Εμφάνιση μηνυμάτων

Αυτό το τμήμα σας επιτρέπει να δείτε όλα τα μηνύματα που στάλθηκαν από αυτόν τον χρήστη. Σημειώστε ότι μπορείτε να δείτε μόνο μηνύματα που στάλθηκαν σε περιοχές που αυτήν την στιγμή έχετε πρόσβαση.


Μηνύματα - Rose

Σελίδες: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 402
16
http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/

"If there is evidence that HIV causes AIDS, there should be scientific documents which either singly or collectively demonstrate that fact, at least with a high probability. There is no such document."

Dr. Kary Mullis, Biochemist, 1993 Nobel Prize for Chemistry.

"Up to today there is actually no single scientifically really convincing evidence for the existence of HIV. Not even once such a retrovirus has been isolated and purified by the methods of classical virology."

Dr. Heinz Ludwig Sanger, Emeritus Professor of Molecular Biology and Virology, Max-Planck-Institutes for Biochemistry, Munchen.

Is HIV really the cause of AIDS?

For more than 25 years, thinking people have been reevaluating the HIV=AIDS hypothesis. The number of biomedical scientists saying that the cause of AIDS is still unknown has been growing fast since the initial HIV discovery announcement in April 1984. Either scientists do not see evidence for a lethal virus called HIV -- saying that it has never really been isolated -- or they assert that the virus is harmless. In any case, it is helpful to remember that, in science, correlation is not causation.

To help you make better informed health decisions, this Web site archives evidence and opinions of scientists, journalists and others against the myths of AIDS. The site contains more than 1500 pages with over 1000 articles. Most of these articles have been published in (peer reviewed) journals, magazines, and newspapers.

17
http://www.theperthgroup.com/EMAILCORR/vftweiss.html

EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE
Between Val Turner (1) and Robin Weiss (2)
This correspondence was overseen by Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos and conducted by Dr.Val Turner on behalf of the Perth Group

Feb./Aug. 1999

NOTE: The scientific debate consists of five propositions/responses by VFT and RW conducted over February/August 1999. On 31/8/99 Professor Weiss reaffirmed that he would not be responding to my third response.

INTRODUCTION

On the 4th February 1999 the science journal Nature published a paper written by Dr. Beatrice Hahn and her associates claiming that HIV had originated in the African monkey Pan troglodydytes. (The Perth group response rejected by Nature is in Addendum I). Accompanying the Hahn paper was an invited commentary by Professors Robin Weiss and Richard Wrangham. In reponse to this summary, on Februrary 20th, I emailed both authors. (The Perth group’s letter on the same topic was also rejected by Nature (Addendum II):

Dear Professor Weiss, Wrangham,

In your commentary in Nature New and Views, "From Pan to pandemic", you and your colleague Dr. Wrangham state, "The origin of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1), the retrovirus that is the main cause of AIDS, has been a puzzle ever since it was discovered by Barr‚-Sinoussi and her colleagues in 1983".

In an interview published in late 1998 which Montagnier gave to the French journalist Djamel Tahi, Montagnier was asked why he and his colleagues did not publish electron micrographs proving that the 1.16g/ml band (the "purified virus")contained isolated HIV particles. Montagnier answered: No such proof was published, because, even after "Roman effort", at the density of 1.16g/ml they could see no particles with "morphology typical of retroviruses". He gave similar answers to repeated questions, including "I repeat, we did not purify", that is, isolate HIV.

In view of these data how can one claim that "Barr‚-Sinoussi and her colleagues in 1983" discovered a retrovirus?

Yours sincerely,

VF Turner

PS The text of the Montagnier/Tahi interview is at http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/data/dtinterviewlm.htm

Professor Wrangham emailed me the next day:

Thanks for this interesting question. Unfortunately I am the wrong person to ask. Robin Weiss and I shared authorship of the News and Views article, but he alone was the virology expert. If you would like to ask him directly, his email is robinw@icr.ac.uk [Wrangham is an anthropologist].

Yours,

Richard Wrangham

Professor Weiss was in the middle of a move from Chester Beaty Laboratories to his new position at University College London. His secretary replied that Weiss was away. On March 3rd Weiss replied:

Dear Dr Turner,

I can't speak for Montagnier. But if you look up the Barre-Sinoussi paper in Science in May 1983, on which he is a co-author, electron micrographs of virions are there. However, these are of HIV budding from cells in thin section, not from sucrose gradients. So he is right to say it was not purified virus. When you have evidence of infection in culture, purification is not particularly important.

Robin A Weiss

My reply was:

Dear Professor Weiss,

Thank you for taking the time to answer my email re the Montagnier interview. So not as to predjudice your reply I read it out to our weekly clinical meeting. My colleagues, who are all emergency physicians practising in a large, busy, teaching hospital, were astonished. We wonder if it is some kind of a joke?? One such colleague has been needlestuck himself, has taken AZT for six weeks and 18 months later developed cancer.

I am not asking you to "speak for Montagnier". I am asking you to substantiate your claim, published in Nature, that B-S and her colleagues discovered a retrovirus, HIV.

You stated: "....he is right to say it was not purified virus". If so:

1. Why, in 1986, did you and your colleagues write: "A so-called AIDS virus isolate was first reported in 1983 by Montagnier and his colleagues in France who named the material "Lymphadenopathy Associated Virus One"". Did or did not Montagnier isolate, purify a retrovirus?

2. If he did not why did you say that he had? If you were aware that he did not do this, and this was the reason for you using the word "material" to describe his finding, why did you not, as a well known and respected retrovirologist, draw the attention of the rest of the scientific community to it, especially if one considers the extremely important consequences?

3. In 1983, when B-S et al published their paper entitled, "Isolation of a T-lymphotrophic retrovirus from a patient at risk for acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS)", and called the 1.16g/ml band "pure labelled virus", did they mislead the scientific community?

4. Since it is generally accepted, and makes common sense, that the existence of a new retrovirus can be proven only by isolating it (both B-S and Gallo claimed to have proven the existence of HIV by isolating it) what is the scientific basis for your claims that B-S et al discovered a new retrovirus?

5. You state: "When you have evidence of infection in culture, purification is not particularly important". These researchers did not know that their cultures were infected. This is what they were attempting to establish.

Surely you don't claim that electron micrographs of some budding forms on the cell surface or some cell-free particles in the culture supernatant which do not even have all the morphological characteristics of retroviruses, are proof of infection? Are you further arguing that, without isolation, that is, purification, a scientist can obtain "HIV" proteins and RNA?

6. In your view is it scientifically valid to say on the one hand, as Montagnier did, that the 1.16g/ml "material" did not have even particles with the "morphology typical of retroviruses, while on the other hand, asserting that the proteins and RNA where those of a retrovirus, HIV?

7. What possible justification can there be for (a) using these proteins as antigen in an antibody test to prove infection of millions of people by a deadly virus? (b) for using this RNA to prove not only infection but also to quantify the viral load?

As a clinician working in an Emergency Department, seeing patients with needlestick injuries for example, is almost a daily occurence. These patients' whole lives become focused around antibody tests which you and your many colleagues claim prove infection with a deadly virus. Without a satisfactory scientific answer to the questions arising from the Montagnier interview I find myself deeply troubled by ordering such tests let alone explaining to patients their meaning. As a scientist whose pronouncements directly affect the lives of so many people you are both ethically and morally obliged to resolve this issue. Especially on account of those who carry laboratory research into the world of patients and their relatives.

Yours sincerely,

VF Turner

PS The text of the Montagnier/Tahi interview is at http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/data/dtinterviewlm.htm

Following this I surmise Professor Weiss read the Montagnier interview. In the meantime, believing that Weiss would not reply (mistakenly and I must give Professor Weiss full credit for being the only HIV protagonist who has taken the time to debate us), I emailed Rex Ranieri, a documentarian from TV Channel Nine in Australia. He emailed Weiss on 29th March:

Dear Professor,

I have been observing the HIV/AIDS debate with some interest and I have recently been contacted by Val Turner. He have sent me some questions which he has put to you recently together with the subsequent email discussion .

It appears to me that the argument for the existence of HIV is not sufficiently rigorous.

Is there a bigger story developing here?

I look forward to your reply

Kind regards,

Rex

Rex Ranieri
Channel 9
Perth, Western Australia
rranieri@perthtv9.net.au
+61 8 9449 9999
Fax +61 8 9449 9905
Mobile 0411 258344

Professor Weiss replied immediately:

If HIV does not exist, then neither did smallpox virus (variola), nor does polio virus, tobacco mosaic virus in plants, etc. etc. If you wish to deny the existence of viruses, and virus diseases, go ahead, but leave scientists like me out of the picture.

Robin A Weiss

To which Rex Ranieri replied:

Professor,

My understanding is that Dr. Turner and his colleagues have questioned not whether a number of other viruses exist. Only HIV. As far as I am aware, a scientist does not prove that a particular virus exists by pointing to the existence of others.

I am well versed with some of the argument so far (for a lay person) so naturally your response contributes little to my questions.

I appreciate your desire to be left "out of picture" however as you are a world renowned researcher who has spent some time on the question, it is difficult for me to accept that you can bow out of the discussion.

Naturally, It is your perogative not to respond, however I think that this would ultimately be damaging to both sides of the argument. We have seen many examples of media debacle which can result from lack of discussion.

I realise that your time is valuable and I urge you to respond to my questions. Please accept that my intentions are to arrive at the truth, whatever that may turn out to be.

Kind regards,

Rex

Weiss responded to this email approximately two months later (see Addendum III).

Meantime I sent reminder emails to Weiss. Eventually he replied:

March 26th

I am very tied up with work at present and will give you a considered reply in due course.

Robin A. Weiss

I responded:

Dear Professor Weiss,

Thank you for your reply. I fully understand that you have been busy moving from Fulham Road to Clevland Street and setting up your new department. I am also sure that you understand how anxious both my clinical and non clinical colleagues and I are to examine your considered reply.

Yours sincerely,

VF Turner

After more reminders Weiss emailed me:

April 15th

Dear Dr Turner

You have breached my correspondence with you as an academic colleague by forwarding it to a journalist, Rex Ranieri. In your message to him, you write that that you do not hold any great hope that I shall answer a second time, and yet to me you express your understanding that I'm busy with other things. So here is my second response. I hope it is my last response, because I find the issue of 'purification' quite sterile, and unconnected with matters of medical importance. We are simply talking at cross-purposes.

There appears to be a consortium of medical people and biophysicists in Perth who have a fixation of HIV purification. Perhaps you are influenced by this. It is also a 'cause' championed by the British based magazine 'Continuum' founded by Jodi Wells whom I knew and who sadly died of an AIDS-like disease a few years ago. He initially supported Peter Duesberg's view that HIV indeed exists and can be purified, but that it is harmless. Then he shifted into a denial that there is any such thing as HIV. With Harold Jaffe I argued against Duesberg's view in Nature nearly 9 years ago (Nature 345: 659-660, 1990). I've nothing more to say on this issue, save that with the efficacy of combination anti-retroviral drugs, Duesberg seems to have lost his constituency of support among 'lay' gay men.

Now, to turn to your points sent on March 10 regarding my first reply:-

1. and 2. You confuse isolation and purification. I see no contradiction between what I wrote - in 1986 or in 1999 - and what Barre-Sinoussi and colleagues had reported previously. One can isolate some viruses by propagating them in cells in culture. For example, HIV, smallpox virus, measles virus, polio virus. There are other viruses which no-one has yet succeeded in serially propagating in culture following isolation because they require specialized, differentiated cells; for example, hepatitis B virus, human papilloma virus types 16 and 18 (associated with cervical cancer), and so on.

