Αποστολέας Θέμα: HIV virus does not cause AIDS Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome  (Αναγνώστηκε 485 φορές)

Rose

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Μηνύματα: 6.565
  • Karma: 0
  • Στο όνομα της Μητέρας Φύσης!
    • Προφίλ
    • E-mail
Απ: HIV virus does not cause AIDS Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome
« Απάντηση #60 στις: Οκτώβριος 14, 2019, 02:14:39 »
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
Ενημερώστε για τις Φυσικές θεραπείες του Ροδόκηπου να βοηθήσουμε τον κόσμο να σωθεί από την ταλαιπωρία. https://www.rodokipos.com/

Ολη η Γη ένας Ροδόκηπος, για να Ανθίσει η πλάση...

Rose

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Μηνύματα: 6.565
  • Karma: 0
  • Στο όνομα της Μητέρας Φύσης!
    • Προφίλ
    • E-mail
Απ: HIV virus does not cause AIDS Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome
« Απάντηση #61 στις: Οκτώβριος 14, 2019, 02:27:20 »
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
Ενημερώστε για τις Φυσικές θεραπείες του Ροδόκηπου να βοηθήσουμε τον κόσμο να σωθεί από την ταλαιπωρία. https://www.rodokipos.com/

Ολη η Γη ένας Ροδόκηπος, για να Ανθίσει η πλάση...

Rose

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Μηνύματα: 6.565
  • Karma: 0
  • Στο όνομα της Μητέρας Φύσης!
    • Προφίλ
    • E-mail
Απ: HIV virus does not cause AIDS Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome
« Απάντηση #62 στις: Οκτώβριος 14, 2019, 02:33:45 »
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.



Ενημερώστε για τις Φυσικές θεραπείες του Ροδόκηπου να βοηθήσουμε τον κόσμο να σωθεί από την ταλαιπωρία. https://www.rodokipos.com/

Ολη η Γη ένας Ροδόκηπος, για να Ανθίσει η πλάση...

Rose

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Μηνύματα: 6.565
  • Karma: 0
  • Στο όνομα της Μητέρας Φύσης!
    • Προφίλ
    • E-mail
Απ: HIV virus does not cause AIDS Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome
« Απάντηση #63 στις: Οκτώβριος 14, 2019, 02:46:54 »
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) *
Ενημερώστε για τις Φυσικές θεραπείες του Ροδόκηπου να βοηθήσουμε τον κόσμο να σωθεί από την ταλαιπωρία. https://www.rodokipos.com/

Ολη η Γη ένας Ροδόκηπος, για να Ανθίσει η πλάση...

Rose

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Μηνύματα: 6.565
  • Karma: 0
  • Στο όνομα της Μητέρας Φύσης!
    • Προφίλ
    • E-mail
Απ: HIV virus does not cause AIDS Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome
« Απάντηση #64 στις: Οκτώβριος 14, 2019, 02:52:49 »
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

Ενημερώστε για τις Φυσικές θεραπείες του Ροδόκηπου να βοηθήσουμε τον κόσμο να σωθεί από την ταλαιπωρία. https://www.rodokipos.com/

Ολη η Γη ένας Ροδόκηπος, για να Ανθίσει η πλάση...

Rose

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Μηνύματα: 6.565
  • Karma: 0
  • Στο όνομα της Μητέρας Φύσης!
    • Προφίλ
    • E-mail
Απ: HIV virus does not cause AIDS Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome
« Απάντηση #65 στις: Οκτώβριος 14, 2019, 02:56:13 »
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.
Ενημερώστε για τις Φυσικές θεραπείες του Ροδόκηπου να βοηθήσουμε τον κόσμο να σωθεί από την ταλαιπωρία. https://www.rodokipos.com/

Ολη η Γη ένας Ροδόκηπος, για να Ανθίσει η πλάση...

