Rating: 
Summary: Review
Review: (1) The book was a page turner. (2) All those who want to write in the analytic fashion read the first three chapters and copy their style. (3) All budding scientists, see (2). (4)Thank you Penguin Books for taking a risk on a controversial topic. Not everyone lives to read the NY Top 10.(5)More(better)maps would have helped. Which Atlas do you recommend? (6) A great, great fascinating read. Non-stop! (7)Journalism at its best, no conclusions, just a hypothesis, as it should be. Want a Real Degree in Journalism? Read this book,learn this book!(8)The greatest complement to the assembling of the books reseach perhaps: "Darwin would have been proud of you". All know he was a Master of collecting, and complementing his results. So, you.(11) There are more people out there than you think, Penguin Books, who are profoundly interested in this subject. (12)Written for a purpose. Executed superbly. (13) A real page turner. Maps! (14) (15)An occasional (simplified)scientific diagram would have been nice (but not necessary), as the writing was superb. (15) Thank you.(16)Most excellent.
Rating:
Summary: The River is a thousand page "page turner!"
Review: A fascinating cautionary tale for the next millennium. A MUST for your bookshelf!
Rating:
Summary: Great read, interesting hypothesis, good critical apparatus
Review: A great read, and a great mystery. I like the documentation within the text and the footnoting. Unlike many books with horrific theses, this one allows review of the primary sources. Hooper goes out of his way to be balanced in his assessment of evidence and of the people he interviewed in the course of his research.
Rating:
Summary: A word of caution
Review: A wonderful book which clearly explains some intriguing, if unproven, theories. As much a cautionary tale as a scientific work.In reference to the Clinical Infectious Diseases article (2001;32:1068-1084), it should be noted that the author of this article was one of the scientists possibly implicated by this book. Hooper experienced many roadblocks during his research for the book and many of them were placed before him by eminent scientists who preferred not to get involved in a book which might harm the reputation of their profession by suggesting that it may have been responsible (accidentally or otherwise) for disastrous wrongdoing during the development of the OPV. In the article, the author acknowledges the assistance and input from many of his colleagues in the scientific profession. Personally, I believe this is further proof that the medical/scientific community are more than happy to work together to protect the reputation of their profession but are less inclined to involve themselves in a project aiming to reveal the truth, no matter how horrifying and sinister that truth may turn out to be.
Rating:
Summary: All theories have holes, but this one remains valid.
Review: Amongst the many interesting pieces are the author's interviews with William D. Hamilton, world respected evolutionary biologist (who died in March, 2000 looking for clues to the source of the virus in Africa). In trying to get Nature and Lancet in 1994 to publish his views on the OPV/HIV controversy, Mr. Hamilton stated that all theories have flaws. He set out to explain that this theory was unproven either true or false, and as such deserved exploration. The medical community refused to look deeper, out of fear, it seems, for their positions in their field. Now, six years on, the theory remains unrefuted. It has not been debunked, which to me makes it seem stronger. There were many points that could have arisen to disprove the OPV/AIDS link, but they have not emerged. A very interesting book; even if the origin of AIDS lies elsewhere, it points out worrisome actions that some in science are taking: cloning, cross-species transplantation etc. Should anyone of these go awry, millions could be devestated. Stay with the book; it is long at times, but well worth it. Thanks. Mark
Rating:
Summary: Amazing, comprehensive, shocking.....
Review: As a recipient (I well remember the visit to the doctor to get my first polio shot) of the first IPV in the mid-fifties and now as a 50-yr-old physician, I'm shocked, angry and ashamed to learn of the slipshod way in which millions of people were exposed (either voluntarily or not) to an unsafe vaccine which had not been properly tested. One can excuse the possible lack of knowledge on the part of the players, i.e. the unknown presence of SIV's, but for those same players to ignore or repell repeatedly new knowledge to cover up for possibly one of the most costly mistakes to man in modern medicine is terrifying! I shudder to think what may be going on in laboratories across the globe. I have nothing but humble praise for the author of this thorough, painstakingly well-researched book...that he spent a decade of his life to help the world of medicine and science understand that in our attempts to stop a disease, we may create another monster even bigger than we imagined. A powerful book!
