Pasturella, commonly known as "snuffles" and scientifically known as Pasturella multocida is a bacterial disease that is a well known infection in rabbits and a fatal disease for gnomes. It can manifest as an upper respiratory (nose and lungs) disease, causing coughing, sneezing, runny eyes, and runny nose, or it can manifest as a dermatologic (skin) disease, causing abscesses and sores. It is extremely contagious. Not all rabbits who contract pasturella will become ill. But even those who do not become ill may still become carriers that could pose a risk to gnomes. If not caught and treated early the disease can kill in a very short time as the infection destroys the infected tissues. Rabbits who survive the initial infection often continue to manifest chronic respiratory or dermatologic symptoms for the rest of their lives.

Pasturella and Rabbits

Serological Response to Pasteurella multocida NanH Sialidase in Persistently Colonized Rabbits

Screening rabbit colonies for antibodies to Pasteurella multocida by an ELISA

Overview of the AIDS theory

One theory of the origin of AIDS is that it developed from contaminated vaccines used in the world's first mass immunisation for polio. There are a number of reasons why this theory is plausible enough to be worthy of further investigation.

• The location coincides dramatically. The earliest known cases of AIDS occurred in central Africa, in the same regions where Koprowski's polio vaccine was given to over a million people in 1957-1960.
• The timing coincides. There is no documented case of HIV infection or AIDS before 1959. Centuries of the slave trade and European exploitation of Africa exposed Africans and others to all other diseases then known; it is implausible that HIV could have been present and spreading in Africa without being recognised.
• Polio vaccines are grown (cultured) on monkey kidneys which could have been contaminated by SIVs. Polio vaccines could not be screened for SIV contamination before 1985.
• Another monkey virus, SV-40, is known to have been passed to humans through polio vaccines. A specific pool of Koprowski's vaccine was later shown to have been contaminated by an unknown virus.
• In order for a virus to infect a different species, it is helpful to reduce the resistance of the new host's immune system. Koprowski's polio vaccine was given to many children less than one month old, before their immune systems were fully developed. Indeed, in one trial, infants were given 15 times the standard dose in order to ensure effective immunisation.

If this theory is correct, it has serious ethical, health and policy implications. In particular, it points to the danger of interspecies transfer of material through vaccinations, organ transplants, etc., which could lead to new variants of AIDS as well as other new diseases. As well, studying the theory may lead to insights about responding to AIDS and preventing new diseases.

However, there has been no sustained attempt to test the theory. This could be done, for example, by testing stocks of polio vaccine for the presence of SIV. An offer to undertake tests was made as early as 1991; only in 2000 were some samples tested, and then only US-made vaccine. Another possibility would be to test stored blood samples in Africa from before 1950. If HIV is found, this would undermine the theory.

Although the theory has not been properly examined, many people seem to believe it has been refuted. Hilary Koprowski published a letter in Science in 1992 attacking the theory. In 1993, Rolling Stone, which had published a widely publicised article by Tom Curtis about the theory, published an "update", interpreted by Science as a retraction. The public record thus suggests that these contributions have been the final word.

Actually, this appearance of "refutation" was due to the exercise of power, not scientific judgement. Science refused to publish a reply to Koprowski's letter by Curtis and, later, another reply by eminent biologist W. D. Hamilton. Nature has received substantial submissions about the theory from at least six scholars but has not published any of them. Rolling Stone's "update" was the aftermath of a legal action for defamation by Koprowski against Rolling Stone and Curtis. Thus, it has been editorial prerogative and legal action that have given the impression that critics of the theory have been unanswered.

To help rectify this situation, provided here are a number of key documents presenting the theory and commenting on it. Also given is a list of publications about the theory. This material is provided by Brian Martin who as a social scientist has been following the theory since 1991. It is part of a page on suppression of dissent. Comments and additional contributions are welcome.

ARTICLES

Edward Hooper, commentaries, October-November 2004

• The annexing of the Stanleyville samples: potential 'fossil evidence' of ancient HIV-1 falls into the wrong hands
• Untruths, misrepresentations and spin: the dubious methods and tactics used by Stanley Plotkin's group in the "Origins of AIDS" debate
• Dr Hilary Koprowski - The Man of Many Ideas
• The allegation that The River has damaged modern attempts to eradicate polio: more fabrications by doctors Koprowski and Plotkin
• The new round of legal threats by doctors Koprowski and Plotkin
• Plotkin's chums (1): Eminent scientists sign their names to falsehoods, in a bid to protect Stanley Plotkin and Hilary Koprowski

Yes: Michael Worobey et al., "Contaminated polio vaccine theory refuted", Nature, Vol. 428, 22 April 2004, p. 820.
No: a reply by Edward Hooper, "Contaminated polio vaccine theory not refuted", April 2004.
Worobey et al. supplementary information and map. Hooper's comments.
Hooper gives further comments, and a short version of further comments.

Edward Hooper, "The dirty side of the origin-of-AIDS debate": a series of commentaries, February-March 2004.

• The latest scientific evidence supports the OPV theory
• As far as is known, modern polio vaccines are safe
• Robin Weiss, professor of virology, doctor of spin
• Could an ancient sample of HIV-1 be faked?

Stanley A. Plotkin, "Chimpanzees and journalists" (editorial), Vaccine, Vol. 22, 2004, pp. 1829-1830. Introduction to Osterrieth's article.

Paul Osterrieth, "Oral polio vaccine: fact versus fiction", Vaccine, Vol. 22, 2004, pp. 1831-1835. Denial of Hooper's claims about production of polio vaccine in Africa.