Rose

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Μηνύματα: 6.565
  • Karma: 0
  • Στο όνομα της Μητέρας Φύσης!
    • Προφίλ
    • E-mail
Απ: HIV virus does not cause AIDS Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome
« Απάντηση #66 στις: Οκτώβριος 14, 2019, 02:57:50 »
http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/award.htm

The rules for isolation of a retrovirus were thoroughly discussed at the Pasteur Institute, Paris, in 1973, and are the logical minimum requirements for establishing the independent existence of HIV. They are:

1.Culture of putatively infected tissue.

2. Purification of specimens by density gradient ultracentrifugation.

3. Electron micrographs of particles exhibiting the morphological characteristics and dimensions (100-120 nm) of retroviral particles at the sucrose (or percoll) density of 1.16 gm/ml and containing nothing else, not even particles of other morphologies or dimensions.

4. Proof that the particles contain reverse transcriptase.

5. Analysis of the particles' proteins and RNA and proof that these are unique.

6. Proof that 1-5 are a property only of putatively infected tissues and can not be induced in control cultures. These are identical cultures, that is, tissues obtained from matched, unhealthy subjects and cultured under identical conditions differing only in that they are not putatively infected with a retrovirus.

7. Proof that the particles are infectious, that is when PURE particles are introduced into an uninfected culture or animal, the identical particle is obtained as shown by repeating steps 1-5.

First Respons to Continuum Award (May '96)

Edward King, editor of UK's National AIDS Manual and writer for the Pink Paper, published the first respons in NAM's Treatment Update. The Perth Group wrote a reply.

Duesberg Claims Continuum Reward (July/Aug. '96)

Prof. Peter Duesberg believes HIV exists and has been isolated and claims the Continuum Award. The Perth Group wrote a long reply, and a summary. Neville Hodgkinson wrote also a summary. And Dr. Stefan Lanka wrote a comment too.

Debate Continues (Feb./March '97)

Prof. Peter Duesberg responded to the reply from the Australians and Dr. Stefan Lanka. The Perth Group replied again, and Dr. Stefan Lanka responded again too.

First Pictures of "Pure HIV" (March '97)

Two historic papers in the leading science journal Virology in March this year provide astonishing new data on the purification and isolation of HIV. For the first time in the history of AIDS, elusive electron microscope images of 'HIV' collected or 'banded' at the official density required for retroviruses, 1.16 gm/ml, have been published, by a research group in Germany. The electronmicrographs disclose "major contaminants" in "pure HIV".

Pure HIV

HIV expert Hans Gelderblom of Berlin's Robert Koch Institute, whose photos of non-banded 'HIV' material have been the industrial benchmark since 1987, co-authored the first paper which describes the contamination as "an excess of vesicles" - particles of cellular proteins, that may contain DNA or RNA. In a consecutive paper, a US research team from the AIDS Vaccine Programme in Maryland reveal carefully, "It is unknown how these cellular proteins associate with the virus" and warn, "The presence of microvesicles in purified retroviruses has practical implications": both teams discuss the resulting nonspecifity of HIV tests, all of which are based on early unchecked "purified HIV".

In an historic admission that it has never been established which proteins constitute 'HIV', the US scientists conclude, "The development of various purification strategies to separate microvesicles from HIV-particles ... will greatly enhance our ability to identify virion-associated cellular proteins." The imaging step in attempts at retroviral isolation was deemed essential when isolation procedure was discussed and decided at the Pasteur Institute, Paris in 1972, but it has never been published before in the 13-year history of 'HIV'. (Continuum autumn 1997)

See some more pictures, and a comment by the Perth Group.

Interview Prof. Montagnier (July '97)

The French journalist Djamel Tahi interviewed Dr. Luc Montagnier, the discoverer of HIV, about the isolation of the virus. Although he believes he isolated HIV, Montagnier confirms he could not purify the virus. The Perth Group wrote a comment. (Continuum winter 1997)

More Money to Earn (Aug. '98)

In addition to the Continuum Award organizations all around the world offer more money for the evidence of the existence of HIV. One can already collect over $ 25.000 by providing this evidence. See the additional terms. (page in Spanish!)