Rating: 
Summary: This Theory is Refuted ... YET AGAIN
Review: Conspiracy theorists are entitled to their own ramblings in their own fantasy land. However, when it negatively impacts humanity, (in this case, global polio eradication), and the conspiracy theorist earns profits from his book with tiresome resurrections of the issue, one must start looking at the hard facts. The scientific community has already invested an immense volume of resources (including direct analysis of the OPV stocks in question) to address this theory, and every evidence contradicted the scenario laid out in this book. The latest counterproof emerges from a study which directly analyzed the chimpanzees in the Kisangani area. The approach was sanctioned by no other than the late Bill Hamilton, who initiated the first expedition in the area, being convinced that it is the most direct way to address this theory once and for all. After much toil (3 expeditions mounted, one of which Bill Hamilton himself perished from malaria), it was found that the chimpanzees in the area have a distinct virus strain that was most closely related to those found in Gombe National Park in Tanzania than to the HIV-1 strains infecting people right now. Thus, the Kisangani SIVcpz, and therefore any polio vaccine that may have been prepared there, could not have been the source of HIV-1. (...)
Rating: 
Summary: Controversial hypothesis based on circumstantial evidence
Review: Ed Hooper has superbly chronicled the early days of the HIV/AIDS pandemic than nobody has ever done before. His noncoventional approach, which involved follow-up interviews on published case histories, is noteworthy. However, I'm still a skeptic on this hypothesis, and I think everyone still should be. In sharp contrast to the 27 arguments FOR the OPV/AIDS hypothesis that he stated, it is interesting that all these can be summed up into two: 1. A LOT of chimpanzees (to around 400) were used for safety-testing the Koprowski vaccine strains in an area where the first mass-CHAT vaccinations and AIDS cases were noted (including the sequence-verified isolate from 1959 in Leopoldville). 2. No existing records were found to shed light on the origin of KIDNEY cells used for attenuation of the vaccine (CHAT), and it is POSSIBLE that chimp kidneys MAY have been used due to its availability, and scientific merit (closer to humans, higher virus titers, etc). In contrast, there are at least 3 reasons to doubt the hypothesis: 1. It has never been proven that SIVcpz can withstand the vaccine manufacturing process. In all likelihood all infectious virions would have been removed. Cell-free HIV is extremely labile. This then only leaves the issue of infection via cell-associated virus. How long can macrophages/T cells survive the process? How many infected cells could have been there in the kidney MONOLAYER? Experiments to shed light on this issue should have been done first before this hypothesis was released to the public. (But then again, the reluctance of the vaccine makers to send samples for testing could've pushed Hooper to this end). 2. Assuming host-dependent evolution exist for SIVcpz, the precursor of HIV-1 may not have come from this area, since only schweinfurthii chimps abound. The HIV-1 isolates group together with SIVcpz from the troglodytes subspecies, which are found in Cameroon, Gabon and Congo-Brazzaville. The specific boundaries of these 2 subspecies remain a matter of dispute and remains at the heart of this debate. In any case, the geographic coincidence of SIVcpz and the HIV-1 Group N viruses (Cameroon) effectively ABOLISHES the OPV/AIDS hypothesis for this HIV-1 group. The story for HIV-1 Group M, the main group responsible for the pandemic, remains open until new viruses are discovered in both subspecies -- a difficult task considering how endangered these animals are. To date, however, HIV-1 Group M viruses remain MORE closely related to SIVcpz from the troglodytes subspecies. 