I'd actually never seen this and I probably won't watch it, as I read it was something of a sensationalist piece.

However, at the time the Rolling Stone article came out, there was already planty of of peer-reviewed research to support the OPV theory. Those who found it contentious did a pretty clumsy job of things. The most prominent scientist who could have brought some validity to the OPV theory, renowned evolutionary biologist Bill Hamilton, died in the Congo in an absolutely horrendous way while investigating the OPV theory.

At this point, none of this even matters. Nobody wants to divert resources from treatment, education and finding a cure to blaming people over who started AIDS.
It is well known that the conspiracy loons who side with OPV theory entirely, and who make the most broadsided accusations, have made their mark. It is now harder to convince Africans in AIDS-stricken countries to consent to vaccination and testing because of the OPV theory.

So yes, in a sense, it is about money. It's about losing work, losing ground, losing reputation, and wasting time in a blame game.

They mention Wild Bill in this one; even have some archived footage of him talking about OPV, which is probably the most interesting part of the documentary.

If I understand this theory correctly, it's predicated on the transmission vector being the oral polio vaccine because it was compounded using local animals? If the vaccine was oral, how would it have been any different than the locals eating bushmeat? The route is still the same, and all the arguments against bush meat would equally apply?

The difference would be that a single chimp with SIV being consumed by a single family may not spread terribly quickly in a small village. One or a few members of the family might die, but the outbreak would be contained. The CHAT program vaccinated approximately 1,000,000 Africans, and there is a statistical anomaly in the original outbreaks of AIDS. Towns with 5,000 people or less were the first to be hit.

It's imperative to note that Belgium still administered the Congo region in the 1950's, when all these experiments were happening. Ten years earlier the practice of amputating Congolese laborers for not reaching their labor quota was still in effect. That any of the hygiene records or samples from these experiments in this tormented part of the world in the 50's should be taken seriously should be put to question. As I say, I don't think the scandal is a dead one, but it's not going to go anywhere because there's too much invested in fighting AIDS to care. It's rather like the Holocaust reparations industry-- the idea that it could be sloppy and corrupt is just to painful to admit to the people that have a vested interest in helping people who suffered.

I don't know enough about OPV to take a truly informed stance here, and baleen, you may be right to be skeptical of the samples. I certainly agree with Hamilton et al. that the OPV hypothesis was compelling, and warranted a serious scientific investigation. I also agree that the policies of non-disclosure adopted by the Belgian government and Dr. Koprowski's scientific team was both foolish and unethical; the sheer scale of the risk involved means that vaccines must be handled with complete transparency at all levels. I'd like to think that, if I were a scientist back then, I'd have thrown my lot in with Bill.

However, I do know that, when the evidence was finally reviewed, the scientific consensus was clear. As feared, the Belgian vaccines were indeed contaminated... but with a relatively benign simian virus, unrelated to the virus that gave rise to AIDS. Now, it's possible that these findings were all "part of the conspiracy"; that the Belgians, or Big Pharma, or whomever, doctored the evidence in order to cover up what would have been the biggest fuck-up in medical history. But in the absence of any evidence for such a cover-up, we've got to defer to the judgement of the scientific community.

I agree and I have half-heartedly accepted this "scientific consensus." Consensus is sometimes terribly wrong, as we know (it took a few decades to get from a consensus from global cooling to global warming, super string theorists had a strong consensus and then Lisa Randall and Ed Witten blew them out of the water, etc.).

On a somewhat related note, there is some research supporting HIV outbreaks transmitted via dirty vaccination needles.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4442-who-accused-of-huge -hiv-blunder.html#.Um7k6pGKNfM

To me, the most interesting thing about this is that WHO is "worried about taking away from the importance of sexually transmission in the spread of HIV." The pieces add up to warranted fears about African susceptibility to vaccination and anti-AIDS education. The idea that millions of Africans have contracted AIDS, not because of their own sexual laxity, but because foreign clinicians accidentally got them sick, is UNACCEPTABLE at any level according to WHO and UNAIDS.

A scientific consensus can create untenable levels of confirmation bias when you're talking about blunders on the megadeath level. I can't see a scenario where scientists would accept the political fallout from broadcasting these failures. It just can't happen for entirely pragmatic reasons.

baleen,
I am confused, you agree with the cosensus but the "pieces add yp to warranted fears"?

Ehhh... I am willing to not be that guy that goes OPB VIRUS every time somebody brings up the popular model. I understand why the consensus exists. I remain skeptical. I half-heartedly agree with the consensus.