Professor Questions Isolation (Oct. '98)

Dr. Etienne de Harven is emeritus Professor of Pathology, University of Toronto. He worked in electron microscopy (EM) primarily on the ultrastructure of retroviruses throughout his professional career of 25 years at the Sloan Kettering Institute in New York and 13 years at the University of Toronto. In 1956 he was the first to report on the EM of the Friend virus in murine (mouse) leukemia, and in 1960, to coin the word "budding" to describe steps of virus assembly on cell surfaces. He delivered a speech at the 12th World AIDS Conference in Geneva at the session "HIV-testing: Open Questions about Specificity". He sent a letter and photo to Continuum, he wrote an article for the same magazine, and an article for Reappraising AIDS.

The Last Debate (Dec. '99)

"Debate has been taking place amongst the HIV/AIDS dissident groups regarding the wisdom of taking up the issue of HIV isolation as an argument in our fight against mainstream AIDS science." An article by the Perth Group.

German Professor Questions HIV (Oct. '00)

"During the past 20 years HIV-AIDS research has shown to a line of critical scientists again and again that the existence of HIV has not been proven without doubt, and that both from a aetiological (causal), and a epidemiological view, it can not be responsible for the immunodeficiency AIDS. In view of the general accepted HIV/AIDS hypothesis this appeared to me so unbelievable that I decided to investigate it myself. After three years of intensive and, above all, critical studies of the relevant original literature, as an experienced virologist and molecular biologist I came to the following surprising conclusion: 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 Sänger, Emeritus Professor of Molecular Biology and Virology and a former director of the Department of Viroid Research at the Max-Planck-Institutes for Biochemy near München, wrote a letter (in German) to the Süddeutsche Zeitung. Prof. Sänger was in 1978 rewarded with the prestigious Robert Koch Award. He also wrote the foreword (in German) for the book 'Mythos HIV' written by the German journalist Michael Leitner.

Isolation Experiments (April '01)

The South African government has set up a Presidential AIDS Advisory Panel to determine their policy on HIV and AIDS. Several dissidents are on the panel. They released an interim report and advised, because the lack of data, to do more research. Ten experiments, including the true isolation of HIV, have been proposed, and will be financed by the SA government. Read more about South Africa and AIDS.

Another Award (April '02)

Alex Russel is offering £10,000 Reward for the first person who can prove that HIV exists. See the details.

Ενημερώστε για τις Φυσικές θεραπείες του Ροδόκηπου να βοηθήσουμε τον κόσμο να σωθεί από την ταλαιπωρία. https://www.rodokipos.com/

Ολη η Γη ένας Ροδόκηπος, για να Ανθίσει η πλάση...

Rose

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Μηνύματα: 6.565
  • Karma: 0
  • Στο όνομα της Μητέρας Φύσης!
    • Προφίλ
    • E-mail
Απ: HIV virus does not cause AIDS Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome
« Απάντηση #67 στις: Οκτώβριος 14, 2019, 11:19:46 »
http://thecaseagainsthiv.net/

ΤHE CASE AGAINST HIV

October 2013

(Last updated December 2017)

Collated by Henry Bauer
www.henryhbauer.homestead.com

Additions and corrections are welcomed,
indeed solicited, at our comments page.   COMMENTS
That HIV causes AIDS has been the officially sanctioned view for about 3 decades, believed almost universally but questioned openly by thousands of people, some of whom are expert in relevant sciences 1,2,3. These dissidents point out that a comprehensive reading of the mainstream literature together with analysis of mainstream data demonstrates conclusively that HIV is neither a necessary nor a sufficient cause of AIDS. An up-to-date and comprehensive yet concise summary of the facts and the history of the HIV/AIDS blunder is provided by Donald Miller 914.

An annotated bibliography of dissident books and other writings was published in 1993 4; dissident books not listed there or published since that time include Bauer 5, Bialy 6, Crewdson 7, Culshaw 8, De Harven 9, Duesberg 10, Farber 11, Fiala 12, Hodgkinson 13, Konotey 14, Kremer 15, Lauritsen 16, Lauritsen & Young 17, Leitner 18, Maggiore 19, Root-Bernstein 20, Shenton 21.

