* * *
“...it simply means that the body has successfully defended itself against a foreign invader and is prepared even better for any future attacks by that same invader.”
Messick has called Dr. William Knowles to the stand, who has been accepted as an expert witness in antibody theory.
“In other words, Dr. Knowles, the body has won. The attacker is defeated and destroyed.”
Knowles nods at the same time he says, “Correct. If an antibody is present, the disease agent itself will not be present.”
“The causal agent is no longer causing damage.”
Knowles nods again. “Correct.”
“Dr. Knowles, did you hear Dr. Peterson just testify that he personally has never found a trace of the virus called HIV in any of the AIDS cases he has studied, but instead has found the antibodies to HIV?”
“Yes, I heard that.”
“What does this mean to you?”
“It means that the body, at some time, had successfully neutralized the HIV and developed antibodies against it. That's all.”
It’s nice to have a witness who’s not so hostile on the stand. Messick seems to be enjoying this.
“So to have the antibodies to the virus called HIV, that virus had to have been defeated, since you can't find any trace of the virus itself.”
“Yes.”
“Dr. Knowles, if an invader has been defeated and antibodies are present, will the patient still be sick and dying, or are they well, or at least recovering nicely?”
“For the immune system to have gotten as far as producing antibodies, they will be recovering, or have recovered.”
“So it is highly unusual to find antibodies to HIV, such as we find in AIDS victims, and have those people dying right and left?”
“Well, let me put it this way…people die from a disease – virtually any disease – when their immune systems have not been able to protect them from an invader. Either their T4 cells didn’t work properly to kick in the immune response, or the Killer T cells couldn’t kill the organism, and they never got to the point of producing antibodies for the future. So to find HIV antibodies in a patient can only mean that they were produced prior to the person getting sick with AIDS, which means that the HIV itself could not be the cause of AIDS.”
There’s a stir in the courtroom in reaction to the first real hard piece of evidence and logic challenging the role of HIV in AIDS. It’s not enough of a stir to cause Judge Watts to raise her gavel, and Messick waits a minute to let it sink in and have its full effect on the jury.
“Dr. Knowles, let’s go back through what you just said and pick it apart, please. Tell us again…if you have developed antibodies against an invader, what does that say about your immune system?”
“It says that the immune system has to be working properly – that the patient’s T4, or ‘Helper’ cells were of sufficient numbers and efficacy that they kicked in the immune response and activated the Killer T cells, which were themselves successful in taking care of the invader. Only then are the antibodies produced to establish resistance to the next time that same invader might appear. If it happened any other way, or in any other order, the body would be wasting its time and energy and efforts to produce antibodies before it even knew it could survive the current attack. And the body doesn’t work that way. It’s the most efficient machine ever built.”
Messick wants somehow to find a way to repeat all this three times so he is certain the jury gets it, without Crawley lodging his “asked-and-answered” objection.
“Let me see if I can understand, Dr. Knowles… Something attacks the human body. If the immune system is working correctly, some of those Helper T cells we learned about are going to activate the body's defense system and send out the Killer T cells to destroy the invader. If the Killer T cells are successful, the body is then going to create antibodies to this invader to help in any future attack. But all this depends on a well-functioning immune system, and it has to happen in that order. Have I got that right?”
“Yes, that's right.”
Wow, I made it through and Crawley never moved! Let’s see if I can do it again.
“And in the case of HIV, if the body has gone through this process to the point where it has developed the antibodies to the virus called HIV, then the immune system has to be working at least relatively well.”
“Correct.”
“But I thought, Dr. Knowles, that AIDS was an immune deficiency disease – a disease where the immune system was not working well at all? How could a very sick immune system create antibodies for a virus called HIV that was supposedly destroying it? Can you explain the logic in that?”
“No, I can’t.”
“Wouldn’t it make more logical sense, doctor, that the body may have encountered this virus called HIV some other time in the past – not associated in any way with AIDS – killed off the active HIV, recovered nicely, and then developed these antibodies that we later find?”
“That’s the only explanation that makes sense to me.”
“But, Dr. Knowles, that would mean that the virus we are calling HIV couldn’t have anything to do with causing AIDS!”
“That’s correct. It couldn’t.”
Messick can see the shock on the faces of most of the jury. Some were still acting like this point wasn’t that important. They must not have understood as well as I thought. That’s okay. I’ll get them later, Messick assures himself. There’s a lot more of this trial yet to come.
“One last question, Dr. Knowles. Does it say anywhere in Koch's Postulate Number One that it's acceptable to find the antibodies of the agent suspected of causing the disease and not the agent itself?”
“No, it doesn't.”
“Thank you, Doctor Knowles.”
Messick looks at Crawley, who doesn’t move or return his gaze. Instead Crawley turns to the row of seats behind him to confer with an associate.
Sarah feels that same nausea overcoming her, like yesterday. She wonders what she ate, or maybe didn’t eat that she should have. She whispers, “Excuse me,” as she walks in front of each person down the row and out the door to the ladies’ room.