DR ABRAHAM KARPAS is a very angry scientist. ''Have this,'' he says,
thrusting another paper at me. ''The American side of the Aids scandal
has been documented, but not the British side. And in Scotland you were
robbed of the chance to do something.''
The distinguished Zurich-educated virologist, assistant director of
research at Cambridge University's department of haematological medicine
is at the centre of a bloody scientific fight about the discovery of
Aids and the undue delays in taking action against it. Essentially it's
about immortality. The disease could be with humanity forever, and those
who work on it will get their names in the history books through Nobel
Prizes.
The argument has been raised to popular prominence internationally by
an event unparalleled in newspaper history. In November the Chicago
Tribune published a special 50,000-word Aids Report by Pulitzer Prize
journalist John Crewdson. It took him nearly two years to prepare, and
among those he consulted was Abraham Karpas.
Was the discovery of Aids a French or American first in 1983? The
contest was between Professor Luc Montagnier in Paris and Dr Robert
Gallo in Washington. Crewdson described Dr Gallo as ''an influential and
intimidating scientist who chased the wrong virus for more than a year,
only to reverse course and emerge with a virtual genetic twin of the
virus that had really been discovered by his rivals in Paris and
delivered to him months before.'' Karpas says that he wanted to follow
up Montagnier's work, and wrote to Middlesex Hospital Medical School,
asking for blood samples from Aids patients. The reply was that research
was proceeding satisfactorily under two groups of scientists, and so
''we do not see a justification to increase the number of collaborating
laboratories.''
But Karpas proceeded with his research. ''I was the first to isolate
the virus in the UK in 1983. When I tried to get serum from Aids
patients in May, I was blocked. That was part of the tragic consequence
of the lost year.'' Karpas says that he encountered great difficulty in
getting his work published, because Gallo was the mentor of the British
scientific establishment. But worse was to follow, he maintains.
According to Karpas, the crucial study by the French team should have
been published in Nature in the summer of 1983 but was blocked by
another Aids researcher, Robert Weiss of the Institute of Cancer
Research, Chester Beatty Laboratories, London. ''The paper was blocked
because Weiss worked with Gallo,'' Karpas claims. Weiss vehemently
denies he saw such a paper.
Karpas says that these factors contributed to the tragic ''lost year''
in Aids research. ''Scotland was in a position not to have had any
haemophiliacs affected.''
Today is the deadline in England for the issue of writs against the
Government by infected haemophiliacs. The identification of contaminated
blood dates back to 1982, in Atlanta. Why was there not an alert in
Britain?
''Even after the virus was discovered we continued to be helpless,
because mass screening with tests didn't come in till 1985,'' Professor
Weiss says. ''The only thing you can say -- and this is my understanding
of what the litigation might be about -- if there's evidence of any form
of infectious agent, couldn't plasma for factor V111 for haemophiliacs
have been pasteurised -- treated by heat -- in a way that might kill an
unknown virus without damaging the clotting factor? Almost everything
else -- whether that paper existed or not -- is a red herring.''
John Maddox, editor of Nature magazine, says: ''Since it was clear
that the focus of the disease was in the United States in 1983, the
health authorities in particular ought to have been careful in importing
blood from there. Plainly they were not.''
A 26-year-old man is suing the Scottish Blood Transfusion Service for
#200,000, alleging that he was given HIV-contaminated blood during an
operation in 1985, and a 37-year-old Edinburgh woman is considering
similar action after contracting HIV in hospital in 1984.
Who was first, the French or Americans? The battle was withdrawn from
the American courts, and on March 31, 1987, President Reagan and Prime
Minister Chirac of France made an important announcement. A 23-page
written agreement shared the credit between the Americans and the
French.
But the fight against the virus goes on. ''There's practically no
progress,'' Karpas says. ''It's the most difficult virus to tackle.
There's no other virus that actually kills the immune cells. As if this
isn't bad enough, it can infect and kill the brain. Once you become
infected you remain a carrier for life. And even if you develop an
effective immune system, the virus keeps changing. It's going to finish
most of black Africa; it's going to finish a large part of South
America.''
He's giving a lecture at Heriot-Watt University on Aids in early
March, and we discuss the fact that Edinburgh prostitutes are spreading
the infection. Karpas says that we've been too complacent in Britain
about the heterosexual spread of Aids, and he's put his recommendations
to a committee of MPs.
''There should be compulsory testing for certain groups, like drug
addicts. In Sweden prostitutes who keep practising can be locked in. I
agree, because they don't have a right to spread such a deadly virus to
the population. Give them enough money to keep them.
''Anyone who comes to a hospital, or who wants to get married, or
becomes pregnant should be tested, with other people on a voluntary
basis.'' But he concedes that homosexuals could be economically
disadvantaged, with insurance companies wanting to know the results of a
test.
When I tell him that homosexuals were blamed -- erroneously, it now
turns out -- for spreading the infection in Edinburgh in the early
eighties, he says: ''In due course the homosexual story will be history.
We should actually be grateful to the homosexuals, because if it hadn't
been for them, the virus would have spread to a far greater extent in
heterosexuals before people realised that something was going wrong.
''Homosexuals are a clustered, highly promiscuous society. Through
anal intercourse they managed to get a high rate of infection early on
without a high rate of disease early on. In a closed society it was
evident that it must be an infectious agent, whereas in heterosexuals it
would have taken years to discover this, with one infected here, another
infected there.''
What hope of a vaccine? He makes a zero sign with his fingers.
''That's because the virus continues to mutate; because we know from
monkey studies that you can immunise an animal, but if you charge it
with a live virus, it can still become infected.
''Secondly, how are you going to prove a vaccine's efficacy? Are you
going to charge people with it? You couldn't charge them with a live
virus, so you can never really prove it's any good. If you start
vaccinating everybody, you'll end up by not having blood donors, because
everyone will be positive in varying degrees.''
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article