The Immunity Resource Foundation (IRF) offers important archival material including many documentary films and videos; many issues of Continuum magazine; many links to other AIDS-Rethinking or HIV-Skeptical websites; and a blog and newspage. The 2013 award-winning film, “Positively False — Birth of a Heresy” can be rented or bought at the IRF website. Another award-winning documentary is "House of Numbers."

At first sight, that HIV does not cause AIDS must seem unbelievable in light of the officially promulgated view that has so thoroughly pervaded the media and the public sphere. How could medical science be so wrong for so long about something so important? Moreover, haven’t the miracle antiretroviral drugs (ARVs) saved countless lives and changed AIDS from an invariably fatal death sentence into a chronic, manageable, condition? Aren’t Africans dying in hordes from AIDS only because they can’t get enough of those drugs?

Those questions can all be answered, but not in any brief way. The comprehensive case against HIV has to be made along several mutually reinforcing lines:

Questions to which the officially sanctioned view has no answer.
HIV does not cause AIDS.
The plain evidence about AIDS.
The plain evidence about HIV.
Failings of HIV/AIDS theory.
What antiretroviral drugs do.
Damage done by HIV/AIDS theory and practice.
Hindrances to making the case against HIV.
How could such a massive blunder come about and persist?
FAQs: Questions — sometimes rhetorical only — posed by adherents to HIV/AIDS theory.
Just how inconceivable most people find it, that HIV/AIDS theory could be so wrong, that official medicine and science could be so wrong in this day and age, may be illustrated by my own experience 514. I had read enough — many of the books listed above — to become open to the possibility, but it took my own digging into “HIV” epidemiology to convince me p.7 & chapter 1 in 5, and that was about 10 years after I first became aware that there exist dissidents from orthodox HIV/AIDS belief. And it has taken me further years to understand that “HIV” may not even exist, and that “HIV” tests are perhaps the central issue in the whole business. My long-standing interest in Loch Ness Monsters and the like testifies that I am significantly more open to unorthodox views than are most people, so my own difficulty in recognizing the errors of HIV/AIDS theory might serve as a warning, that the task of bringing others to that understanding is an extraordinarily difficult one.

(The Footnotes include many URLs. Those beginning with “http://wp.me” refer to the blog by Henry Bauer at hivskeptic.wordpress.com; the blog posts include further citations to the mainstream literature. URLs that were not active when this document was drafted show the date when that URL was last accessed directly; such broken links can often still be found indirectly via the Wayback Machine 22, or sometimes a copy of the source can be found via a Google search on the article’s title.)

0. QUESTIONS TO WHICH THE OFFICIALLY SANCTIONED VIEW HAS NO ANSWER

0.1Why is there no gold-standard test for HIV infection? 127

0.1.1[Because authentic pure HIV virions have never been isolated from supposedly infected individuals nor have they ever been successfully synthesized (cloned) — see section 3.1.3]

0.2How does HIV supposedly destroy the immune system? (see sections 1.3.3, 4.4.4)

0.3Why do people of African ancestry test "HIV-positive" more than all others, whether in Africa or America or Europe? chapters 5-7 & p. 106 in 5

0.4Why were AIDS and HIV first identified in America and Europe when HIV is supposed to have first infected human beings in Africa? (see section 4.6)

1. HIV DOES NOT CAUSE AIDS

1.1It was never established in the first place, nor later proved, that HIV causes AIDS.

1.1.1Kary Mullis has described his unsuccessful quest — including asking the discoverer of HIV — for citations to the scientific articles that prove HIV to be the cause of AIDS 23.

1.1.2The “fact sheets” issued by the National Institutes of Health are not scientific articles, and their claims of proof have been refuted in full detail 24,25. Those refutations have been ignored or misrepresented but never effectively challenged.

1.1.3The issue is complicated by progressive re-definitions of AIDS, see section 2.

1.1.4Luc Montagnier, credited with the discovery of HIV, reported that AIDS seemed to be caused by a mycoplasma and not by HIV 26,27,28,29,30,31.

1.1.5By 1993 so many cases of “HIV-negative” “AIDS” had been reported 32,33,34,35 that the condition was pronounced a new disease, “idiopathic CD4 T-cell lymphopenia” (ICL) 36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43 (also “HIV-negative adult-onset immunodeficiency” 44): immune deficiency of unknown cause with low CD4 counts; but this is precisely the same as the original definition of AIDS.