In both cases, viral genomes can be isolated, indeed highly 'purified' by molecular cloning using recombinant DNA methodology. Thus it is almost routine now in our lab and may other research labs to clone the HIV genome as DNA in bacterial vectors, and then recover them again in infectious form by transferring that DNA back into human lymphocytes. It is difficult to conceive anything 'purer' than the complete cloned virus without any proteins, particles, etc.

3. I do not think Barre-Sinoussi et al misled the scientifically community by calling the 1.16 g/ml band purified virus. But if you and your colleagues prefer to call it enriched but not yet completely pure, I would happily concur with that opinion. This illustrates what I mean by a sterile argument: how pure is pure? Is distilled water 'pure'? Yes, but it will still have a few parts per million or per billion of other soluble molecules.

Are your surgical instruments sterile? Yes regarding bacteria and viruses, if they have been heat-treated or autoclaved. No, regarding the agent of Creuzfeld-Jakob disease which partially resists such treatment. Yet, every surgeon knows what others mean by sterile. Let's not get bogged down in how pure is pure.

The important thing is serial propagation of the microbe. Koch and Petri over 700 [70] years ago 'purified' bacteria by propagating them as colonies (clones) on gelatin in Petri's dishes - nowadays we use agar-agar with nutrients in place of gelatin. Did Koch purify the microbes. Yes in his and my terms, maybe not in yours. Certainly he did purify [?not] them by biophysical methods such as sucrose gradients, but nothing else kept reproducing itself on the 'impure' nutrients. So it is the same for viruses. As intercellular [intracellular] parasites, of course, they can only be propagated in living cultured cells (or in plants, animals or humans) but one can 'plague-purify' them - a term dating from early bacteriophage studies in the 1920s. Animal viruses were similarly plague-purified: polio in 1952; vaccinia around 1955. We used a plaque 'purification' or biological cloning technique for HIV in 1989. No, these were not physically pure, but they were biologically pure, ie they were cloned. Molecular cloning, however, as I mentioned already is one step better. Both methods to my mind, are sufficiently purified to draw scientific conclusions, although one must be cautious not to draw conclusions beyond the validity of the data, including the kind of purity, biological, molecular, chemical or physical.

4. My definition of isolation of HIV by Barre-Sinoussi et al. Gallo and Levy and others in the early days of AIDS research is propagation in culture. Today, however, we more often use molecular cloning, then recover the cloned genome or partial genome and characterise its phenotype.

5. Yes, I do claim that visualization of HIV by electron microscopy was, in 1983/84, an important component of the collective data on virus isolation. Taken together with virus propagation, reverse transcriptase activity and enrichment of particles by isopycnio [density] gradients, it convinced me that HIV is a retrovirus. Even more so, it was Montagnier's electron micrographs published in April 1984 and previously shown at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory in September 1983 that convinced me that HIV was probably a lentivrius among retroviruses, as they resembled particles of equine infections anaemia virus - a lentivirus first propagated by inoculating a filtrate too small for bacteria to pass through into horses and donkeys and causing disease. So yes, I am definitely arguing that, disregarding your meaning of 'purification', but with my meaning of 'isolation', you can make quite large amounts of HIV proteins and smaller amounts of RNA.

6. Barre-Sinoussi et al published electron micrographs of early budding forms of virus only, that were not immediately identifiable as retrovirus particles. By September 1983, Montagnier's electron micrographs looked more typical.

7. There are many different tests for HIV-specific antibodies. Today's commercial test kits are based on oligopeptides and on proteins manufactured from cloned HIV DNA. No biological test for anything is 100% specific and 100% sensitive, but today's HIV tests are as good as tests for any other human viral pathogen. Likewise, today's PCR primers are highly specific and sensitive for the major strains of HIV in developed countries. Some 'outlier' strains, especially in Gabon and Cameroon are not picked up quite as sensitively and therefore estimates of viral load with these 'outlier' infections should be interpreted cautiously.

There will always be a few people who cannot be convinced by the data before our eyes - or who emotionally wish to deny what the rest of us regard as facts. Of course, interpretation will change over time. Newetonian physios still serves pretty well for the dynamics of road accidents, but Einstein's relativity superseded it on a cosmic scale. In my view, to deny the existence of HIV is a bit like denying the Nazi holocaust.

If we are to doubt HIV as a cause of AIDS, we must cast even more doubt on variola as a cause of smallpox, and the existence of measles, mumps, influenza and respiratory syncytial virus. None of these would pass your definition of purification. None of these has been 'purified' even by culture propagation (my sense) to the extent that has been achieved for poliovirus and for HIV.

This terminates our debate.

Robin A Weiss

Although Professor Weiss terminated the debate, my colleagues and I were far from satisfied. Eleni Papadopulos and I spent many weeks preparing a response (see below). This was sent in late July with the following note:

22/7/99

Dear Professor Weiss,

I apologise for the length of the attached file [35 pages] but it is impossible to debate this topic without data and citations. I trust you appreciate this necessity.

I greatly appreciate your reply to the questions in my last email. Let me say that eighteen years ago neither I nor my colleagues in the Perth Group set out to frustrate the efforts of scientists such as yourself. Rather, we began as you and many others did in the early 1980s, to make a contribution to solving the problem of AIDS. Certainly we are poles apart from the mainstream but, as Philebus says in the Dialogues of Plato, I hope "we are not simply contending in order that my view or that of yours may prevail, but I presume we ought both of us to be fighting for the truth"..

I am disappointed that you do not intend to continue the exchange but I respect your decision. Sometime in the near future I intend to put our debate on the Perth group website. Thus, if you would like to add or alter your replies in any way I will encompass these in the posting. If you would like to contribute anything else at all, scientific or perhaps philosophical including your views on dissent and dissenters, I would be very pleased to post these as well.

I look forward to hearing from you once again.

Yours sincerely,

VF Turner

31/8/99

Dear Dr Turner

I have been in your country during August without opening my e-mails. We shall have to agree to differ on the nature and existence of HIV. I have no additional comments to make for your website.

Robin A Weiss

My response to this was:

1/9/99

Dear Professor Weiss,

Thank you for your email. I am truly sorry you are unwilling to continue the debate. Eleni Papapdopulos and I spent several weeks preparing what I consider a worthy reponse and believe it your responsibility to answer the points I have raised. This especially applies to the arguments related to the extant HL23V. As far as I can tell evidence for the the "isolation" and thus the existence of HL23V is better than that for HIV. Yet HL23V has disappeared from the scientific literature and no longer exists.

I am disappointed you did not look us up while you were in Australia. My colleagues and I would have been delighted to take you out for a meal in Perth's Kings Park overlooking the Swan River. We have some excellent wines which I am sure you would have appreciated. We would have enjoyed your company and the invitation is open should you ever return.

I would like to thank you once again for your time and effort on behalf of this debate. This is not a polemic about any particular person winning. Any fighting is about "fighting for the truth".

Yours sincerely,

Val Turner


18
INTERVIEW LUC MONTAGNIER
Did Luc Montagnier Discover HIV?

By Djamel Tahi

Continuum Winter 1997


Text of a videotape interview performed at the Pasteur Institute, July 1997. Please note: The answers by Luc Montagnier have been numbered for easier reference to the analyses in the reply by Papadopulos-Eleopulos et al.

DT: A group of scientists from Australia argues that nobody up till now has isolated the AIDS virus, HIV. For them the rules of retrovirus isolation have not been carefully respected for HIV. These rules are: culture, purification of the material by ultracentrifugation, Electron Microscopic (EM) photographs of the material which bands at the retrovirus density, characterisation of these particles, proof of the infectivity of the particles.

LM: No, that is not isolation. We did isolation because we "passed on" the virus, we made a culture of the virus. For example Gallo said : "They have not isolated the virus...and we (Gallo et al.), we have made it emerge in abundance in an immortal cell line." But before making it emerge in immortal cell lines, we made it emerge in cultures of normal lymphocytes from a blood donor. That is the principal criterion. One had something one could pass on serially, that one could maintain. And characterised as a retrovirus not only by its visual properties, but also biochemically, RT [reverse transcriptase] activity which is truly specific of retroviruses. We also had the reactions of antibodies against some proteins, probably the internal proteins. I say probably by analogy with knowledge of other retroviruses. One could not have isolated this retrovirus without knowledge of other retroviruses, that's obvious. But I believe we have answered the criteria of isolation. Totally. (1)

DT: Let me come back on the rules of retrovirus isolation which are : culture, purification at the density of retroviruses, EM photographs of the material at the retrovirus density, characterisation of the particles, proof of the infectivity of the particles. Have all these steps been done for the isolation of HIV? I'd like to add, according to several published references cited by the Australian group, RT is not specific to retroviruses and, moreover, your work to detect RT was not done on the purified material?

LM: I believe we published in Science (May 1983) a gradient which showed that the RT had exactly the density of 1.16. So one had a peak which was RT. So one has fulfiled this criterion for purification. But to pass it on serially is difficult because when you put the material in purification, into a gradient, retroviruses are very fragile, so they break each other and greatly lose their infectivity. But I think even so we were able to keep a little of their infectivity. But it was not as easy as one does it today, because the quantities of virus were nonetheless very weak. At the beginning we stumbled on a virus which did not kill cells. The virus came from an asymptomatic patient and so was classified amongst the non-syncythia-forming, non-cytopathogenic viruses using the co-receptor ccr5. It was the first BRU virus. One had very little of it, and one could not pass it on in an immortal cell line. We tried for some months, we didn't succeed. We succeeded very easily with the second strain. But there lies the quite mysterious problem of the contamination of that second strain by the first. That was LAI. (2)

DT: Why do the EM photographs published by you, come from the culture and not from the purification?

LM: There was so little production of virus it was impossible to see what might be in a concentrate of virus from a gradient. There was not enough virus to do that. Of course one looked for it, one looked for it in the tissues at the start, likewise in the biopsy. We saw some particles but they did not have the morphology typical of retroviruses. They were very different. Relatively different. So with the culture it took many hours to find the first pictures. It was a Roman effort! It's easy to criticise after the event. What we did not have, and I have always recognised it, was that it was truly the cause of AIDS. (3)

DT: How is it possible without EM pictures from the purification, to know whether these particles are viral and appertain to a retrovirus, moreover a specific retrovirus?

LM: Well, there were the pictures of the budding. We published images of budding which are characteristic of retroviruses. Having said that, on the morphology alone one could not say it was truly a retrovirus. For example, a French specialist of EMs of retroviruses publicly attacked me saying: "This is not a retrovirus, it is an arenavirus". Because there are other families of virus which bud and have spikes on the surface, etc. (4)

DT: Why this confusion? The EM pictures did not show clearly a retrovirus?

LM: At this period the best known retroviruses were those of type C, which were very typical. This retrovirus wasn't a type C and lentiviruses were little known. I myself recognised it by looking at pictures of Equine infectious anaemia virus at the library, and later of the visna virus. But I repeat, it was not only the morphology and the budding, there was RT...it was the assemblage of these properties which made me say it was a retrovirus. (5)

DT: About the RT, it is detected in the culture. Then there is purification where one finds retroviral particles. But at this density there are a lot of others elements, among others those which one calls "virus-like".

LM: Exactly, exactly. If you like, it is not one property but the assemblage of the properties which made us say it was a retrovirus of the family of lentiviruses. Taken in isolation, each of the properties isn't truly specific. It is the assemblage of them. So we had: the density, RT, pictures of budding and the analogy with the visna virus. Those are the four characteristics. (6)

DT: But how do all these elements allow proof that it is a new retrovirus? Some of these elements could appertain to other things, "virus-like"...?

