Cosmetic, Nutritional Supplement, and Pharmaceutical Industry
enigl@aol.com
http://members.aol.com/enigl/index.html
March 10, 1997
7:52 pm