1.1.6“HIV-positive” individuals do not necessarily ever progress to AIDS in absence of any treatment 45.

1.1.6.1Co-factors in addition to HIV required to bring on AIDS have been postulated on a number of occasions: mycoplasma 26,27,28,29,30,31; HTLVs page 248 in 257; cell surface protein CD26 871,872; the protein fusin 873.

1.1.7Specific Italian data illustrate that HIV does not cause AIDS 46,47,48.

1.2HIV and AIDS are not even correlated.

1.2.1The seminal papers claimed to have found the putative retrovirus in only “18 of 21 patients with pre-AIDS … [and] 26 of 72 adult and juvenile patients with AIDS” 49. This did not even establish that HIV is correlated with AIDS 50, let alone causes it. The principal author, Robert Gallo, may have committed scientific misconduct as well 7,51,648.

1.2.1.1Most of those who refer to the discovery of HIV credit Montagnier, not Gallo 52.

1.2.2Kaposi’s sarcoma (KS) was one of the three originally iconic AIDS diseases, yet HIV-negative cases of KS had been noted at the very beginning 53 and turned out to be quite common 54.

1.2.2.1KS is now ascribed not to HIV but to something else 64, perhaps KSHV (Kaposi’s sarcoma herpes virus) or HHV-8 (human herpes virus 8  ) 55,56,57,58.

1.2.2.2AIDS-1 (section 2.1) KS was probably caused by the widespread use of nitrite “poppers” by many gay men 59,60,61,62,63,64. Although described as a cancer (sarcoma), it may actually be non-malignant damage to blood vessels.

1.2.3HIV and AIDS are not correlated with respect to geography chapter 9 in 5,80.

1.2.4HIV and AIDS are not correlated with respect to race chapter 9 in 5.

1.2.5HIV and AIDS are not correlated with respect to the sexes chapter 9 in 5.

1.3HIV does not even cause illness, let alone death 66,45.

1.3.1The mortality of “HIV-positive” individuals and of “People with AIDS” (PWAs) is independent of age whereas mortality increases very significantly with age in every (other) illness 67,68,69,70,71.

1.3.2About 50% of people testing “HIV-positive” never experience illness associated with “HIV” 72,73,74.

1.3.3It remains mysterious, in what way or by what mechanism HIV could cause illness of any kind; a number of mechanisms have been bruited, none has been demonstrated or accepted as satisfactory 75.

1.3.3.1“HIV” is found in only a tiny proportion (<1%) of the T-cells that it supposedly kills, so the decrease in CD4 counts supposedly characteristic of AIDS or “HIV disease” is ascribed to an unspecified “bystander mechanism” 833,866,867,868.

1.3.3.2Duesberg long ago argued that no retrovirus could act as claimed for HIV 76.

2. THE PLAIN EVIDENCE ABOUT AIDS

Which AIDS?

AIDS has been defined in at least three distinctly different ways at different times and in different places. To avoid confusion, it is necessary to distinguish among them as AIDS-1, AIDS-2, and AIDS-Africa.

2.1The first definition of AIDS, therefore AIDS-1: A supposedly unprecedented syndrome characterized by immune deficiency (specifically, low CD4 counts) of unknown cause presumed responsible for the presence of manifest opportunistic infections, chiefly Kaposi’s sarcoma, Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia (PCP), or candidiasis (fungal: thrush, yeast infection) 77,78.

2.1.1Designating AIDS-1 as a new medical phenomenon was an error because

2.1.1.1None of the “AIDS-1” diseases was previously unknown. They occur in HIV-negative individuals for a wide range of reasons 79.

2.1.1.2A great many conditions and infections induce immune deficiency, even specifically the low counts of CD4 cells purported to be characteristic of AIDS — non-specific conditions like oxidative stress 80,15 (see also sections 3.2.2, 4.3.2.4, 5.3.3.1, 5.3.3.11, 7.3.3.4) or such specific diseases as tuberculosis 82,83.