LM: Yes, and what's more we have endogenous retroviruses which sometimes express particles - but of endogenous origin, and which therefore don't have pathological roles, in any case not in AIDS. (7)

DT: But then how can one make out the difference?

LM: Because we could "pass on" the virus. We passed on the RT activity in new lymphocytes. H. We got a peak of replication. We kept track of the virus. It is the assembly of properties which made us say it was a retrovirus. And why new? The first question put to us by Nature was: "Is it not a laboratory contamination? Is it perhaps a mouse retrovirus or an animal retrovirus?". To that one could say no! Because we had shown that the patient had antibodies against a protein of his own virus. The assemblage has a perfect logic! But it is important to take it as an assemblage. If you take each property separately, they are not specific. It is the assemblage which gives the specificity. ( 8 )

DT: But at the density of retroviruses, did you observe particles which seemed to be retroviruses? A new retrovirus?

LM: At the density of 1.15, 1.16, we had a peak of RT activity, which is the enzyme characteristic of retroviruses. (9)

DT: But could that be something else?

LM: No..in my opinion it was very clear. It could not be anything but a retrovirus in this way. Because the enzyme that F. Barre-Sinoussi characterised biochemically needed magnesium, a little like HTLV elsewhere. It required the matrix, the template, the primer also which was completely characteristic of an RT. That was not open for discussion. At Cold Spring Harbour in September 1983, Gallo asked me whether I was sure it was an RT. I knew it, F. Barre-Sinoussi had done all the controls for that. It was not merely a cellular polymerase, it was an RT. It worked only with RNA primers, it made DNA. That one was sure of. (10)

DT: With the other retroviruses you have met in your career did you follow the same process and did you meet the same difficulties?

LM: I would say that for HIV it is an easy process. Compared with the obstacles one finds for the others...because the virus does not emerge, or indeed because isolation is sporadic - you manage it one time in five. I am talking about current research into others illnesses. One can cite the virus of Multiple Sclerosis of Prof. Peron. He showed me his work a decade ago and it took him around ten years to finally find a gene sequence which is very close to an endogenous virus. You see...it is very difficult. Because he could not "pass on" the virus, he could not make it emerge in culture. Whereas HIV emerges like couch grass. The LAI strain for example emerges like couchgrass. That's why it contaminated the others. (11)

DT: With what did you culture the lymphocytes of your patient? With the H9 cell line?

LM: No, because it didn't work at all with the H9. We used a lot of cell lines and the only one which could produce it was the Tambon Iymphocytes. (12)

DT: But using these kinds of elements it is possible to introduce other things capable of inducing an RT and proteins, etc..

LM: Agreed completely. That's why finally we were not very ardent about using immortal cell lines. To cultivate the virus en masse - OK. But not to characterise it, because we knew we were going to bring in other things. There are MT cell lines which have been found by the Japanese (MT2, MT4) which replicate HIV very well and which at the same time are transformed by HTLV. So, you have a mix of HIV and HTLV. It is a real soup. (13)

DT: What's more it's not impossible that patients may be infected by other infectious agents?

LM: There could be mycoplasmas...there could be a stack of things. But fortunately we had the negative experience with viruses associated with cancers and that helped us, because we had encountered all these problems. For example, one day I had a very fine peak of RT, which F. Barre-Sinoussi gave me, with a density a little bit higher, 1.19. And I checked! It was a mycoplasma, not a retrovirus. (14)

DT: With the material purified at the retrovirus density, how is it possible to make out the difference between what is viral and what is not? Because at this density there's a stack of other things, including "virus-like" particles, cellular fragments...

LM: Yes, that's why it is easier with the cell culture because one sees the phases of virus production. You have the budding. Charles Dauget (an EM specialist) looked rather at the cells. Of course he looked at the plasma, the concentrate, etc...he saw nothing major. Because if you make a concentrate it's necessary to make thinly sliced section [to see a virus with the EM], and to make a thin section it is necessary to have a concentrate at least the size of the head of a pin. So enormous amounts of virus are necessary. By contrast, you make a thin section of cells very easily and it's in these thin sections that Charles Dauget found the retrovirus, with different phases of budding. (15)

DT: When one looks at the published electron microscope photographs, for you as a retrovirologist it is clear it's a retrovirus, a new retrovirus?

LM: No, at that point one cannot say. With the first budding pictures it could be a type C virus. One cannot distinguish. (16)

DT: Could it be anything else than a retrovirus?

LM: No.. well, after all, yes .. it could be another budding virus. But there's a ... we have an atlas. One knows a little bit from familiarity, what is a retrovirus and what is not. With the morphology one can distinguish but it takes a certain familiarity. (17)

DT: Why no purification?

LM: I repeat we did not purify. We purified to characterise the density of the RT, which was soundly that of a retrovirus. But we didn't take the peak...or it didn't work...because if you purify, you damage. So for infectious particles it is better to not touch them too much. So you take simply the supernatant from the culture of lymphocytes which have produced the virus and you put it in a small quantity on some new cultures of lymphocytes. And it follows, you pass on the retrovirus serially and you always get the same characteristics and you increase the production each time you pass it on. (18)

DT: So the stage of purification is not necessary?

LM: No, no, it's not necessary. What is essential is to pass on the virus. The problem Peron had with the multiple sclerosis virus was that he could not pass on the virus from one culture to another. That is the problem. He managed it a very little, not enough to characterise it. And these days to characterise means above all at the molecular standard. If you will, the procedure goes more quickly. So to do it : a DNA, clone this DNA, amplify it, sequence it, etc..So you have the DNA, the sequence of the DNA which tells you if it is truly a retrovirus. One knows the familiar structure of retroviruses, all the retroviruses have a familiar genomic structure with such and such a gene which is characteristic. (19)

DT: So, for isolation of retroviruses the stage of purification is not obligatory? One can isolate retroviruses without purifying?

LM: Yes .. one is not obliged to transmit pure material. It would be better, but there is the problem that one damages it and diminishes the infectivity of the retrovirus. (20)

DT: Without going through this stage of purification, isn't there a risk of confusion over the proteins that one identifies and also over the RT which could come from something else?

LM: No .. after all, I repeat if we have a peak of RT at the density of 1.15, 1.16, there are 999 chances out of 1,000 that it is a retrovirus. But it could be a retrovirus of different origin. I repeat, there are some endogenous retroviruses, pseudo-particles which can be emitted by cells, but even so, from the part of the genome that provides retroviruses. And which one acquires through heredity, in the cells for a very long time. But finally I think for the proof - because things evolve like molecular biology permitting even easier characterisation these days - it's necessary to move on very quickly to cloning. And that was done very quickly, as well by Gallo as by ourselves. Cloning and sequencing, and there one has the complete characterisation. But I repeat, the first characterisation is the belonging to the lentivirus family, the density, the budding, etc.. the biological properties, the association with the T4 cells. All these things are part of the characterisation, and it was us who did it. (21)

DT: But there comes a point when one must do the characterisation of the virus. This means: what are the proteins of which it's composed?

LM: That's it. So then, analysis of the proteins of the virus demands mass production and purification. It is necessary to do that. And there I should say that that partially failed. J.C. Chermann was in charge of that, at least for the internal proteins. And he had difficulties producing the virus and it didn't work. But this was one possible way, the other way was to have the nucleic acid, cloning, etc. It's this way which worked very quickly. The other way didn't work because we had at that time a system of production which wasn't robust enough. One had not enough particles produced to purify and characterise the viral proteins. It couldn't be done. One couldn't produce a lot of virus at that time because this virus didn't emerge in the immortal cell line. We could do it with the LAI virus, but at that time we did not know that. (22)

DT: Gallo did it?

LM: Gallo? .. I don't know if he really purified. I don't believe so. I believe he launched very quickly into the molecular part, that's to say cloning . What he did do is the Western Blot. We used the RIPA technique, so what they did that was new was they showed some proteins which one had not seen well with the other technique. Here is another aspect of characterising the virus. You cannot purify it but if you know somebody who has antibodies against the proteins of the virus, you can purify the antibody/antigen complex. That's what one did. And thus one had a visible band, radioactively labelled, which one called protein 25, p25. And Gallo saw others. There was the p25 which he called p24, there was p41 which we saw... (23)

DT: About the antibodies, numerous studies have shown that these antibodies react with other proteins or elements which are not part of HIV. And that they can not be sufficient to characterise the proteins of HIV.

LM: No! Because we had controls. We had people who didn't have AIDS and had no antibodies against these proteins. And the techniques we used were techniques I had refined myself some years previously, to detect the src gene. You see the src gene was detected by immunoprecipitation too. It was the p60 [protein 60]. I was very dexterous, and my technician also, with the RIPA technique. If one gets a specific reaction, it's specific. (24)

DT: But we know AIDS patients are infected with a multitude of other infectious agents which are susceptible to ...

LM: Ah yes, but antibodies are very specific. They know how to distinguish one molecule in one million. There is a very great affinity. When antibodies have sufficient affinity, you fish out something really very specific. With monoclonal antibodies you fish out really ONE protein. All of that is used for diagnostic antigen detection. (25)

DT: For you the p41 was not of viral origin and so didn't belong to HIV. For Gallo it was the most specific protein of the HIV. Why this contradiction?

LM: We were both reasonably right. That's to say that I in my RIPA technique...in effect there are cellular proteins that one meets everywhere - there's a non-specific "background noise", and amongst these proteins one is very abundant in cells, which is actin. And this protein has a molecular weight 43000kd. So, it was there. So I was reasonably right, but what Gallo saw on the other hand was the gp41 of HIV, because he was using the Western Blot. And that I have recognised. (26)

DT: For you p24 was the most specific protein of HIV, for Gallo not at all. One recognises thanks to other studies that the antibodies directed against p24 were often found in patients who were not infected with HIV, and even in certain animals. In fact today, an antibody reaction with p24 is considered non specific.

LM: It is not sufficient for diagnosing HIV infection. (27)

DT: No protein is sufficient?

LM: No protein is sufficient anyway. But at the time the problem didn't reveal itself like that. The problem was to know whether it was an HTLV or not. The only human retrovirus known was HTLV. And we showed clearly that it was not an HTLV, that Gallo's monoclonal antibodies against the p24 of HTLV did not recognise the p25 of HIV. (28)

DT: At the density of retroviruses, 1.16, there are a lot of particles, but only 20% of them appertain to HIV. Why are 80% of the proteins not viral and the others are? How can one make out the difference?

LM: There are two explanations. For the one part, at this density you have what one calls microvesicles of cellular origin, which have approximately the same size as the virus, and then the virus itself, in budding, brings cellular proteins. So effectively these proteins are not viral, they are cellular in origin. So, how to make out the difference?! Frankly with this technique one can't do it precisely . What we can do is to purify the virus to the maximum with successive gradients, and you always stumble on the same proteins. (29)

DT: The others disappear?

LM: Let's say the others reduce a little bit. You take off the microvesicles, but each time you lose a lot of virus, so it's necessary to have a lot of virus to start off in order to keep a little bit when you arrive at the end. And then again it's the molecular analysis, it's the sequence of these proteins which is going allow one to say whether they are of viral origin or not. That's what we began for p25, that failed ...and the other technique is to do the cloning, and so then you have the DNA and from the DNA you get the proteins. You deduce the sequence of the proteins and their size and, you stumble again on what you've already observed with immunoprecipitation or with gel electrophoresis. And one knows by analogy with the sizes of the proteins of other retroviruses, one can deduce quite closely these proteins. So you have the p25 which was close to the p24 of HTLV, you have the p18..in the end you have the others. On the other hand the one which was very different was the very large protein, p120. (30)

DT: Today, are the problems about mass production of the virus, purification, EM pictures at 1.16, resolved?