3. A recent molecular clock study using 512 nodes from Nirvana, the supercomputer at the Los Alamos National Laboratory (unpublished as of now) extrapolates the chimp-to-human transfer in the 1930s +/- 25 years, which is effectively BEFORE the CHAT feedings in Africa. Although this is based on several assumptions, the model was able to correctly predict the timing of the L70 isolate (1959) and isolates from Thailand (1986). This leaves us with the question: What would testing of the remaining vaccine lots do to resolve this hypothesis? Finding nothing remains the likely scenario, since the vaccines were stored for almost 3 decades now. The fact that it took so much effort to PCR-amplify sequence FRAGMENTS from the L70 isolate (1959) FROM PLASMA, where virus is usually found, makes it hard to envision that a virus will be detected from the vaccine preparations, where one would think the virus will be present in very few amounts (if it's even there!). With mitochondrial DNA typing for species determinations it is more hopeful -- but if it turns out to be a chimp of the schweinfurthii subspecies (if it's not rhesus monkey!) -- what does it prove? All in all, Hooper has done a great deal of work to re-spark this debate which has a lot of implications to future public health policy. Although he tends to protect his hypothesis more so than the other (even to the point of extrapolation towards HIV-2!), it remains to be a critical documentary of the modern plague, and the need to test/de-bunk/accept controversial hypotheses. Will this hypothesis cloud the natural transfer theory and its very important implications -- that there are many other SIVs in different monkeys out there just waiting to jump to humans at the right opportunity? How elaborate should this human intervention be (e.g., OPV versus hunters) to facilitate this process? In conclusion, I am impressed with the magnitude of research Hooper has incorporated in this work, however, I'm not casting a vote for the OPV/AIDS hypothesis yet. The implications are just too shocking to even BEGIN to accept it point-blank.
Rating: 
Summary: Hooper's Central Thesis Is Ultimately Not Provable
Review: Edward Hooper contends that the HIV tragedy was the result of shabbily performed trials fifty years ago involving a polio vaccine. He charges the vaccine testers with reckless behavior and regrets that more rigorous procedures were not followed. Hoover offers substantial evidence suggesting that racist inclinations underpinned the nonchalant attitudes of these scientists. This was admittedly the vile mindset of numerous professional scientists during that less enlightened era. One wonders, though, if the author doesn't place too much emphasis on this probability in order to justify jumping to an invalid conclusion. It still remains a major stretch to believe that the ignoble philosophical attitudes of certain individuals accidentally released AIDS to the general public. Nonetheless, there is little possibility either way for the author's central thesis to ever be absolutely validated. The philosopher Karl Popper aptly pointed out that theories which currently seem beyond question may someday be found faulty. Newton's Law, for instance, was superseded by Albert Einstein's theory of relativity. Eventually the latter's theories may even become obsolete. In the world of empirical research no hypothesis is safe from later refutation. Hoover's views are no exception to this iron clad law of scientific investigation. Hooper wants someone to blame for our current horrendous circumstances. Is there, however, really a historical lesson to be learned in -The River- to guide us for all time? I fail to perceive how the alleged catastrophe could have been prevented by a more cautious approach if the very premise was erroneous. There is regrettably no such thing as an entirely safe experiment. Only hind sight is 20/20. We can at best limit the risks, not entirely eliminate them. Also, should the world's overworked and desperate scientific community invest preciously scarce resources in learning more about the origins of the AIDS virus? Would such knowledge truly assist us in finding a cure? Isn't it perhaps more appropriate for scientists to instead focus upon the current mutations of the many HIV strains? Hooper's argument is engaging, but pragmatically the relevance of his laudable goal leaves much to be desired. I can only give this book a mild recommendation.
Rating:
Summary: Hypothesis, evidence, conclusion
Review: Edward Hooper's The River is a fascinating and intriguing look at one possible explanation for the origin of the AIDS pandemic. Perhaps equally important is Hooper's examination of the scientific process of discovery and testing. No matter how one decides to view Hooper's conclusion (which I found to be very persuasive), he provides us with an outstanding example of the execution of a comprehensive research design. He offers us a hypothesis, collects and presents evidence, then draws conclusions from this evidence. He concludes by addressing the "where do we go from here" issues that quality research ultimately generate. As one who has a keen interest in AIDS and its impacts, I read the book with interest and an open-mind. As one who is struggling to write a dissertation, I read it with awe and envy.
| 