2.1.1.3The initial diagnosis 103 was by a young physician early in his career who also had access to the relatively new technique of counting CD4 cells 84. However, we now know that CD4 counts are not a valid measure of good or bad health 897.

2.1.1.4In particular, “recreational” drugs 85,86,87,88,89,90 including nitrites (“poppers”) 91,92 cause the same conditions as are said to be characteristic of AIDS, including loss of CD4 cells 93, and drug addicts display the same manifest symptoms as were ascribed to AIDS-1 13.

2.1.1.5The first AIDS-1 patients were indeed typically users of “recreational” drugs p. 191 ff. in 16, pursuing a “fast-lane” lifestyle p. 79 ff. in 17,99,100,p. 292 ff. in 894,895,896 conducive to ill health. They were on average in their mid-to-late thirties with histories of many bouts of syphilis, gonorrhea, and other infections 95,96,97,98.

2.1.1.6The Centers for Disease Control & Prevention used a unique, bizarre, misleading statistical classification scheme that obfuscated the fact that drug abuse was the primary common feature among victims of AIDS chapter 1 in 16.

2.1.1.7“AIDS” was a new social phenomenon, irrational exuberance by a proportion of gay men following “liberation”, expressed in an impossibly unhealthy lifestyle pp. 119-20 in 5,99,100,101,102. It had first been designated more correctly as GRID: Gay-Related Immune Deficiency; though since it was only a small proportion of gay men who practiced the “fast-lane” lifestyle, most correct would have been FLLRID.

2.1.2The first AIDS-1 patients had not been in sexual contact with one another 103. AIDS-1 came to be regarded as infectious only after the mistaken conclusion that HIV causes AIDS.

2.2Following the mistaken identification of “HIV” as cause of AIDS-1, an increasing number of diseases have come to be labeled “AIDS” just because in their presence an “HIV” test is fairly often positive. That defines AIDS-2: “HIV-positive” by definition, as in the now-common usage “HIV/AIDS”, which masks the fact that AIDS-1 was not HIV-caused. Recently the term “HIV disease” has become common.

By subliminal definition creep, “HIV disease” has come to include dozens of ailments, many of which are not opportunistic infections and all of which are previously known conditions, for example tuberculosis, weight loss or wasting, dementia 104.

2.2.11985 definition (AIDS-2a): “HIV-positive” and additional opportunistic infections beyond KS, PCP, or candidiasis 105.

2.2.21986 definition (AIDS-2b): “HIV-positive” and low CD4 counts and opportunistic infections 105.

2.2.31987 definition (AIDS-2c): “HIV-positive” “[r]egardless of the presence of other causes of immunodeficiency” [emphasis in original] and in presence of more than a dozen diseases 106.

2.2.41993 definition (AIDS-2d): Re-definition increased number of “AIDS” cases in that year by 75% 107.

2.3AIDS in Africa (henceforth AIDS-Africa) is neither AIDS-1 nor AIDS-2 108.

2.3.1Although AIDS-2 had been defined as caused by HIV, the lack of HIV-testing facilities in Africa led to defining AIDS via the Bangui definition 109: chronic or persistent weight loss, diarrhea, fever — entirely non-specific symptoms consistent with any number of endemic African diseases.

2.3.1.1Africans dying from “AIDS” are succumbing to diseases that have ravaged Africans for centuries 108,110.

2.3.1.2Since the criterion for AIDS diagnosis in Africa is independent of “HIV”, one cannot know how many African “AIDS” patients are HIV-negative 32.

2.3.1.3Malnutrition is widespread in Africa and is a known cause of lack of resistance to infection. It can be responsible for any infection incurred within 1 month of the end of food deprivation 870.
« Τελευταία τροποποίηση: Οκτώβριος 14, 2019, 11:22:30 από Rose »
Ενημερώστε για τις Φυσικές θεραπείες του Ροδόκηπου να βοηθήσουμε τον κόσμο να σωθεί από την ταλαιπωρία. https://www.rodokipos.com/

Ολη η Γη ένας Ροδόκηπος, για να Ανθίσει η πλάση...