LM: Yes, of course. (31)

DT: Do EM pictures of HIV from the purification exist?

LM: Yes. of course. (32)

DT: Have they been published?

LM: I couldn't tell you...we have some somewhere .. but it is not of interest, not of any interest. (33)

DT: Today, with mass production of the virus, is it possible to see an EM, after purification, of a large number of viruses?

LM: Yes, yes. Absolutely. One can see them, one even sees visible bands. (34)

DT: So for you HIV exists?

LM: Oh, it is clear. I have seen it and I have encountered it. (35) *

19
https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/113/33/9155.full.pdf

Extracellular vesicles and viruses: Are they close relatives?

Esther Nolte-‘t Hoena
, Tom Cremera
, Robert C. Gallob,1, and Leonid B. Margolisc
Edited by Peter K. Vogt, The Scripps Research Institute, La Jolla, CA, and approved June 27, 2016 (received for review April 4, 2016)
Extracellular vesicles (EVs) released by various cells are small phospholipid membrane-enclosed entities that can
carry miRNA. They are now central to research in many fields of biology because they seem to constitute a new
system of cell–cell communication. Physical and chemical characteristics of many EVs, as well as their biogenesis
pathways, resemble those of retroviruses. Moreover, EVs generated by virus-infected cells can incorporate viral
proteins and fragments of viral RNA, being thus indistinguishable from defective (noninfectious) retroviruses.
EVs, depending on the proteins and genetic material incorporated in them, play a significant role in viral
infection, both facilitating and suppressing it. Deciphering the mechanisms of EV-cell interactions may facilitate
the design of EVs that inhibit viral infection and can be used as vehicles for targeted drug delivery.


______________

http://www.theperthgroup.com/HIV/ArakelyanNatureSciRep2017.pdf

Extracellular Vesicles Carry HIV
Env and Facilitate Hiv Infection of
Human Lymphoid Tissue
Anush Arakelyan, Wendy Fitzgerald, Sonia Zicari, Christophe Vanpouille & Leonid Margolis
Cells productively infected with HIV-1 release virions along with extracellular vesicles (EVs) whose
biogenesis, size, and physical properties resemble those of retroviruses. Here, we found that a
significant number of EVs (exosomes) released by HIV-1 infected cells carry gp120 (Env), a viral protein
that mediates virus attachment and fusion to target cells, and also facilitates HIV infection in various
indirect ways. Depletion of viral preparations of EVs, in particular of those that carry gp120, decreases
viral infection of human lymphoid tissue ex vivo. Thus, EVs that carry Env identified in our work seem to
facilitate HIV infection and therefore may constitute a new therapeutic target for antiviral strategy.
It is well established that various cells in vivo and in vitro release extracellular vesicles (EVs) of various size and
biogenesis1
. Many of these vesicles (exosomes) are of the same size as retroviruses, in particular HIV, and are
generated inside the cells along the pathways similar to these viruses2, 3
. Also, these EVs may incorporate proteins
that are common to viruses (e.g., tetraspanins) as well as viral genetic material4, 5
.
Until recently EVs were considered to be “cell dust” but now EVs, in particular the small ones (less than
300nm), are widely studied as a system of cell-cell communication that changes the status of the cells they interact
with6, 7
. EVs seem to affect viral infection8–12, although, the data on the actual effects of EVs on viral infection are
controversial and the mechanisms of these effects remain to be investigated.
Analysis of EVs generated by infected cells as well as the effects of EVs on viral infection are complicated by
the fact that it is almost impossible to separate them from virions in particular from HIV because of the similarities in size and physical properties. Therefore, any HIV preparation is in fact a mixture of HIV virions and EVs.
Here, we overcame some of these problems by segregating EVs through CD45 and/or acetylcholinesterase
(AChE), two proteins that are not incorporated into HIV membranes13–15 and thus can be used to distinguish
EVs from HIV virions. Using our nanotechnology “flow virometry”16, we found that a significant number of EVs
generated in HIV-infected cells carry HIV Env, thus being indistinguishable from “defective” viruses. These EVs
facilitate viral infection in human lymphoid tissue ex vivo, a system that reflects many aspects of HIV infection of
lymphoid tissue in vivo where the critical events of HIV pathogenesis occur17, 18.




20
https://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/2011/10/30/re-apparently-missing-control-experiment-hivaids

Education And Debate
Reframing HIV and AIDS


BMJ 2003; 327 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.327.7423.1101 (Published 06 November 2003)
Cite this as: BMJ 2003;327:1101
Article
Related content
Article metrics
Rapid responses
Response
Re: An apparently missing control experiment on HIV/AIDS
Re: An apparently missing control experiment on HIV / AIDS

In his rapid response, “An apparently missing control experiment on
HIV / AIDS”, 14 March 2004, with respect to Montagnier’s 1983 paper,
Etienne de Harven wrote: “…the paper was illustrated with an excellent
electron microcopy (EM) picture showing unquestionably typical retrovirus
particles budding from the surface of an infected lymphocyte.”

The presence of buds on cell surfaces does not prove that the buds
represent retrovirus particles. These buds may be nothing else but
cellular protrusions resulting from localised contraction of the actin-
myosin system induced by the oxidizing agents to which the cell cultures
are subjected. (1) That is, although buds are characteristic of
retroviral particles, they are not specific.

According to Montagnier et al “That this new isolate was a retrovirus
was further indicated by its density in a sucrose gradient, which was
1.16…” (2) However, we know now in the material which banded at
1.16gm/ml, the “purified virus”, Montagnier and his colleagues could not
find any particles with the “morphology typical of retroviruses”. (3)
This means that even if the cell-free particles originated from buds on
the cell surface neither the buds nor the cell free particles could have
had anything to do with either an endogenous or exogenous retrovirus.

Etienne wrote: “It appears that a most crucial, control experiment
has been omitted, in 1983, when the team at the Pasteur Institute in Paris
published their historical paper on the alleged “isolation” of HIV (LAV) …
Can any BMJ reader help to identify a laboratory where one could perform
the following, short, non-expensive, control experiment that is obviously
missing?

The experiment will be as simple as this: 1) Isolate lymphocytes from
human umbilical cord blood, 2) Place these lymphocytes in cell cultures,
exposing the cells to exactly the same growth factors (PHA and TCGF) as
those used in the 1983 experiments, in absence of any other cellular
elements; 3) Prepare these lymphocytes sequentially, for transmission
electron microcopy; 4) Search, by EM, for budding retroviral particles on
the surface of these cultured lymphocytes. I am personally convinced that
if positive results are obtained (i.e. budding retrovirus on stimulated
cord blood lymphocytes in the total absence of any AIDS patient material),
a profound reappraisal of the 1983 Pasteur paper will appear imperatively
necessary. I would be happy to contribute as an advisor and as an electron
microscopist, anytime, anywhere.”

Such an experiment has already been carried out. Budding retrovirus
-like particles have been reported in “non-HIV infected” cord blood
lymphocytes as well as many other cells used for “HIV isolation”.(4)

References

1. Papadopulos-Eleopulos E, Turner VF, Papadimitriou JM, Causer D. (1996).
The Isolation of HIV: Has it really been achieved? Continuum 4:1s-24s.
www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/epreplypd.htm

2. Barre-Sinoussi F, Chermann JC, Rey F, Nugeyre MT, Chamaret S, Gruest J,
Dauguet C, Axler-Blin C, Vezinet-Brun F, Rouzioun C, Rozenbaum W,
Montagnier L (1983) Isolation of a T-Lymphotrophic Retrovirus from a
patient at Risk for Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS). Science
220:868-871.

3. Tahi D. (1998). Did Luc Montagnier discover HIV? Text of video
interview with Professor Luc Montagnier at the Pasteur Institute July 18th
1997. Continuum 5:30-34.

4. Dourmashkin, R.R., O'Toole, C.M., Bucher, D. and Oxford, J.S. 1991.The
presence of budding virus-like particles in human lymphoid cells used for
HIV cultivation. p.122. In:Vol. I, Abstracts VII International Conference
on AIDS,Florence.

Competing interests:
None declared

Competing interests: No competing interests

21
What are the particles Montagnier presented as HIV in his Nobel Lecture?
http://www.theperthgroup.com/Nobel/MontagnierEMNobel.pdf

In 1997 Djamel Tahi asked Montagnier if electron micrographs of purified HIV
had been published. Montagnier replied “I couldn't tell you...we have some
somewhere .. but it is not of interest, not of any interest”.1
 Although he accepts it
is absolutely necessary to purify the virus particles in order to prove the existence
of a new virus,1
 in his Nobel lecture Montagnier did not produce such evidence.
Nonetheless, he showed an electron micrograph of particles and said “thanks to
the electron microscopy, made by Charles Dauget, we could see very
characteristic particles, of course budding particles like retroviruses, but also
particles with a dense core which also differentiated [them] from the HTLV-I
virus”*. For a Nobel lecture one assumes Montagnier would select the best EM
he had on offer, one showing particles in which all the defining morphological
features of lentiviruses are clearly visible. (All Montagnier’s slides are HERE
(6.23 MB pdf)).

https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2018/06/montagnier_slides.pdf

*In 1983 Montagnier classifed his particles as a “typical type-C RNA tumor virus”.2
 That is, under the retroviral taxonomy that existed in 1983, Montagnier’s particles are a type C retrovirus particle, the same taxonomy as HTLV-I.3

22
http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/panel/aidsreport.pdf

What is needed to prove or disprove the HIV theory of AIDS?

There are three ways to resolve this debate:

The first is to garner enough public opinion to mandate a public debate between a small number of protagonists and dissidents. This debate should be international, public and adjudicated by a number of disinterested scientists of Nobel Laureate class who must present the international community with a resolution as to the way forward.

The second is for HIV seropositive individuals to have the evidence for their diagnoses of "HIV" infection examined in courts of law.

The third is to perform isolation experiments to prove whether or not a retrovirus "HIV" exists in individuals with a positive antibody test or AIDS. An outline of these experiments can be found in the Presidential AIDS Advisory Panel report.

23
https://www.pare-dose.net/4581

Ο ιός HIV προκαλεί AIDS, ή είναι η μεγαλύτερη ιατρική απάτη του 20ού αιώνος;
  28/02/2012

Η θεωρία ότι ο ιός HIV προκαλεί AIDS λέει τα εξής: Πρόκειται για εξωγενή ρετροϊό, ο οποίος εισβάλλει στο σώμα μεταδιδόμενος από το αίμα, την σεξουαλική επαφή, και την περιγεννητική μετάδοση (από έγκυο στο βρέφος). Ο ιός είναι θανατηφόρος διότι καταστρέφει τα T και τα CD4 λεμφοκύτταρα, τα οποία ρυθμίζουν τον ανοσολογικό μηχανισμό του ανθρώπου. Με την καταστροφή των λεμφοκυττάρων επέρχεται κατάρρευση του ανοσοποιητικού συστήματος. Εμφανίζονται συμπτώματα όπως διάρροια, απώλεια βάρους, υποτροπιάζουσα καντιντίαση, και ο άρρωστος πεθαίνει αδυνατών να αντεπεξέλθει στις λοιμώξεις. AIDS αποκαλείται το τελευταίο στάδιο αυτής της ιογενούς λοιμώξεως.

Για να διαγνωστεί κάποιος με AIDS πρέπει να βρεθεί θετικός στον ρετροϊό HIV και να πάσχει εκ μιάς των 30 περίπου ασθενειών που περιλαμβάνονται στο σύνδρομο AIDS. Το χρονικό διάστημα μεταξύ μολύνσεως από τον ρετροϊό και αναπτύξεως AIDS, είναι ακαθόριστο. Σύμφωνα με τους υποστηρικτές της θεωρίας, φτάνει μέχρι και τα 10 χρόνια, αλλά δεν υπάρχει θεραπεία, λένε. Ο θάνατος επέρχεται σίγουρα.

