Apparently the man is disturbing… and the comments after the revelations of Professor Luc Montagnier, believing that the coronavirus responsible for Covid-19 was a creation of a Chinese laboratory, go in the same direction: while recognizing the Nobel Prize for Medicine a exceptional contribution to the advancement of knowledge on the AIDS virus, these same scientists believe that the production of the professor, for a few years, singularly lacks the rigor that one can expect from a researcher like him. Testimonies for the most part wishing to remain confidential. Only one of them agreed to officially answer our questions, Professor Jean-Paul Stahl, professor of infectiology at the Grenoble University Hospital and former president of SPILF, the Society of Infectious Pathology in the French Language.
Interview collected by Dr Jean-Paul Marre
Why Doctor: What do you think of Professor Luc Montagnier’s statement?
Jean-Paul Stahl: I think that this accredits this “fake news” which circulates, that is to say the conspiracy theory, that is to say the refusal of the evidence: an animal virus was transmitted to humans by promiscuity that we can discuss, which is perhaps reprehensible, but a promiscuity between these animals and the human being, with a modification of the virus which allows it to become virulent in humans. The rest is fake news and the usual conspiracy
PDr: Does the bio-mathematical analysis of the genome, of which Luc Montagnier speaks, have a scientific value?
JPS: Any ! I am not a biologist… if ever that exists I will have the excuse of ignorance… What I know is the analysis of the genome of a virus, and the genome of the virus as it has been deciphered and which gave birth to screening and diagnostic techniques, we know it and there are no particular surprises. It is a cousin of the other coronaviruses without any addition, as far as I know.
PDr: This genetic analysis was first carried out by the Chinese, who made this sequencing available to the scientific community; Then it was redone in France, Europe and the United States: is it still the same virus circulating?
JPS: Yes Yes ! the virus was analyzed in terms of surveillance to verify that it did not mutate. Because that’s what we feared. Hoping for the good news that it becomes less contagious or that it becomes more virulent which would be serious. It has been analyzed several times and does not appear to be moving.
PDr: Insofar as several teams have analyzed the genome of this virus, it is impossible that these teams could have missed the addition of part of the HIV virus?
JPS: It’s impossible to miss it. No, I really believe that we are in the conspiracy theory, without any scientific validity…
PDr: There are still a lot of questions, not to mention rumors, around this “Wuhan P4 lab” whose high security is touted and in which Chinese scientists are actually working on coronaviruses. Does Professor Montagnier’s hypothesis of using a coronavirus to make a candidate vaccine against the AIDS virus have any scientific value?
JPS: To my knowledge no! I am not a “conceptualizer” of vaccines. But it would be the first time that we imagine using the coronavirus as a vector. There are many viruses that are not pathogenic for humans, I don’t see why we would have taken that one. It seems weird to me
PDr: Your opinion on this virus that you saw emerging every day. Does it seem very special to you?
JPS: No, it is not special, it has some unique characteristics that we have learned over the course of the patients, in the serious cases precisely. For example, this concept of the secondary immune and inflammatory runaway which is a characteristic of this virus and which seems quite specific to it. But for the rest, it is quite ordinary in its mechanisms with, it is clear, a greater contagiousness than what we thought at the beginning and a mortality which is not yet defined, then we are waiting for the population prevalence surveys. We would need serology, which is the only way to know the percentage of the population that has been in contact with the virus.
For the moment we have a mortality which is relatively high compared to that of the flu. When we have the prevalence and the evaluation of the number of people infected, this mortality will decrease mechanically. Will it reach the level of the flu? Probably not…
If we compare with SARS, its mortality is much lower but its contagiousness is higher.
PDr: To conclude, knowing that we have nevertheless had bad surprises with this virus such as a high frequency of this acute respiratory distress syndrome and perhaps vasculitis which affects organs other than the lung, can we expect unpleasant characteristics or are we on the trajectory of a fairly classic virus?
JPS: What we don’t know is what will happen in the next few months; that is to say whether we will have a second wave of infection or if, on the contrary, it will not occur. However, it is better to prepare for this second wave. On the other hand, what we expect in the near future are the possible effective treatments if there are any – honestly I don’t really believe in them – and the collection of all the experiences in intensive care to improve the care. urgently in the future
.
