I’d like to talk briefly about Robert Gallo’s book, “Virus Hunting�?(1991). Gallo is considered the “co-founder of HIV,�?and in this book he provides a window into his thought process and into what a “top expert�?understands about viral phenomena specifically, and “pathogenic�?organisms more generally. It is worthy of note how often he mentions that something is “poorly understood�?�?many times.

He mentions how some microbes are beneficial, while others are innocuous, and: “Others have been harmful under certain circumstances, and a few fatal even under the best circumstances.�? Page 44. There are no citations. Moreover, unless all factors are controlled for, how would he know that a few “microbes�?are always fatal, since he acknowledges that “circumstances�?can play a decisive role here? The role of quantity has been discussed by other “virus hunters,�?but Gallo does not mention that the amount of exposure can play a decisive role as well in the initial “infection.�

Next, he describes a virus as: “A chemical entity simply following the rules of physical chemistry.�? True enough, but since the rules of physical chemistry are known, why are there so many statements about things that are “poorly understood�?in this context? And why has he not “stepped in�?and clarified the issue when “AIDS experts�?claim that “HIV�?is “wiley,�?“mysterious,�?“paradoxical,�?etc., which they have done many times and continue to do so to the present? Is “HIV�?the only virus that does not follow the rules of physical chemistry? If it does, then there should be no “mystery,�?“paradox,�?etc.

Next, still on page 44, Gallo states: “Once inside a cell, specific viruses will, in time, exploit the machinery of certain cells to their own reproductive advantage…�? Again, this can be demonstrated in an artificial lab environment, to be sure, and also can occur in some people, but why doesn’t it occur in everyone who is “infected?�? Obviously, it cannot be the sole cause �?other factors must play a role or else basic logic is violated here. Gallo, along with all the other “virus hunters’�?work I’ve read display an alarming lack of interest in what these other factors might be. However, in this book, Gallo does supply some important clues, for example:

"Some viruses burst from the host cell, destroying it in the process. Others 'pinch off' or 'bud' from the cell membrane, giving them an added outer envelope, which includes fatty components from the cell membrane.�? Page 49. On page 50, Gallo talks about how viruses attach to the “cell membranes�?of cells, and then states: “After this interaction takes place, a poorly understood process occurs that allows some viral components to penetrate the cell, and in this process the fatty component of the viral envelope will fuse with a fatty layer of the cell membrane.�? It is also worth mentioning that he says that when an “infected cell�?bursts, whatever that means (apoptosis? necrosis? something else?), “The bursting is believed to be brought on by the harmful effects on the cell of the proteins of these kinds of viruses [that is, RNA viruses], but our understanding of the phenomenon is incomplete.�? What I would like to know is exactly what that “understanding�?at this point actually is. It does not seem to amount to much, does it?

In any case, he does mention fatty acids, and what is known for sure is that highly unsaturated fatty acids can be much, much more biochemically active than saturated ones or monounsaturated ones. Since the way the virus damages cells is “poorly understood,�?but since we do know that viruses need to use the cellular machinery, it may be that cells with a lot of polyunsaturated fatty acids in their “cell membranes�?may be “sitting ducks,�?of sorts, for at least some viruses. Simple experiments could be done to determine this, feeding a group of animals a diet rich in safflower and fish oil, while the other group only gets fresh coconut oil, and then both could be exposed to a virus that usually kills 10% of that species, but I have yet to find one that does exactly this.

On page 52, Gallo remarks: “When large amounts of virus are formed and released at a certain time, the viruses can be found ‘free�?(that is, not in a cell) in the blood plasma. We call this a viremia. Usually, this is very transient and associated with acute clinical symptoms, such as fever and headache.�? Later, on page 241, when discussing “HIV,�?he talks about “Numerous HIV particles, having replicated in the follicular dendritic cells…�? I agree with the point made on page 52, which makes the statement on page 241 so puzzling. That is, if there is “HIV�?viremia, why has it yet to be detected in any person, ever? Despite several attempts, all we have to show are “markers�?that can occur due to other factors (some not related to any virus at all). Thus, any claim about “HIV�?causing “AIDS�?violates the scientific method just on this one point alone (and there are more than a few others). Gallo does say that, “During this [early] period, then, the virus has its field day and replicates extensively, so much so that scientists can readily find free virus in the blood, the viremia mentioned in the previous chapter.�? Page 243. Yet no matter where one looks for the evidence of this (he provides no references), all one finds are “markers�?that are assumed to be evidence of “HIV,�?but can be evidence of all kinds of unrelated phenomena.

Gallo actually provides what, in light of the evidence, appears to be the cause of almost all “disease,�?for example: “…the macrophage can also be activated to release virus in conjunction with certain cytokines, small proteins with biological activities, that are likely to be released during inflammatory processes…�?and that this “…may cause some of the disease symptoms.�? Page 247. Now the obvious thing to do, for anyone even somewhat familiar with the scientific method, would be to develop an animal model (which has been done) and then subject animals to their version of “HIV,�?such as “SIV�?in some primate species. Some animals would be healthy controls, while others would be subjected to the kinds of stressors that were experienced by the first “AIDS patients�?in the early 1980s (since “inflammation�?can occur even when no “pathogenic organisms�?are present). However, as I have pointed out in one of the other essays, the way “AIDS�?has been defined, one cannot have “AIDS�?without the markers thought to be indicative of “HIV infection,�?even if one has all the symptoms of this clinical syndrome. What one is to make of this ludicrous situation is a personal decision, I suppose, but the illogical element is basic and obvious. Moreover, since a virus needs the “help�?of the cell: “it [the virus] enters a cell and, with the help of the cell itself, synthesizes what it needs and reassembles these elements into new virus particles�?(page 49), but not everyone who is exposed to the virus will in fact become ill, the scientific method demands that one attempt to control for all factors that may be relevant. Until this is done, what is being presented to the public is not science. What one wishes to call it has yet to be determined.