Όσο περνούν τα χρόνια, έρχονται στην επιφάνεια τα παράδοξα του AIDS. Πολλοί φορείς του HIV δεν έχουν εμφανίσει κανένα σύμπτωμα AIDS, 15-20 χρόνια μετά την διάγνωση ως θετικοί στον ιό HIV. Και ζουν υγιέστατοι παρά τις διαβεβαιώσεις των υποστηρικτών της υποθέσεως «o HIV προκαλεί AIDS», ότι όσοι κολλήσουν τον HIV, σίγουρα θα αρρωστήσουν και σίγουρα θα πεθάνουν. Αλλά υπάρχει και το αντίστροφο παράδοξο. Πολλοί ασθενείς με AIDS δεν είναι φορείς του HIV. Αυτή και μόνο η παρατήρηση θα αρκούσε για να καταρριφθεί η θεωρία της ιογενούς λοιμώξεως. Αλλά το ιατρικό κατεστημένο έχει πάρει διαζύγιο από την πραγματικότητα.

Πως η απάτη άρχισε ν’ αποκαλύπτεται
Την απάτη γιατρών-φαρμακευτικών εταιρειών πρώτη την πήρε είδηση η πολιτεία της Μινεσότα, η οποία είναι και η μοναδική ως τώρα, σε ολόκληρο τον κόσμο (όχι μόνο στην Αμερική) η οποία αποκάλυψε την βρομερή αυτή συναλλαγή, με αποτέλεσμα να κλονίζεται εκ θεμελίων η εμπιστοσύνη στους γιατρούς και στις προτεινόμενες θεραπευτικές αγωγές, που έχουν στόχο όχι τόσο στην αποθεραπεία ή την θεραπεία, αλλά το χρήμα. Η πολιτεία της Μινεσότα, λοιπόν, ψήφισε Νομοθετικό Διάταγμα σύμφωνα με τον οποίο αναγκάζει όλες τις κατασκευάστριες φαρμακευτικές εταιρείες να δίδουν στην Πολιτειακή Κυβέρνηση όλα τα έγγραφα, με πλήρη διαφάνεια, από τα οποία να διαφαίνεται η βρόμικη αυτή συναλλαγή σε βάρος ασθενών, που τελικά κατέληξαν στον θάνατο.

Αλλά ας πάρουμε τα πράγματα απο την αρχή…

Μια μικρή αναδρομή
Στις αρχές της δεκαετίας του 1970 ο τότε πρόεδρος των ΗΠΑ Ρ. Νίξον, ανακοίνωσε την χρηματοδότηση με τεράστια ποσά της μεγαλύτερης μέχρι τότε εκστρατείας κατά του καρκίνου, με σκοπό να εντοπισθεί ο ρετροϊός που, σύμφωνα με την θεωρία που κυριαρχούσε στους κύκλους των ρετροϊολόγων, έπρεπε να ευθύνεται γιά την ασθένεια. Αυτό βέβαια ερχόταν σε αντίθεση με τα μέχρι τότε παραδεκτά από την ιατρική, την καθημερινή εμπειρία των γιατρών, αλλά και τό άμεσα εμπειρικό γεγονός ότι ο καρκίνος δεν μεταδίδεται, ούτε ποτέ μεταδόθηκε από ένα ασθενή σε έναν υγιή!

Αφού λοιπόν ξοδεύτηκαν δισεκατομμύρια δολάρια σε μια εξαρχής άχρηστη έρευνα που απέτυχε παταγωδώς, όπως ήταν επόμενο, κάνοντας απλά πλουσιώτερους ορισμένους ερευνητές και εταιρίες, έπρεπε να φανούν ότι κάπου τέλος πάντων εχρησίμευσαν.

Εδώ λοιπόν αρχίζει η ιστορία της μεγαλύτερης επιστημονικής καί ιατρικής απάτης του 20ού αιώνα: Η επινόηση ενός δήθεν θανατηφόρου και ανίατου ιού, του ΗΙV, που προκαλεί το ΑΙDS. Ενδεικτικός είναι ο τίτλος του κύριου έργου του «Γαλιλαίου του 20ού αιώνα» -όπως μερικοί τον απεκάλεσαν-, του Peter DUESBERG: «INVENTING THE AIDS VIRUS» (Εφευρίσκοντας τόν ιό του ΑΙDS, 1996), καθηγητή Μοριακής Βιολογίας του Πανεπιστημίου του Μπέρκλεϋ-Καλιφόρνια, του κορυφαίου ιολόγου στον κόσμο. Η δήθεν επιστημονική αυτή άποψη επιβλήθηκε με μια πλημμυρίδα προπαγάνδας από τα ΜΜΕ, που όμοιά της δεν είχε γνωρίσει ο κόσμος, αρχίζοντας με μια διαβόητη πλέον δημόσια συνέντευξη του Γκάλο στις 23 Απριλίου 1984, όταν δεν είχε δημοσιευθεί, ούτε φυσικά συζητηθεί, καμία ακόμη επιστημονική έρευνα για το θέμα, ενώ μια μέρα μετά, η Glaxo-Wellcome άρχισε νά πουλάει τα «τεστ του AIDS», και, σε λίγες μέρες, τα πρώτα «φάρμακα του AIDS»! Χαρακτηριστικό είναι ότι ο ισχυρισμός ότι ο «HIV» προκαλεί τό «AIDS» δέν υποστηρίχθηκε από βιβλιογραφική αναφορά, ότι μια τέτοια αναφορά δεν υπήρξε ποτέ, ακόμη και στις αρχές της δεκαετίας του ʽ80, όταν ο Karry Mullis, που κέρδισε το βραβείο Νόμπελ το 1993 για την ανακάλυψη της μεθόδου pcr (=αλυσιδωτής αντίδρασης πολυμεράσης), έψαξε εκτενώς για μια τέτοια αναφορά χωρίς οποιαδήποτε επιτυχία. Αυτό που όλο κι όλο θα βρείτε είναι μια αναφορά στην πολυδιαφημισμένη συνέντευξη τύπου που πραγματοποιήθηκε στην Ουάσιγκτον, στις 23 Απριλίου 1984 και κατά τη διάρκεια της οποίας η Margaret Heckler, υπουργός υγείας και κοινωνικών υπηρεσιών, ανήγγειλε υπερήφανα, παρουσία του Robert Gallo, ότι μόλις είχε ανακαλυφθεί ένας ρετροϊός που ήταν η (πιθανή) αιτία του AIDS. Το επόμενο πρωί, όλες οι εφημερίδες στις ΗΠΑ και παγκοσμίως, έλαμπαν με μεγάλους τίτλους, στους οποίους παρέλειψαν μόνο μια λέξη: «Πιθανός»….

Η έναρξη της εξαπάτησης
Η ευκαιρία για το φάρμα–καρτέλ δόθηκε με τη δημοσίευση από τον ιολόγο Gottlieb το 1981 για το CDC (=Κέντρο Ελέγχου Ασθενειών ) της Ατλάντα μιας μελέτης, στην οποία οι πρώτες 5 περιπτώσεις του AIDS αναφέθηκαν σε πέντε αρσενικούς ομοφυλόφιλους ασθενείς. Και οι πέντε ήταν τοξικομανείς, και οι πέντε χρησιμοποιούσαν αμυλικά νιτρώδη άλατα («Poppers»). Δεν ήξεραν ο ένας τον άλλον και δεν θα μπορούσαν, επομένως, να έχουν μολύνει ο ένας τον άλλο.

Εν τούτοις,ο Gottlieb πρότεινε αμέσως τη μεταδοτική φύση της ασθένειας και της μετάδοσής της από τις σεξουαλικές επαφές, μια υπόθεση που, αμέσως, ευνοϊκά έγινε αποδεκτή από το CDC. Ακόμα, δεν υπήρξε απολύτως καμία αιτιολόγηση, βασισμένη σε αυτές τις πρώτες 5 περιπτώσεις, για το ότι θα μπορούσε να είναι μια σεξουαλικά διαβιβασθείσα μεταδοτική ασθένεια. Φανταστείτε δηλαδή ότι είστε ιατρικά υπεύθυνοι περίπου 100 εργαζομένων, ότι όλοι λειτουργούν σε ένα κακώς αερισμένο εργοστάσιο, όπου τα άλατα μολύβδου χρησιμοποιούνται αφειδώς. Εντοπίζετε σύντομα 10 περιπτώσεις δηλητηρίασης από μόλυβδο. Πρόκειται να καταλήξετε στο συμπέρασμα ότι η δηλητηρίαση από μόλυβδο είναι μια μεταδοτική ασθένεια διαβιβασθείσα σεξουαλικά;

Αυτό είναι ακριβώς που έκανε ο Gottlieb! Πώς είναι δυνατό μια τέτοια ιδιαίτερα απίθανη υπόθεση να έγινε αποδεκτή με τόση πολλή αξιοπιστία;

Η απάντηση είναι απλή και τραγική. Θυμηθείτε, είμαστε προς το τέλος της δεκαετίας του ʽ70 και στις αρχές της δεκαετίας του ʽ80: Το ηθικό ήταν μάλλον χαμηλό στο CDC, όπου πολύ λίγες επιδημίες ανιχνεύθηκαν από τις ημέρες της πολιομυελίτιδας, και το ηθικό ήταν επίσης πολύ χαμηλό στο εθνικό ίδρυμα καρκίνου (NCI), στή Bethesda, όπου οι γιγαντιαίες προσπάθειες που αναπτύχθηκαν κατά τη διάρκεια των προηγούμενων 20 ετών και που χρηματοδοτήθηκαν από τεράστιους προϋπολογισμούς, που στόχευαν πρώτιστα στην απόδειξη του υποθετικού ρόλου των ρετροϊών στον ανθρώπινο καρκίνο, τελείωναν με ολοκληρωτική αποτυχία. Το CDC καθώς επίσης και το NCI πήδησαν με ορμή σε αυτήν την σχετιζόμενη μέ ρετροιούς υποθετική επιδημία του AIDS, ορμή πού απέρρεε ως αποτέλεσμα σκοπιμοτήτων της πολιτικής για την επιστήμη, όχι από οποιαδήποτε αυστηρή ανάλυση των ιολογικών στοιχείων. Δυστυχώς, δέκα έτη αργότερα, ο «πόλεμος ενάντια στον καρκίνο» δεν είχε καταλήξει σε κανένα αποτέλεσμα… Ούτε έστω και ένας και μόνο ρετροιός δεν είχε καθοριστεί που μπορεί να είναι η αιτία έστω και ενός μόνο καρκίνου, ή μιας και μόνo λευχαιμίας στον άνθρωπο.

Πρωταγωνιστές της βρόμικης αυτής ιστορίας ένας σχετικά άγνωστος μέχρι τότε Γάλλος βιολόγος, ο Luc Montagnier, καί o R. Gallo, Αμερικανός ιολόγος, «ο τίμιος Μπόμπ» -όπως τον αποκαλούν ειρωνικά οι συνάδελφοί του-, δισεκατομμυριούχος πια σήμερα, χάρις εις τα δικαιώματα (rοyalties) των «τεστ HIV» που πουλάει ανά τήν υφήλιο. Σε ένα δείγμα από εκκρίσεις ενός Γάλλου ασθενή αιμοφιλικού, ο Μοντανιέ ισχυρίσθηκε -χωρίς ποτέ να το αποδείξει επιστημονικά, δηλαδή σύμφωνα με τους κανόνες της ιολογίας- (Αξιώματα του Κώχ), ότι βρήκε ένα νεό είδος ιού, καί μερικά από τα δείγματα αυτά έστειλε στον Γκάλο, ο οποίος ισχυρίσθηκε μετά από λίγο ότι απομόνωσε έναν ιό που τότε ονόμασε HITLV-1 (σε …συσχετισμό με έναν άλλο ιό, τον ΗL23V, που δήθεν είχε ανακαλύψει 7 χρόνια πριν σε ασθενείς με λευχαιμία, και που Ο ΙΔΙΟΣ ΠΑΡΑΡΑΔΕΧΘΗΚΕ ΜΕΤΑ ΟΤΙ επρόκειτο περί… λάθους!), ο οποίος, προσβάλλοντας τα ανοσοποιητικά κύτταρα, τα κατέστρεφε σκοτώνοντας έτσι τον ασθενή. Σημειώνουμε εδώ ότι τα στοιχεία που έφερε για να αποδείξει την ύπαρξη του «ΗL23V» ήταν όμοιου είδους με εκείνα που θα επικαλούνταν το 1984 για να αποδείξει την ανακάλυψη του «ΗΙV», με την διαφορά ότι τα πρώτα ήταν καλύτερα γιατί είχε χρησιμοποιήσει ζωντανούς ιστούς, και όχι καλλιέργειες, ενώ οι ηλεκτρονικές φωτογραφίες του υλικού ηταν σέ βαθμό πυκνότητας 1.16 gm/ml. Ξέσπασε τότε μια μεγάλη διαμάχη για τα δικαιώματα της ανακάλυψης και των τεστ μεταξύ ΗΠΑ και Γαλλίας, πού λύθηκε με συμβιβασμό Ρήγκαν-Σιράκ, αφού κατάλαβαν προφανώς ότι ο σκυλοκαυγάς μπορεί να κατέστρεφε τη λεία που ήταν αρκετή και για τους δύο.

Τι είναι οι ρετροϊοί
Ο Δρ. Peter Duesberg, καθηγητής μοριακής βιολογίας στο Πανεπιστήμιο της Καλιφόρνια στο Μπέρκλεϊ, ειδικός στον καρκίνο και τους ρετροϊούς (retroviral expert) ο οποίος ανακάλυψε το oncogene (γονίδιο καρκίνου) και απομόνωσε το γονιδίωμα των ρετροϊών (ένας από τους οποίους είναι και ο HIV) το 1970 αναφέρει ότι: «Οι ρετροιοί είναι ένα υποσύνολο ιών, μη τοξικοί για τα κύτταρα. Ανακαλύφθηκαν στις αρχές του 20ού αιώνα και είναι ένα από τα πρώτα προσδιορισμένα κυτταρικά μόρια. Έχουμε περίπου 3.000 καταχωρημένους ρετροιούς. Υπάρχουν σε κάθε ζώο: Σκυλιά, γάτες, φάλαινες, πουλιά, αρουραίους, χάμστερ και ανθρώπους. Οι ρετροϊολόγοι εκτιμούν ότι ένα έως δύο τοις εκατό του DNA μας είναι ρετροιοί. Οι ρετροιοί είναι σκέλη RNA που αντιγράφονται στο DNA μας χρησιμοποιώντας ένα ένζυμο που λέγετε Reverse Transcriptase. Μεταβιβάζονται κληρονομικά -από τη μητέρα στο παιδί (matrilineally)- και δεν είναι σεξουαλικά διαβιβάσιμοι. Τα ζώα στα εργαστήρια δεν ανταλλάσσουν ρετροϊούς το ένα με το άλλο, ασχέτως πόσο ζευγαρώνουν μεταξύ τους. Αλλά τα μωρά έχουν πάντα τους ίδιους ρετροϊούς με τις μητέρες τους. Η πρόσφατη έρευνα έχει δείξει ότι πρόκειται για ένα μέρος που αναπτύσσεται πάνω μας φυσιολογικά από μόνο του. Στα 50 χρόνια μοντέρνων εργαστηριακών ερευνών, κανένας ρετροϊός δεν παρουσιάστηκε να καταστρέφει τα κύτταρα ή να προκαλεί οποιαδήποτε ασθένεια, παρά μόνο κάτω από πολύ ιδιαίτερες εργαστηριακές συνθήκες».

Ο ίδιος ο Peter Duesberg δήλωσε ότι δεν έχει πρόβλημα να τον εμφυτεύσει στον εαυτό του: «I wouldn’t mind being injected with that virus. It’s harmless» (sic). Δεν είναι δυνατόν να υπάρχει θανατηφόρος ιός που αν εισέλθει στο σώμα να παραμένει αδρανής επί μία δεκαετία, όπως ισχυρίζονται γιά τον HIV. «Δεν υπάρχουν αργοί ρετροϊοί», λέει ο Peter Duesberg, «μόνον αργόστροφοι ρετροϊολόγοι».

Τα προβλήματα με την υπόθεση «ο HIV προκαλεί AIDS»
1) Το ιατρικό κατεστημένο ισχυρίζεται ότι ο ρετροϊός HIV είναι υπεύθυνος για το AIDS. Όμως κάτι τέτοιο απαιτεί απομόνωση και φωτογράφηση του ιού, κάτι που δεν έχει γίνει ποτέ, όπως έχει αποδείξει και η βιοφυσικός Ελένη Παπαδοπούλου (www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/cjinterviewep.htm) και η ερευνητική της ομάδα Perth στην Αυστραλία. Και χωρίς απομόνωση του ιού, δεν μπορούμε να μιλάμε καν για ύπαρξη ιού. Μέχρι στιγμής έχουν δημοσιευθεί κάποιες προσομοιώσεις του ιού HIV, οι οποίες είναι έργα καλλιτεχνών με την βοήθεια υπολογιστών, και όχι αληθινές φωτογραφίες.

2) Αποτελεί βασική παραδοχή ότι όταν ένας ιός προκαλεί τον θάνατο σε ένα ασθενή, στα τελευταία στάδια της αρρώστιας, ο ιός πρέπει να ανευρίσκεται εύκολα στο σώμα του ασθενούς. Τα όργανα, οι ιστοί, τα υγρά του σώματος, πρέπει να έχουν μολυνθεί από τον ιό. Και όμως, στους ασθενείς που πεθαίνουν από AIDS τα ποσοστά του HIV που ανιχνεύονται, είτε είναι μηδενικά είτε το πολύ 1 στα 1.000 Τ-λεμφοκύτταρα εμφανίζει κάποιο ίχνος ιού HIV. Ακόμη και τότε, δεν υπάρχουν σημάδια ότι ο ρετροϊός είναι ενεργός. Αλλά ακόμη και αν ο ρετροϊός HIV ήταν θανατηφόρος και σκότωνε 1 στα 1.000 Τ-λεμφοκύτταρα, ο ρυθμός αντικαταστάσεως των κατεστραμμένων κυττάρων του ανθρωπίνου οργανισμού, είναι 30 φορές μεγαλύτερος. Το οποίο σημαίνει ότι οι ασθενείς θα άντεχαν τις όποιες απώλειες Τ-λεμφοκυττάρων. Οι «ιατροί» κατήργησαν όχι μόνον τις επιστημονικές αρχές για την ανίχνευση και απομόνωση του ιού, αλλά με ανακριβή τεστ δίνουν αδιακρίτως «φάρμακα» σε υγιείς ανθρώπους. Επιπλέον κατήργησαν και τα αποτελέσματα της νεκροτομής που αποδεικνύει αν ένας ιός έχει καταλάβει όλο το σώμα. Μόνον έτσι μπόρεσαν να διαπράξουν την γενοκτονία τους. Αγνοούν τα αποτελέσματα νεκροψιών και τοξικολογικών εξετάσεων.

3) Το επόμενο πρόβλημα είναι στον ορισμό του AIDS. Τί είναι αυτό το σύνδρομο AIDS; Σύμφωνα με το ιατρικό κατεστημένο είναι μία ομάδα από 30 περίπου ασθένειες με την εξής καταπληκτική ιδιότητα: Αν κάποιος έχει φυματίωση και είναι φορεύς του HIV, τότε πάσχει από AIDS. Όμως αν έχει φυματίωση αλλά δεν είναι φορεύς του HIV, τότε δεν πάσχει από AIDS. Δηλαδή το AIDS δεν είναι κάποια καινούρια ασθένεια, είναι ομάδα παλαιοτέρων ασθενειών που οι «ιατροί» ονόμασαν σύνδρομο AIDS, με την προσθήκη ενός ρετροϊού. Όταν όμως καταγράφηκαν πάνω από 4.000 περιπτώσεις ασθενών διεθνώς, με όλα αυτά τα συμπτώματα χωρίς να είναι φορείς του HIV, τότε οι «ιατροί» άλλαξαν τον ορισμό του AIDS ώστε να μιλήσουν για ένα νέο τύπο ιού HIV, ο οποίος δήθεν δεν εμφανίζεται. Το ότι κάποιοι ομαδοποίησαν μια σειρά γνωστών ασθενειών, αυτό δεν σημαίνει ότι ενεφανίσθη μία νέα ασθένεια στον πλανήτη. Σημαίνει ότι κάποιοι απατεώνες ανακάλυψαν ένα νέο τρόπο για να κλέβουν τα χρήματα των ασθενών.

4) Το επόμενο πρόβλημα στην υπόθεση «ο HIV προκαλεί AIDS», είναι στην εύρεση αιτιώδους συναφείας μεταξύ HIV και AIDS. Όταν ένα φαινόμενο Α (ιός HIV) συνυπάρχει με το φαινόμενο Β (σύνδρομο AIDS), αυτό δεν σημαίνει ότι οπωσδήποτε το Α είναι υπεύθυνο για την ανάπτυξη του φαινομένου Β. Κάτι τέτοιο αποτελεί σοβαρό λάθος λογικής. Υπάρχουν οι εξής περιπτώσεις: Μπορεί το Β να προκαλείται από κάποιον άλλο παράγοντα, εκτός του Α. Μπορεί το Β να προκαλεί την εμφάνιση του Α (αρκετοί επιστήμονες υποστηρίζουν ότι ο ρετροϊός HIV μπορεί να είναι ενδογενής, και να εμφανίζεται ως αντίδραση του οργανισμού στις διάφορες αρρώστιες που καταπονούν το σώμα). Μπορεί η συνύπαρξη των δύο να είναι απλή σύμπτωση και όχι αιτιώδης συνάφεια. Επιπλέον για να αποδειχθεί αιτιώδης συνάφεια μεταξύ HIV και AIDS απαιτούνται παράλληλες και ελεγχόμενες έρευνες, μεταξύ ασθενών που πάσχουν από τις αρρώστιες του συνδρόμου AIDS αλλά δεν φέρουν τον HIV, και ασθενών που πάσχουν από τις αρρώστιες του συνδρόμου AIDS και φέρουν τον HIV. Κάτι τέτοιο δεν έχει γίνει μέχρι στιγμής. Άρα δεν έχει αποδειχθεί αιτιώδης συνάφεια μεταξύ HIV και AIDS.

Τα κριτήρια του Koch
Για να οριστεί ένας ιός ως αιτιολογικός παράγων νόσου, και κατ’ επέκταση πανδημίας, οφείλει να ικανοποιεί τα κριτήρια του Koch.

Πρώτο κριτήριο: Ο ιός πρέπει να βρεθεί σε όλους τους ασθενείς της νόσου, και σε όλους τους μολυσμένους ιστούς των ασθενών. Αλλά ο ιός HIV δεν βρέθηκε ούτε σε όλους τους ασθενείς με AIDS, ούτε σε όλους τους μολυσμένους ιστούς των ασθενών.

Δεύτερο κριτήριο: Ο ιός πρέπει να απομονωθεί από τον φορέα του, και να καλλιεργηθεί. Αλλά ο ιός HIV μέχρι στιγμής δεν έχει απομονωθεί από ένα φορέα του, απλώς κάποιοι ισχυρίζονται ότι ανιχνεύεται εμμέσως, διαμέσου αντισωμάτων. Ακόμη και αν έχει ανιχνευτεί, δεν πληροί το δεύτερο κριτήριο του Koch. Το δεύτερο κριτήριο μιλά για απομόνωση και καλλιέργεια του ιού, όχι απλώς ανίχνευση.

Τρίτο κριτήριο: Ο ιός πρέπει να αναπαράγει όμοια νόσο όταν χορηγηθεί σε υγιή πειραματόζωα. Αλλά μέχρι στιγμής ο HIV δεν προκαλεί το σύνδρομο AIDS ή άλλη αρρώστια, όταν χορηγείται σε υγιή πειραματόζωα.

Τέταρτο κριτήριο: Ο ίδιος ιός πρέπει ξανά να απομονωθεί από τον νέο μολυσμένο ξενιστή. Αλλά από την στιγμή που ο HIV δεν πληροί το τρίτο κριτήριο, φυσικά δεν είναι δυνατόν να πληροί και το τέταρτο

ΑΖΤ και αναστολείς πρωτεασών
Το AZT σχεδιάστηκε πριν από 40 χρόνια σαν φάρμακο χημειοθεραπείας για να θεραπεύσει τον καρκίνο. Η αρχή της χημειοθεραπείας είναι απλή -να σκοτωθούν όλα τα κύτταρα. Εάν η χημειοθεραπεία λειτουργήσει, τα κύτταρα του καρκίνου πεθαίνουν πριν από εσένα. Αλλά δεν λειτουργεί συχνά, και έτσι υπάρχει φοβερή παράλληλη ζημία. Φυσικά, η χημειοθεραπεία είναι μια βραχυπρόθεσμη διαδικασία. Ένας ασθενής με καρκίνο κουράρεται μόνο για λίγο χρόνο, επειδή η κούρα είναι τόσο τοξική. Αλλά στους ασθενείς του AIDS δίνεται AZT καθημερινά, πιθανώς για το υπόλοιπο της ζωής τους.

Θα πρέπει εδώ νά επισημάνουμε τήν ανατριχιαστική ψυχρότητα με την οποία αποφάσισαν, όπως ίδιος ο Μοντανιέ αδιάντροπα περιγράφει στό βιβλίο του «Άνθρωποι καί Ιοί», να ποτίσουν τα σώματα των δύστυχων «οροθετικών» με ένα από τα ισχυρότερα τοξικά δηλητήρια, πρώην πειραματική ουσία κατά του καρκίνου, πού οι ίδιοι οι ερευνητές των εταιρειών, στίς αρχές της δεκαετίας του ’60 αποφάσισαν ν’ απορρίψουν εντελώς, ακόμη και σαν πειραματική, λόγω της φοβερής της τοξικότητας, δηλαδή την αζινοβουδίνη ή ΑΖΤ.

Από την στιγμή που κάποιος διαγνωστεί ως φορεύς του HIV, αμέσως του χορηγούν χημικές ουσίες, όπως το άκρως τοξικό «φάρμακο» ΑΖΤ. Το ΑΖΤ όχι μόνον καταστρέφει τα εσωτερικά όργανα του ατόμου, αλλά επιπλέον έχει ανοσοκατασταλτικές παρενέργειες. Αυτό σημαίνει ότι πολλοί νεκροί ασθενείς που δήθεν πεθαίνουν από AIDS, στην ουσία πεθαίνουν από το ΑΖΤ. Έχει αποδειχθεί ότι το ΑΖΤ προκαλεί αυτό που υποτίθεται ότι καταπολεμά. Χορηγείται από τους «ιατρούς» για να καταπολεμήσει την ανοσολογική ανεπάρκεια, ενώ προκαλεί ανοσολογική ανεπάρκεια. Τα άτομα-φορείς του HIV δεν πεθαίνουν από το AIDS, πεθαίνουν από το ΑΖΤ που παρουσιάζει ακριβώς τα ίδια συμπτώματα με το AIDS.

Τα ίδια τραγικά αποτελέσματα προκαλούν οι αναστολείς πρωτεασών, που χορηγούνται για την καταπολέμηση του AIDS. Αντί να αποσυρθούν αμέσως αυτά τα δηλητήρια από την κυκλοφορία, χορηγούνται αφειδώς στους φορείς του ιού, που πληρώνουν πανάκριβα την δολοφονία τους. Η υπόθεση «ο HIV προκαλεί το AIDS», δεν στηρίχθηκε πάνω σε αντικειμενική ερευνητική εργασία. Κτίσθηκε πάνω σε σαθρά θεμέλια για να υποστηρίξει το φαρμακο-βιομηχανικό σύμπλεγμα και τις πωλήσεις αντιρετροϊικών φαρμάκων.
Το πιο σημαντικό απ’ όλα είναι ότι ασθενείς με AIDS (όχι απλώς φορείς του HIV) επανήλθαν σε φυσιολογική ζωή αφ’ ότου διέκοψαν το ΑΖΤ και τα άλλα τοξικά χημικά κοκτέιλ. Η Δρ Amy Justice, αποκάλυψε ότι η ανεπάρκεια του συκωτιού είναι τώρα η κύρια αιτία του θανάτου στα HIV-θετικά άτομα που παίρνουν φάρμακα για το AIDS. Ενώ η ανεπάρκεια του συκωτιού δεν ήταν ποτέ μια ασθένεια του AIDS, είναι όμως η κυριότερη, γνωστή παρενέργεια των νέων φαρμάκων του AIDS.

Το AZT είναι ένας εξολοθρευτής αλυσίδων DNA. Το AZT σκοτώνει το DNA σας. Σκοτώνει το μυελό των οστών σας, όπου το αίμα σας παράγεται, σκοτώνει τα κύτταρα στα έντερα σας και έτσι δεν μπορείτε να φάτε. Οι γιατροί δίνουν φάρμακα στους HIV-θετικούς ασθενείς πριν ακόμα αρρωστήσουν. Από το 1993, το CDC δεν απαιτεί πλέον από τους ανθρώπους να είναι άρρωστοι για να τους ονομάσει ασθενείς του AIDS. Εάν έχουν μια θετική αντίδραση αντισωμάτων στο μη συγκεκριμένο τεστ Elisa και μία μοναδική μέτρηση των κυττάρων Τ κάτω από 200, το CDC λέει ότι έχουν AIDS. Με βάση αυτά τα κριτήρια, οι γιατροί συνταγογραφούν φάρμακα του AIDS σε υγιή άτομα. Αυτό είναι που θα λέγαμε «συνταγογραφημένο AIDS». Φανταστείτε ότι πηγαίνετε στον γιατρό σας και σας λέει οτι είστε HIV-θετικός . Είστε απολύτως υγιείς, αλλά ο γιατρός σας, σάς λέει ότι έχετε AIDS επειδή η μέτρηση των κυττάρων Τ είναι χαμηλή, και ότι είναι καλύτερα να πάρετε τα φάρμακα για να σταματήσει η πρόοδος της ασθένειας. Είστε μπερδεμένοι και ανήσυχοι, αλλά εμπιστεύεστε τον γιατρό σας, έτσι παίρνετε τα φάρμακα, τα οποία καταστρέφουν τα έντερα σας και το ανοσοποιητικό σας σύστημα. Αρχίζουν να πέφτουν τα μαλλιά σας, γίνεστε ανίσχυρος, και αργά ή γρήγορα έχετε τις ασθένειες που προσπαθούσατε να αποτρέψετε. Ο γιατρός λέει: «Εάν δεν είχατε έρθει σε μένα, θα είχατε τα ίδια προβλήματα έξι μήνες νωρίτερα. Πρόσθεσα ένα εξάμηνο στη ζωή σας».

Επειδή τόσοι πολλοί άνθρωποι πέθαναν παίρνοντας AZT, οι γιατροί χορηγούν μικρότερες δόσεις,γεγονός το οποίο καθυστερεί απλώς και καλύπτει τη ζημιά που γίνεται στο σώμα. Σύμφωνα με τους New York Times και το Time magazine, 450.000 Αμερικανοί παίρνουν AZT κάθε ημέρα της ζωής τους. Πολλοί ασθενείς δεν μπορούν να πάρουν τα φάρμακα επειδή έχουνε άσχημους εμετούς. Αλλά προσπαθούν να ακολουθήσουν τις οδηγίες του γιατρού τους

Το AZT εγκρίθηκε βάσει μιας ψευδούς έρευνας. Τα τεστ της φάσης ΙΙ του AZT έγιναν από το FDA το 1986 και ελέγχθηκαν από την εταιρία Burroughs-Wellcome (τώρα Glaxo-Wellcome), η οποία κατασκευάζει το φάρμακο. Τυχαία, η Wellcome είναι η ίδια εταιρία που πρώτη κατασκεύασε τα poppers νιτρώδους άλατος για τον πόνο της καρδιάς. Τα τεστ της φάσης ΙΙ υποτίθεται οτι ήταν για να καταδείξουν ότι το AZT ήταν «ασφαλές και αποτελεσματικό». Η έκθεση σχετικά με τα τεστ, που δημοσιεύθηκε το 1987, υποστήριξε ότι το AZT απέτρεψε εντυπωσιακά τους ανθρώπους με AIDS από τον θάνατο. Αλλά αυτά τα αποτελέσματα βασίστηκαν σε απάτη. Ενενήντα τέσσερα τοις εκατό όλων των θανάτων του AIDS, έχουν εμφανιστεί από όταν οι άνθρωποι άρχισαν να χρησιμοποιούν το AZT το 1987. Περισσότεροι άνθρωποι πέθαναν παίρνοντας AZT το 1993, παρά στα πρώτα έξι χρόνια του AIDS.

24
Η Άλλη Πλευρά του AIDS (ενδεκάλεπτο τρέιλερ)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dI1Php-OuWI

Αυτό είναι ένα τρέιλερ, που έφτιαξα, για το ντοκιμαντέρ "H Άλλη Πλευρά του AIDS", που βραβεύτηκε το 2004 στο Διεθνές Φεστιβάλ Κινηματογράφου στο Λος Άντζελες με το Ειδικό Βραβείο της Επιτροπής (Special Jury Prize).
Βρίσκεται αναρτημένο στο Google εδώ: http://video.google.com/videoplay?doc...
Παρουσιάζει την άποψη ότι δεν υπάρχει ιός που προκαλεί AIDS, ή μάλλον ότι δεν έχει βρεθεί να υπάρχει, και, ακόμα περισσότερο, πως δεν φαίνεται να υπάρχει καν AIDS! Και πως η όλη ιδέα ήταν μια καλά στημένη απάτη που έκανε πιο πλούσιες τις φαρμακευτικές.
Μπορείτε να διαβάσετε σχετικές πληροφορίες εδώ - μια πολύ καλή σελίδα Ελληνίδας οροθετικής και δημοσιογράφου, με πολλούς συνδέσμους:
http://www.hivwave.gr/pages/index.php

25
https://www.amazon.com/Antioxidants-Against-Cancer-Ralph-Moss/dp/1881025284

Antioxidants Against Cancer (Ralph Moss on Cancer)

Editorial Reviews
Review
"An excellent evidence-based summary, easily understood by both patients and their cancer-treatment specialists." -- Stephen M. Sagar, M.D. Oncologist

"Dr. Ralph Moss is a beacon of knowledge in the controversial and contradictory world of alternative medicine. This book spells out a blueprint for appropriate supplement use in patients undergoing cancer treatment." -- Jonathan Collin, M.D., Editor-in-Chief, Townsend Letter for Doctors and Patients

"Dr. Ralph Moss is a veritable clearing house of dependable information about cutting-edge approaches to cancer prevention and treatment." -- Larry Dossey, M.D. author, Executive editor, Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine

"Ralph Moss's definitive book will show you and your doctors why antioxidant therapy should be offered to every cancer patient." -- Robert C. Atkins, M.D., bestselling author

Once again Ralph Moss has provided a timely review of a topic of great importance to cancer patients and to those who hope not to become cancer patients." -- Robert A. Nagourney, M.D. Oncologist

From the Publisher
We at Equinox Press are honored to have published Antioxidants Against Cancer, the latest work from groundbreaking medical writer Ralph W. Moss, Ph.D. Dr. Moss has been called "probably the most knowledgeable writer in the world on alternative therapies for cancer." Antioxidants Against Cancer is his most powerful book yet. It gives people the information they urgently need to protect and restore their health. We urge everyone to read this important book!

About the Author
Ralph W. Moss, Ph.D. is a leader in the field of alternative cancer treatment. Author of such books as Cancer Therapy, Questioning Chemotherapy, Herbs Against Cancer, Dr. Moss is founder and Director of CancerDecisions.com, an online treatment information resource for cancer patients.


27
https://www.amazon.com/Cancer-Industry-Unraveling-Politics/dp/1557780757

The Cancer Industry: Unraveling the Politics
by Ralph W. Moss  (Author)


Editorial Reviews
From Publishers Weekly
Although the last decade has seen important developments in the care of cancer patients, Moss argues that there is little change in the disease's survival rates, and challenges the medical establishment's continued support of "proven cures"--surgery, radiation and chemotherapy--and its refusal to fund research for nutrition-based, holistic and other therapies (including controversial laetrile). In this tough-minded updated version of his 1980 The Cancer Syndrome , Moss further charges that the dearth of research by cancer centers reflects the economic interests of board members drawn from carcinogen- and pollution-causing industries (tobacco, oil, chemicals), as well as of drug company executives. Also lambasted is the Food and Drug Administration for its allegedly obstructionist regulations regarding clinical testing. Photos not seen by PW.
Copyright 1989 Reed Business Information, Inc.

From Library Journal
This is an updated edition of The Cancer Syndrome ( LJ 2/15/80), the classic expose which investigated the suppression of unorthodox cancer research by the government and the medical establishment. There is extensive new material here, particularly regarding Lawrence Burton's immuno-augmentative therapy and Stanislaw Burzynski's antineoplaston research; other chapters are updated as well. Libraries which do not own the earlier edition should acquire this, as the subject of how politics and research intersect has gained fresh interest in the age of AIDS. Where the earlier edition is held, this should be acquired if subject demand warrants.
- Judith Eannarino, George Washington Univ. Lib., Washington, D.C.
Copyright 1989 Reed Business Information, Inc.

28
https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0868403423/roberttoddcarrolA/

The AIDS Mirage (Frontlines, No 4) Paperback – February 1, 1995

Editorial Reviews
About the Author
Hiram Caton, D.Litt., is professor of politics and history at Griffith University, Brisbane, Australian. He is well qualified for his task. He holds the M.A. in Arabic and Islamic Civilization from the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago and the doctorate in Philosophy from Yale University. He is familiar with the project to unite the social and biological sciences, having contributed to that effort as a historian, political psychologist, human ethnologist, and bibliographer. As a political scientist he is at home with cultural politics that lent passion to the controversy. His philosophical training and policy studies on applications of biomedical technology have equipped him to deal with the challenging problems of knowledge evaluation raised by the clash between the two images of Samoa. Among his current publications are The politics of Progress: The Origins and Development of the Commercial Republic 1600-1835, University of Florida Press, and Trends in Biomedical regulation (editor), butterworths, in press.

29
https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=1556436424/roberttoddcarrolA/

Science Sold Out: Does HIV Really Cause AIDS? (Terra Nova) Paperback – January 2, 2007
by Rebecca Culshaw  (Author), Harvey Bialy (Foreword)

There are many well-established scientific reasons that the HIV/AIDS hypothesis is highly doubtful. In Science Sold Out, Rebecca Culshaw describes her slow uncovering of these reasons over her years researching HIV for her work constructing mathematical models of its interaction with the immune system. It is rare that a researcher who has received funding to study HIV ever expresses any doubt in the paradigm, and an even rarer event still when she abandons the field altogether. This book focuses on the changing definition of AIDS and the flaws in all HIV testing. In a much broader sense, it explains how the current, government-based structure of scientific research has corrupted science as the search for truth. It offers not only scientific reasons for HIV/AIDS being untenable, but also sociological explanations as to how the theory was accepted by the media and the world so quickly. In particular, this book offers a scathing criticism of the outrageous discriminatory measures that have been leveled at HIV-positives from the inception.


Editorial Reviews
Review
"An excellent account of the most shameful episode in the history of medicine. Rebecca Culshaw has pulled it all together: a history of inept and dishonest AIDS ‘science,’ the manifold reasons HIV cannot be the cause of AIDS, the harmfulness of AIDS drugs, the physical and psychological human suffering caused by the AIDS hoax."
—John Lauritsen, author of Poison By Prescription: The AZT Story and The AIDS War

"Every mathematician knows that by changing the definition of something, you can change the entire truth about that thing. Rebecca Culshaw describes how the HIV = AIDS ‘orthodoxists’ have abused this idea. As in a shell game, they keep moving the definitions around, so that anything can be true and everyone will be confused. The abuse of science that has been documented here is itself very frightening. But when we learn that the standard treatment for HIV-positives—antiviral therapy—will substantially increase their risk of dying, it’s even scarier."
—Dan Fendel, professor of mathematics, emeritus, San Francisco State University

About the Author
Rebecca Culshaw lives in Tyler, Texas, where she is assistant professor of mathematics at The University of Texas at Tyler. She came to the U.S. in 2002, after receiving her Ph.D. in mathematics from Dalhousie University in Halifax, Canada. Culshaw has resided in Texas, Iowa, Nova Scotia, London, Ottawa, and Mzuzu, Malawi. She has published several journal articles regarding mathematical modeling of HIV immunology, and serves on the Advisory Board of Journal of Biological Systems.

Dr. Harvey Bialy has written the foreword to this book. Dr. Bialy is currently Scholar in Residence at National Autonomous University in Cuernavaca, Mexico. Prior to his retirement, he was founding editor of Nature Biotechnology, a sister journal to Nature. Dr. Bialy is author of Oncogenes, Aneuploidy, and AIDS: A Scientific Life and Times of Peter H. Duesberg.

30
https://www.iatronet.gr/eidiseis-nea/perithalpsi-asfalisi/news/46802/aposyrontai-antiypertasika-farmaka-poy-periexoyn-tin-oysia-valsartani-odigies-pros-toys-astheneis.html

Αποσύρονται αντιυπερτασικά φάρμακα που περιέχουν την ουσία βαλσαρτάνη - Οδηγίες προς τους ασθενείς
Από τον ΕΟΦ έχει εκδοθεί κατάλογος με τα προϊόντα που ανακαλούνται.
Δημοσίευση: 9 Ιουλίου 2018

την απόσυρση παρτίδων από φάρμακα που περιέχουν τη δραστική ουσία βαλσαρτάνη που παράγεται από την κινεζική Zhejiang Huahai Pharmaceuticals, ανακοίνωσαν ο Ευρωπαϊκός (ΕΜΑ) και Εθνικός Οργανισμός Φαρμάκων (ΕΟΦ).

Τα εν λόγω φάρμακα μπήκαν στο μικροσκόπιο των αρχών όταν ανιχνεύτηκε μία πρόσμιξη, Ν - νιτροζοδιμεθυλαμίνης στη δραστική ουσία βαλσαρτάνης, την οποία η εταιρεία προμηθεύει σε παρασκευαστές που παράγουν μερικά από τα διαθέσιμα στην Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση φάρμακα.

Σύμφωνα με τους ειδικούς του ΕΜΑ, το NDMA ταξινομείται ως πιθανό ανθρώπινο καρκινογόνο (ουσία που μπορεί να προκαλέσει καρκίνο) βάσει των αποτελεσμάτων εργαστηριακών εξετάσεων. Η παρουσία του NDMA ήταν απροσδόκητη και πιστεύεται ότι σχετίζεται με αλλαγές στον τρόπο παρασκευής της δραστικής ουσίας.

Ενώ η ανασκόπηση βρίσκεται σε εξέλιξη, οι εθνικές αρχές σε ολόκληρη την Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση ανακαλούν τα φάρμακα που περιέχουν βαλσαρτάνη από την Zhejiang Huahai.

Τα φάρμακα της βαλσαρτάνης χρησιμοποιούνται για τη θεραπεία ασθενών με υψηλή αρτηριακή πίεση, προκειμένου να μειωθούν οι επιπλοκές όπως η καρδιακή προσβολή και το εγκεφαλικό επεισόδιο. Χρησιμοποιείται επίσης σε ασθενείς που είχαν καρδιακή ανεπάρκεια ή πρόσφατη καρδιακή προσβολή.

Η ανασκόπηση του EMA θα διερευνήσει τα επίπεδα NDMA σε αυτά τα φάρμακα με βαλσαρτάνη, τον πιθανό αντίκτυπό τους σε ασθενείς που τα παίρνουν και τα μέτρα που μπορούν να ληφθούν για τη μείωση ή την εξάλειψη της πρόσμιξης από τις μελλοντικές παρτίδες που παράγει η εταιρεία.

Ως προφύλαξη, η ανασκόπηση θα εξετάσει επίσης κατά πόσον ενδέχεται να επηρεαστούν άλλα φάρμακα με βαλσαρτάνη.

Πληροφορίες
Οι ειδικοί του ΕΜΑ δίνουν τις εξής πληροφορίες στους ασθενείς:

Έχει ανακαλυφθεί απροσδόκητη πρόσμιξη στο δραστικό συστατικό που χρησιμοποιείται για την παρασκευή ορισμένων φαρμάκων βαλσαρτάνης.
Μόνο ορισμένα φάρμακα της βαλσαρτάνης στην Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση επηρεάζονται και αυτά ανακαλούνται.
Δεν πρέπει να σταματήσετε να παίρνετε το φάρμακο βαλσαρτάνης, εκτός εάν σας το έχει πει ο γιατρός ή ο φαρμακοποιός σας.
Μπορεί να σας χορηγηθεί ένα διαφορετικό φάρμακο βαλσαρτάνης (ή μια εναλλακτική θεραπεία) με την επόμενη συνταγή σας.
Εάν έχετε οποιεσδήποτε ερωτήσεις σχετικά με τη θεραπεία σας, μιλήστε με το φαρμακοποιό σας, ο οποίος μπορεί να σας ενημερώσει εάν το φάρμακό σας ανακαλείται.
Εάν βρίσκεστε σε κλινική δοκιμή με βαλσαρτάνη και έχετε οποιεσδήποτε ερωτήσεις, μιλήστε με το γιατρό που σας θεραπεύει στην κλινική δοκιμή.
Από τον ΕΟΦ έχει εκδοθεί κατάλογος με τα προϊόντα που ανακαλούνται.

http://www.eof.gr/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=578da6e4-4be6-4c0d-99e5-c722c69f3b15&groupId=12225

Δημ.Κ.

Σελίδες: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 402